Recently, I wrote Going, Going, Gone! The Vanishing Company Office and proudly described my home office as an example of the trend toward greater workforce mobility. Shortly after writing the article, however, I read a Chicago Tribune piece titled: Those Days You Work from Home May End up Wrecking the Planet.
I had not considered that my seemingly benign work practices could be actively contributing to the demise of our planet. Discovering this criminal characterization of my home office was distressing. After all, I earned a degree in Regional Planning from an environmental, ecology-oriented program at the University of Wisconsin. I think of myself as a person who cares deeply for the environment.
After suppressing the initial shock, the analytic side of my brain took over and I decided to confront this accusation head on.
An Eight-Mile-Long Logical Fallacy
The article states the following:
Next time your boss tries to convince you of the benefits of working from home, spare a thought for how that could contribute to wrecking the planet.
But it qualifies that statement with the following details:
Only those home workers who live far from the office or who would otherwise drive to work contribute to an overall reduction in pollution. Employees whose daily car commute is at least eight miles, who take a bus for 14 miles or travel at least 32 miles by train can cut emissions, the report said. Those who walk or take public transport would increase their emissions by working from home.
Whew! I’m off the hook. I definitely live more than eight miles from my office headquarters. But, let’s also take a look at the issue of how many other poor souls may be contributing to planetary catastrophe.
Who Commutes – and How Far?
The Chicago Tribune piece did little to acknowledge the actual commute distances of the average American.
U.S. Census data for 2012 indicated that the average American, one-way commute was approximately 26 minutes over a distance of 16 miles. Of the total number of commuters, 86% of Americans drove to work and 75% of those commuters drove alone.
Essentially, the average and predominant American commute in 2012 – long distance in a single occupant car – would not fall within the algorithm’s eight mile maximum criteria for producing decreased carbon emissions by abandoning the home office.
With the knowledge that commute distances have not decreased in recent years, it is clear that today, the average commute distance would replicate or even exceed the average commute distance recorded in the 2012 census.
Further, there is simply less incentive for people to telecommute when they live less than eight miles from their office.
Although there is no census data to support this hypothesis, I suspect that a measurable percentage of the employees who live within the algorithm’s eight mile maximum limit are more likely to walk, bike, or take transit to work, negating these individuals as a source of potential reduction.
Between the many home office occupants who live beyond the eight mile benchmark, and the relatively few home office occupants who live within it, the concept seems to offer little opportunity for producing any meaningful carbon emissions reduction results.
“Wrecking the planet” may be a conceptual overreach.
Unintended Consequences - Home Office
What if all of those individuals who use a home office were to shut them down and make the trek to a traditional office? This is where the law of unintended consequences applies.
- Would more concrete to pave extra lanes on the freeways be needed to carry the extra volume of traffic?
- Would more building materials and land be needed to provide additional downtown parking garages?
- Would more building materials and land be needed to supply additional traditional offices?
If so, this contradicts the sustainability concepts promoted by the Leadership in Energy Efficient Design (LEED) principles. But where to stop? You could write a book on the secondary and tertiary impacts of encouraging teleworkers to head into the office.
Increased Profits or Improved Quality of Life?
The Chicago Tribune article concludes by stating:
Among environmentalists, there's some suspicion that companies have their own finances in mind when they push employees out of the office. Companies are interested in reducing office space for financial reasons.
This is one statement that does ring true. In fact, in my article, The Ruling is In: High Tech Mobile Law Offices Really Work, I made just that point. My attorney’s firm transitioned to a mobile office design to save money through a smaller, less traditional, less ornately-furnished office (and used the savings to increase employee bonuses). Studies have shown that most private offices are vacant approximately half of the time. What is wrong with eliminating this unnecessary waste of space and money?
Contrary to the somewhat cynical financial premise put forth in the Chicago Tribune article, the increased interest in home offices and telecommuting is not just due to employers seeking financial benefit. The quality of life benefits are a major motivating factor, as well. These include:
- Avoiding the daily commute to work resulting in saved time and fewer vehicle-related expenses
- Working in a home office that has been personally laid out for comfort and efficiency
- The opportunity to live in a cost-effective area, instead of a more expensive urban area
- Not needing to put on a suit and tie or dress to go to work each morning
- Working in a bathrobe when under the weather
- Increased productivity due to decreased distractions
Getting it Right
My employer started a virtual company in 1988 – way before working from home was even on the radar of most companies. He did this, in part, for environmental reasons. Fewer resources needed to build offices. Decreased emissions from reduced driving. Fewer production materials for business clothing and accessories. Dual-purposing the already existing space in your home for your work, instead of leaving your home vacant during the day.
My belief is that the home office is good for the environment and it will become an even more common occurrence in the future. It is important to get the facts right. Teleworking helps people lead more balanced lives, keep us connected to our communities, save employees money, increase productivity and employee happiness, and reduce the resources needed for office space.
Home offices are good for the planet and its people.
