Jesse Kaplan, ELR Staffer FLS ‘27

Many companies and the federal government are implementing back-to-work initiatives, but often overlook their negative impact on the environment. Full-time remote workers reduce carbon emissions by 54%, and even hybrid workers cut their carbon footprint by up to 29%. These environmental gains happen through a reduction in commuting, office energy use, food waste, and business travel. In addition, “seat sharing”–which is when different workers with different schedules share workspaces–can reduce emissions by 28%. While remote workers do have increased at-home energy demands with expanded electric and air-conditioning use, studies show that the assertion that return-to-work orders are carbon neutral are incorrect, with most daily emissions coming from commutes.  

Companies that claim to be “green” must consider the environmental harms of implementing return-to-office mandates and the sustainable benefits of remote work. Companies like Disney and Nike promote their environmental efforts publicly while also implementing return-to-office initiatives that harm the environment. This is very hypocritical, as companies like this try to celebrate their environmental efforts, while making it mandatory for their employees to return to office. This hypocritical behavior is bad public relations for Gen Zers and Millennials who take environmental concerns into account when making a purchase.

The COVID-19 lockdowns produced a major shift from in-office to remote and hybrid work, and conveyed the viability of the work-from-home model. Zoom meetings and digital workspaces such as Microsoft Teams allow employees to work effectively outside of the office. While there are in-office benefits for companies, such as being able to teach company culture and better monitor employees, the negative effects on the environment need to be considered before determining if those benefits are worth it. A company can weigh the pros and cons by quantitatively comparing the percentage increase in productivity against the 54% increase in carbon emissions by the policy.  Even in situations where remote work may be infeasible in more hands-on jobs like manufacturing or healthcare, there can be a proper hybrid schedule where companies can balance efficiency while helping the environment. For example, with healthcare one or two days may be able to be set for zoom telehealth appointments remotely.

The Trump administration is requiring many federal workers to return to the office. The United States Government, as the largest employer in the country, has a greater impact on the environment than any company could. Trump’s return-to-workplace order may force 1.1 million people to have to return to work in person. Bringing this many people back into office will significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions through vehicle commutes. Further, it is a major roadblock to the net-zero emission pledge by 2050 in the Paris Agreement agreed to by the prior administration. The federal government, with its responsibility to the American people both as their leader and largest employer, should contemplate the unintended climate change effects of a decision like this. This contemplation would include a similar balancing test to companies, where measurable productivity increases should be contrasted with the increased carbon emissions of the return-to-office initiative. The government should take these emissions into consideration when it comes to major decisions like this as this initiative may have significant effects on the world’s climate for years to come. 

Overall, companies and the federal government must consider the environmental benefits of remote and hybrid work schedules before forcing their employees to return to the office. Kate Lister, the founder of Global Workplace Analytics, says that while there have been times where these environmental impacts were under consideration, the consideration often gets dropped quickly for the next pressing political issue. Remote and hybrid work are not just convenient for workers, but also cut carbon emissions and support environmental goals.