The increased use of remote working has been made possible by the internet and a necessity by the pandemic, but amid all the questions of what pros and cons apply to such working, another question may be asked: How green is it?
Over the last fortnight the COP26 conference has seen a raft of pledges and agreements on matters ranging from deforestation to energy production, transport to plastic use. The message has been that everyone has a part to play – and that does not just mean governments.
On the face of it, remote working may seem an obviously green alternative. After all, if people are working from home they will not be contributing any emissions from a commute to the workplace. Since those using an online PEO service can manage them effectively, it would seem this is the logical way to go.
The Entrepreneur produced an article this week highlighting the environmental upside of remote working. As well as reduced transport emissions, it also noted more digitisation means fewer things being printed and therefore less use of paper. That means fewer trees being chopped down to make paper, saving carbon straight away.
Less obvious benefits mentioned included more opportunity for workers to have a low-carbon diet, as people could cook at home using healthier and more organic ingredients instead of microwaving processed food or getting something from a local takeaway during an office lunch break.
However, not everyone is so enthusiastic about the potential of remote working to make a positive difference to sustainability, as there are circumstances when this practice can be counterproductive.
Legal Futures pointed to research by the Carbon Trust in Germany showing how there were instances of people who actually saved energy by commuting into offices. This showed that by taking a train to work in winter they would cut emissions, as it would mean just one office needing to be heated during working hours instead of numerous homes.
Conversely, of course, this same group of staff would be saving on emissions in the summer, when the heating would be off.
There is also a difference in the degree of impact depending where staff live. The Carbon Trust study noted that by contrast with the rural German worker whose footprint was lower working in the office in winter, a Spanish worker living in the city could save emissions in summer by working in the office, as less energy would be used on air conditioning in the hot weather.
On top of this is the reality that even if only some of the staff and not all are commuting into the office, those still in there will need light and heating, so energy may be used both to power an office and people’s homes in working hours.
None of this means everyone should just go back to working on the office. But it does mean the calculations of environmental impact are not simple and firms using remote working will need to consider a range of factors in assessing the impact on climate of their working practices.
