The aim is to assess the balance between the savings achieved (time and commuting costs, improved health) and the costs borne by employees. In the configuration recommended by the GWA (82% of employees who can telework do so 2 to 3 days per week), employees in hybrid work arrangements would realize a net annual gain of $3,000 and save 14 days commuting.
The primary source of savings lies in the (non-monetary)
gains from commuting time that is not reinvested in additional work
(approximately half) and can therefore contribute to employee well-being
(sleep, family, friends, sports, leisure, civic engagement, etc.). The GWA
indicates that the average American worker spends the equivalent of 28 days a
year commuting, and that 20% of them spend more than two hours commuting per
day, or 60 days a year. Regardless of the mode of transportation (public or
private), long commutes are associated with higher risks of hypertension,
obesity, stress, anxiety, and depression.
In USA, commuting times are significant, sometimes exceeding
one hour per day in large urban areas (20 or 21 hours per month), and those
with lower incomes often bear the brunt of the longest commutes. Hybrid workers
are more inclined to shift towards active transportation, public transit,
carpooling, and sometimes even to give up car ownership. There is a direct
correlation between employee well-being and commuting time. According to a
recent Ifop / Paris Work Place survey, 59% of those under 35 say they are
willing to accept a 5% pay cut to reduce their commute to 20 minutes.
The second source of savings comes from reduced expenses.
This primarily concerns transportation costs (public transport but also private
cars, a significant budget item for many suburban residents), including the
avoidance of parking fees, reduced vehicle wear and tear, lower car insurance
premiums (when insurers are more receptive to lower usage rates), and fewer
accidents. We can also consider reduced meal expenses (eating at home, in
conditions that are also more conducive to nutrition and health), clothing and
entertainment costs, and childcare or caregiving expenses for dependent
individuals.
Finally, a more difficult-to-quantify source comes from the
reduction of fatigue and stress (avoidance of medical costs), and from better
work-life balance (avoidance of personal service costs such as childcare
between school dismissal and the return of one of the parents).
Conversely, the use of personal resources must be deducted
if it is not fully compensated by the company: energy, home utilities (heating,
water, internet connection, etc.). A German study from 2014 shows that
teleworking increases domestic energy consumption by 10%, while office energy
consumption remains stable since the premises remain open to accommodate
employees working on-site.
To these monetary elements, we must add more qualitative
factors identified in our analysis of the feelings at work of teleworkers
compared to employees in the office, which express the benefits of the
extension of hybrid work (see: " Is remote work socially responsible?
"):
Quality of working conditions;
Job satisfaction and performance;
Feelings regarding the managerial relationship;
Social support;
Skills development;
Reports to the company;
Prevention of health risks in the workplace;
Mobilization and levers for action in favor of health.
Gain for the planet
According to a survey conducted by the Chair of Management
and Occupational Health at the IAE of Grenoble among 1,336 employees and
published in May 2020, teleworking was perceived as a significant time-saver
thanks to the elimination of commuting for 42% of respondents. Looking ahead,
the same survey shows that employees' desire to telework is proportional to the
distance between their home and workplace. Malakoff Humanis's "New
Business Hub" showed in the second edition of its study on teleworking (February
2019) that the two main motivations for teleworkers before the coronavirus
pandemic were already reduced commuting time (54%) and more flexible working
hours (36%). Regular teleworking is more common in the Île-de-France region
and, more generally, in densely populated urban areas, where commute times are
longest.
The aim is to assess these gains by including what
economists call "rebound effects," that is, changes in residential
choices linked to shifts in the behavior of teleworkers, who may, for example,
move further from their workplace in search of lower rents and a better quality
of life. Here again, a balance must be struck between the savings in greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions from transportation and the emissions related to remote
digital communications.
The development of videoconferencing, the use of which
increased twentyfold during lockdown, could, however, have an increasingly
significant impact on the environment. The French Agency for Ecological
Transition (Ademe) has estimated its effect at 2.6 kg of CO2 equivalent per
year per day of teleworking, based on calculations by Greenspector.
"Remote work has positive impacts on the environment," summarizes
Jérémie Almosni, head of the Transport and Mobility department at Ademe,
"provided its implementation is supported". Ademe therefore
discourages the use of teleworking for part-time hours. Furthermore,
over-equipment (doubling the number of computer devices at home and in the
office) generates a significant footprint and new digital waste.
In the configuration recommended by the GWA (82% of
employees who can telework do so 2 to 3 days per week), a reduction in GHG
emissions would be equivalent to removing all workers in New York State from
the roads. Assuming a 75% reduction in GHG emissions on teleworking days, it
estimates the overall impact in terms of GHG reduction at 15%, which is very
significant.
