Remote Work - A Case for the Environment

In 2013 Technip ran a pilot test on remote work. Someone from my team asked to take part and work from home one day per week. I refused. I was wrong.

I have known for years that it was the wrong decision, but it wasn’t until the Covid-19 crisis that I fully grasped how wrong I was.

 Learning from COVID-19

With half the world in lockdown, the Covid-19 crisis forced us to try, embrace and learn how to work remotely.

With most of the people juggling the entire day between parenting, teaching, and working, it is impressive how we were able to adapt to a new communication paradigm, new tools, improvise workflows and still get work done!

The sudden change had the merit of breaking fear, fear that we could not be productive, that our teams would not be productive, and that communication would falter. Still, the transition from office to home was abrupt and, to a great extent, unplanned. Going forward, one ought to believe there is an exciting potential for doing better.

Back in 2013, I was tied to the idea that remote working would break social bonding in the workplace. I still believe that bond to be crucial for success – it is the backbone for trust, understanding, joy and commitment. It gives the confidence to generate positive conflict, that kind of conflict that reveals hidden problems and builds innovative solutions.

The last few months did not test the ability to create this connection in a remote environment. As we moved to our homes the challenge was more about how to keep it, rather than how to build it. Therefore, I still do not advocate for a 100% remote work regime, but I am truly convinced that we can do it systematically in part time.

A Case for the Environment

So, if we can work efficiently from home, we can save on commuting emissions.

Not all jobs can be done efficiently remotely. While researching for this article we have found multiple statistics with numbers ranging between 45% and 62% as estimates for the fraction of the workforce that could do remote work. Also, as noted above, we do not believe that working full time remotely would be the optimum solution. Even in terms of individual employee engagement, a Gallup study indicates a peak for people working remotely 60%-80% of the time.

For our analysis we have considered that 50% of the workforce would be working on average 50% of the time (2-3 days a week) from home. Which means that, on average, 25% of the workforce would be working from home every single day. Today, this number is below 5% both in the EU and in the US.

Note: In the scope of this article, the United Kingdom is considered as part of the EU.

If you are expecting remote work to be the silver bullet that will save the planet, then let us set the expectations right. Transportation, including freight, planes, ships… accounts for a relatively small percentage of the net emissions in US (32%) and EU (24%).

 For calculating the reduction in emissions, we have only considered the first order effect of the decreased commuting. Arguably, congestion will also decrease, leading to even further reduction of GHG emissions.

Car usage for commuting is higher in US than in Europe, as common sense tells us, but we were surprised to find out that 74% of the Europeans still use the car to go to work.

However, with a workforce of more than 225 million people, against roughly 160 million in the United States, Europe has an overall higher potential for emission saving.

Combining both territories, having 50% of the workforce working from home 50% of the time would decrease Green House Gases emissions by 120 million tonnes per year of CO2 equivalent – 120,000,000,000,000 grams – the units you see on car ads (g/km).

The bad news? That is only 1.2% of the combined emissions of both territories.

 European Perspective

68 million tonnes of CO2 represent 1.7% of the total Green House Gas emissions of the Union and about 4% of the reduction pledged for 2030 under the Paris agreements.

Based on the EU numbers, it would be required to invest about 130 billion Euros in the energy sector to get the same reduction of emissions.

It would be required to grow a new forest of 6 million hectares, the combined area of Belgium and the Netherlands, to capture the same amount of CO2. Alternatively, at the current energy mix, we could replace 38 million internal combustion engine cars by high efficiency electrical vehicles.

There is a growing concern about the emissions generated from breeding cattle. 68 million tonnes of CO2 represent a quarter of the total Union emissions from breeding livestock, it is four times the emissions generated in European flights and it is about the same as the emissions of the entire European chemical industry.

American Perspective

On the other side of the Atlantic, 52 Million tonnes are 0.9% of the overall net GHG emissions. About the same as the total emissions of North Dakota or a quarter of Florida’s emissions. It is roughly 8% of the carbon captured by forests across the territory or the same a new forest half the size of Kentucky would capture.

As internal combustion vehicles in the states have higher average consumption than in Europe, we would “only” need to replace 16 million of those by electrical vehicles to save 52 million tonnes of CO2. At the current pace, it would take 65 years for that to happen.

Under Trump administration, the United States decided to withdraw from the Paris agreements. But under President Obama, the US had committed to emissions 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025.

52 Million tonnes represent 4.7% of the reduction required between 2018 and 2025 if we were to meet the target.

Although the impact in the overall emission figures is underwhelming, it is still significant as shown by the comparisons above.

It is also of great significance that we do not need a technological breakthrough, a deep change of culture or sacrifices to accomplish this. So, why not do it? Why not do it now?

Why Companies Should Embrace Remote Work

There are multiple reasons why companies should embrace this philosophy, but the most obvious is simply because it’s the right thing to do. It is a great opportunity to have companies and employees engaged in a Common Purpose.

Going forward this will be a critical factor to improve competitiveness. Employees in part-time remote work are more engaged, thus output would tend to increase. Simultaneously, office costs can shrink in the P&L. It is an opportunity to streamline processes and focus on value added activities. These factors combined will be driving higher productivity.

As more companies will shift to this model, it will be crucial to have it in your portfolio to remain attractive for talent.

With time companies can migrate to this style of work much more efficiently than we experienced during Covid-19. There are required hardware and software adjustments and more important, coaching to prepare us for the transition.

In summary, remote work seems to be:

• Good for the environment
• A driver for employee satisfaction
• A route to increase productivity

What are we waiting for?