In cities across the world, office buildings are becoming greener. New construction is now typically LEED certified — often LEED Gold. Some older buildings are being retrofitted to meet US Energy Star standards.
The result is new workplaces that theoretically are healthier for the individuals working inside as well as for the planet. To be certified under LEED, a building has to offer higher levels of natural air and light, for example, than is typical in conventional construction. Moreover, materials used on the interiors also may have fewer toxins, which can affect employee health.
Over the past decade or so, the real estate industry has discussed and even debated the benefits of green buildings (versus their costs). One aspect of the discussion has centered around the employee workplace experience. Are people who work in green buildings better off? And are the companies and organizations who pay the rent seeing a difference in comparison to being in non-green structures?
A recent report by Norm G. Miller of the University of San Diego and Dave Pogue, director of sustainability at CBRE, offers new survey results from the responses of 534 tenants (companies or organizations who occupy buildings) who had recently moved into green office structures. Some data:
First, from a human resource perspective:
- 18 percent reported lower employee turnover in the new buildings
- 22 percent reported higher employee morale
- 23 percent reported easier recruiting of employees
- 45 percent reported fewer sick days while another 45 percent reported no change
Second, the question of employee productivity:
- 55 percent agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “Employees are more productive,” while 43 percent were neutral and only two percent disagreed.
Finally, other benefits:
- 74 percent of companies surveyed said the new building provided “a good image for clients and public.”
The authors also noted that companies occupying green buildings tended to have employees with higher-than-average wages. They therefore speculate that because of the salaries being paid these people, employers may want to ensure they maximize their productivity on the job.
This data is consistent with some other, often smaller, survey samples out there — such as from Gensler.
But aggregate statistics do not always tell the whole, human side of the story. What are your experiences?
Do you work in a certified, green building? Do you feel more productive or healthier than you have in other environments?
Would you select an employer based on the job being in a green building?
January 4th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Wendy,
I notice you didn’t mention Green Globes, a competitor of LEED. I thought it was supposed to be big in Canada?
January 4th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Hi Micheal,
Until you mentioned it I had not heard of Green Globes. However, now that I’ve read up on it, it seems Green Globes has evolved into BOMA BESt in Canada, which I am familiar with. It has evolved into Green Building Initiative (GBI) ratings in the USA.
LEED is the much better known rating standard, I believe, but really only applies to new building construction unless one is talking about LEED-CI (commercial interiors). BOMA BESt can apply to existing buildings, and I expect over the next 5+ years we’ll see much more use of this rating, especially as buildings are retrofitted or upgraded to be more ecologically friendly.
January 4th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
There was an article last week in the Toronto Star about the green SAS building four years later. The numbers are pretty impressive, especially the 35% drop in absenteeism.
January 4th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
oooh… thanks Matt. I missed that article over the holidays.
The money quote:
‘”Absenteeism went down 35 per cent,” says SAS Canada’s real estate manager, Jerry McDermott. “On top of that we have cut energy costs by 60 to 65 per cent. That means we spend less than $450,000 annually compared to $900,000 that you’d spend in a conventional building this size. The total energy required to run the building is less than 3 watts per square foot. In a typical building, it would be 50 to 65 per cent higher. ”
“Since the building’s opening,” Bowden notes, “SAS has enjoyed a return on investment totalling 375 per cent per square foot … while cutting its annual CO2 footprint by 4,060 tons in 2009.”‘
January 5th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
I have worked in both kinds of buildings and personally prefer the use of light and green to enhance the aesthetics and the mood. You provide interesting statistics about the improvement of work place productivity.
January 5th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Can we separate the perception of working in a green building from the substance? For instance, “a good image” is definitely “perception”. But “light and green” are substance. We have here the same conundrum that exists with “organic” food. “Organic” costs more even when its quality is actually worse.
January 6th, 2010 at 6:24 am
Mike
Surely “quality” itself is subjective, or at least covers different fields – do you mean it looks worse, do you mean its nutritionally “worse”, do you mean commercially it’s worse because organic products don’t store or travel as well?
And how is “green” substance? “Green” is an entirely arbitrary label. For someone, nuclear power may be “green” because it has low carbon emissions, but to someone else it wouldn’t be due to the massive sunk costs and risk of contamination from transporting uranium and disposing of waste.
It sounds like to me your peddling your own prejudice rather than saying anything useful.
January 6th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
The Star article sure makes the SAS building sound like an appealing place to work; maybe that’s just “good image”. But I’m guessing SAS, like most software companies, is eager to attract and retain top talent, and the more talented their workforce, the more productive and profitable they are. So a “good image” may be perception, but that it can still have a substantive, bottom-line impact.
January 7th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
“LEED is the much better known rating standard, I believe, but really only applies to new building construction unless one is talking about LEED-CI (commercial interiors).”
Other LEED rating Systems:
http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=222
1. Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance
2. Homes
3. Neighborhood Development
4. Core & Shell
5. Schools
6. Healthcare
7. Retail
also, within LEED for New Construction exists several points for adaptive reuse, specifcally:
MR Credit 1.1: Building Reuse—Maintain Existing Walls, Floors and Roof…1–3 Points
MR Credit 1.2: Building Reuse—Maintain Interior Nonstructural Elements…1 Point