Since the fag end of the first quarter of 2020, with the onset of the pandemic, work for many white-collar professions underwent a tectonic shift for the first time since the beginning of time. The restrictions that the pandemic brought made it suitable for many legacy workplaces to be more agile and adapt to hybrid environments.
The subsequent lockdowns meant that remote was the only way for certain industries. But now as we move away from the throes of COVID-19 following a subdued third wave and life as we knew before to an extent, workers and businesses alike are still sticking to different forms of remote work.
But is this lasting transformation a boost for the environment?
The common notion was to believe that WFH will lead to environmental sustainability advantages because the daily trip has been virtually eliminated through successive pandemic-induced lockdowns. Indeed, such drastic shifts in transportation, production, and consumption patterns lowered worldwide CO2 emissions by 17% in April 2020, compared to high levels in 2019.
A Spanish study featured in Forbes found that working from home four days a week would result in a 10% reduction in nitrogen dioxide, the primary pollutant produced by transportation emissions. Even with the decreased levels of home working witnessed after workplaces have reopened, an air pollution reduction of roughly 8% would be achieved.
But researchers at the London School of Economics, in an article at the Harvard Business Review, have argued that the answer to this question is more than a mere yes or a no.
The researchers pointed out what appeared to be a positive trend quickly faded: emissions are now almost back to pre-pandemic levels, despite the fact that all the employees aren’t going to the office.
The study found that the net impact on sustainability is determined by a variety of employee actions, including travel, energy consumption, digital devices, and trash management. It also depends on a number of contextual factors, such as housing construction and neighbourhood infrastructure. The four standout parameters for this are energy, travel, technology, and waste.
The HBR article argued that the energy footprint of remote working will also depend on the individual workers’ behaviour.
A Guardian article on the same surrounding workers of Canadian shopping platforming Shopify noted that while energy consumption on the commute is completely nil when compared to an in-office environment, the energy consumption and the source of energy within the home becomes a point of contention. Like in the case of geographies, if air conditioning or heating is required for individual houses, it can have a negative impact especially if the workers were using public transportation or commuting a nominal distance.
These possibilities were also corroborated by a study by Carbon Trust and Vodafone Institute for Society and Communications.