Green Buildings and Office Worker Productivity Do Green Buildings help you work? Over the past editions of Jones Lang LaSalle’s Global Sustainability Perspective, we have largely focused on environmental issues covering regulatory analyses, renewable energy opportunities and the energy performance of commercial real estate  In this issue of the GSP we will turn our attention to the effects on employee productivity of working in certified green buildings. Occupant health and safety has always been one of the key concerns for employers and it is largely defined by regulations and overseen by public agencies. Today, organizations are – once again – looking at occupant needs and are going beyond compliance levels. They are interested in proactively linking employee wellbeing to the office work environment.  “Green” buildings and their attention to high quality indoor environments provide therefore an ideal playground for such considerations.  This is because today’s main green building certification schemes require building designers and managers to consider the impact of the indoor environment on the health and wellbeing of the office worker. It is this interplay between indoor environmental quality in green buildings and office productivity that we explore in the sections that follow. What are the drivers of office productivity? Since research into the drivers of office productivity began some 20 years ago, the themes it has pursued are a good indicator of the complexity of this topic and have included studies into: - Personal factors (e.g. motivation, satisfaction) - Organizational factors (e.g. quality of management, payment and reward     systems) - Social factors (relationships with others) - Indoor physical environment factors (e.g. accessories, work environment) Measuring occupier productivity within an office building in a comprehensive way would need to be based on a combination of the four main elements noted above.  Even though productivity could be expressed in quantitative terms, using financial and economic measures, such as sales turnover per employee, rather than assessed subjectively, based on occupant perception, there are time lags and other external factors that need to be taken into account. Due to the difficulty in defining office worker productivity in a quantitative way, the current consensus seems to be to accept subjective productivity measures. They are usually acquired by gathering and analyzing assessments of relevant stakeholders, such as office employees. Nevertheless, the evidence base that, for example, poor air quality can decrease productivity is extensive and the US Environmental Protection Agency identifies poor ventilation as a major determinant of ‘Sick Building Syndrome’ or SBS that can affect office workers and impact their health and wellbeing. The assumption that all green buildings provide healthier and more productive environments is not proven and likely to depend on building-specific and organizational factors. Case studies and research show the critical role of indoor environmental quality A number of case studies suggest that productivity gains through better quality office environments may be possible. While the question of a consistent definition and measurement of office productivity is still far from being solved, there is market acceptance of a relationship between an office’s indoor environment, its layout and comfort factors, and the level of occupant wellbeing and resultant productivity levels. To what extent specific factors play a more or less important role is still being debated. We have summarized illustrative findings of some past studies below:

In this section:   Sustainability Legislation    for the Real Estate Sector   Green Buildings and    Office Worker Productivity

 

Study: Research results published by the California Energy Commission

October 2003: Filed study at a California Utility company’s call center and desk office work spaces.  Authors: Heschong Mahone Group; New Buildings Institute et al.

·   Better access to outside views consistently predicted better performance  in both call center and desk office spaces ·   Increase in daylight intensity resulted in improvement in performance ·   A higher quality primary view to outside areas increased performance, provided that there was no glare potential from the window ·   The combination of physical comfort conditions considered (illumination, outside view, ventilation and temperature) typically provided 1/8 to 1/3 of the explanatory power of the models, while demographic factors (e.g. management, age, experience, education) provided the remaining explanations.

Study: Retrofit of 500 Collins Street, Melbourne

2005-2006: Australia offices Author: Sustainability Victoria and the Kador Group

·   44% reduction in the monthly average cost of sick leave. ·   9% improvement in the average typing speed of secretaries and a significant improvement in overall accuracy. ·   One study found a 7% reduction in headaches but another study found a 20% reduction. These two studies also revealed improvements in other health indicators such as the incidence of colds and flu, sore eyes, fatigue and poor concentration but the findings varied depending on the study ·   In one study there was no change in productivity but a different study found a 12% increase in self-reported productivity

Study: Building Research published by Carnegie-Mellon University

2008: Misc. studies Author: Vivien Loftness, Center for Building Performance & Diagnostics

·    Improved indoor air quality shows productivity increases in ranging from 0.5% to 11% ·    Daylight access in offices increases individual productivity by between 5 and 15% ·    15 individual case studies analyzed ·    Studies cover periods of 1985 - 2000

Study:  A survey of 10,000 property and construction professionals about their office environments

March 2010: UK offices Author: Development Securities with University College London and the Building Research Establishment, UK

·     55% of respondents stated unsatisfactory temperatures ·     Over 38% rated noise levels as too high ·     33% were not satisfied with amount of daylight in their workplace ·     More than 40% did not have a satisfactory outside view ·     45% were unhappy with the ventilation or air quality in their building. ·     In summary, according to experts cited in the report, poorly planned working spaces could result in a 20% drop in worker productivity and a range of health and behavioral problems.