The debate around teleworking has been a constant since the very moment the pandemic began, at the beginning of 2020. There has been much talk about its advantages and its regulation, but the truth is that once the health situation has been normalizing, what threatened to be a structural change in the labor market seems to have become a mere anecdote (beyond small ‘Gallic villages’ in the technology sector).
And it is that, according to the latest data from the Active Population Survey, in the second quarter of this 2022, 90% of employees already carried out their work completely face-to-face. Or, to put it another way, only 10% of employed workers continue to telecommute, a figure that represents half the population than two years ago.
In addition, even among those who maintain some form of teleworking, the face-to-face part continues to gain weight: if during the pandemic 90% of teleworkers resorted to remote work, in this last quarter the figure has been reduced to 52%.
Now, however, other exceptional circumstances seem to be able to give a new impetus to teleworking at its lowest point: we speak, of course, of the ‘energy emergency’ declared by politicians throughout the EU as a result of the geopolitical situation created after the start of the Ukraine-Russia war.
Although it has not been included in the savings measures decree drawn up by the Ministry of Energy Transition, the central government has publicly recommended this employment option as a saving measure for administrations and large companies. But… is teleworking really always an energy saving measure?
When teleworking consumes more energy than it saves
The EU agency Eurofound argues that, “while in the short term teleworking could reduce the number of journeys from home to work, in the long term could increase travel distances if people move far of the office to avoid the high rents and the high cost of urban living”. If that happened, the saving caused by the first factor would be canceled by the second.
“There is also the possibility of** a ‘rebound effect’ in terms of increased non-work travel**. This is mainly related to the need to make other car trips for tasks that were previously carried out during the trip to the work: for example, shopping or taking the children to school.
Es #teleworking really a ‘green’ choice? 🧑💻🌳
Yes… but it’s complicated. The overall climate impact of teleworking is determined by the interplay of a variety of factors, from commute to home energy use.
More info in our recent blog post: https://t.co/omThuA1CCb 🚗💭🏡🌡️ https://t.co/buRxPH2f1G pic.twitter.com/Jz3AQkByTL
— Eurofound (@eurofound) August 8, 2022
In addition, the only impact of teleworking on the climate lies not only in terms of commuting, but also changes in energy consumption patterns: now that most of the worker’s activity is carried out at home, consequently increase your energy use in it for heating, cooling, lighting, internet, cookingetc.
Heating 100 homes can be much less efficient than heating a large office. And to that is added that, in reality, We are not even talking about a consumption that replaces another, but is added to it. In Eurofound’s words:
“It is not clear to what extent employers will be willing (or able) to reduce office spaces after the pandemic. […] If offices continue to be open full time, the increase in home energy consumption will have an additive effect, on top of the energy consumed by office buildings.”
“It would be beneficial to promote flexible use of space in offices to avoid heating, cooling, or lighting unused or underutilized areas when low employee attendance is expected.”