homeworking emissions whitepaper 2020

Homeworking emissions – Ecoact whitepaper

Sustainabl Limited Company no. 13145454. Registered in England & Wales

Info & Legal

• Privacy Policy

Our products

• SDG Priorities
• Create action from your ESG strategy
• Employee engagement solutions
• Stakeholder ESG communications platform

Connect with us

© 2024 Sustainabl.co. All rights reserved.

• Engagement Solutions

© 2020 Sustainabl. All rights reserved.

I give consent to save my details and contact me regarding Sustainabl's services. Sustainabl will not share your details with third parties.

Create an account

Create a free IEA account to download our reports or subcribe to a paid service.

Working from home can save energy and reduce emissions. But how much?

Cite commentary

IEA (2020), Working from home can save energy and reduce emissions. But how much? , IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/commentaries/working-from-home-can-save-energy-and-reduce-emissions-but-how-much

Share this commentary

• Share on Twitter Twitter
• Share on Facebook Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn LinkedIn
• Share on Email Email
• Share on Print Print

As the Covid-19 crisis spread around the world, large numbers of people started working from home, with immediate and varied impacts on energy use. Oil demand shrank but residential electricity use surged. Companies such as Google and Facebook announced they would allow staff members to work remotely until at least the beginning of next year, while Twitter said its employees could continue working from home indefinitely.

This raises the question of what the implications would be for energy use and greenhouse gas emissions if a significant amount of people continued regularly working from home in the years to come. 

Our analysis shows that for people who commute by car, working from home is likely to reduce their carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) footprint if their journey to work is greater than about 6 kilometres. However, for short car commutes or those done by public transport, working from home could increase CO 2 emissions due to extra residential energy consumption.

By analysing commuter trends and labour market data, we found that if everybody able to work from home worldwide were to do so for just one day a week, it would save around 1% of global oil consumption for road passenger transport per year. Taking into account the increase this would bring in energy use by households, the overall impact on global CO 2 emissions would be an annual decline of 24 million tonnes (Mt) – equivalent to the bulk of Greater London’s annual CO 2 emissions. 

This is a notable decline but small in the context of the emissions reductions that would be necessary to put the world on a path towards meeting key long-term sustainable energy and climate goals. If everyone who can work from home were to do so more frequently than one day a week, the reduction in emissions would most likely be proportionally larger. However, a significant and sustained shift towards working from home could have impacts elsewhere in the energy system, such as those related to preferred modes of transport and demand for office space.

Lockdowns, working life and energy demand

The Covid-19 crisis has had staggering consequences for the transport sector. Government lockdowns triggered a fall of 50% to 75% in road traffic around the world. In April, with around one-third of the global population in complete lockdown, gasoline use dropped by more than 9 million barrels a day – an unprecedented fall – and demand for diesel was down by 6 million barrels a day. With up to 59% of employees in affected countries working from home and some facing redundancy, the effect on rush-hour road traffic was even more striking. Major cities saw a drop in rush-hour congestion of 65% to 95%. There were also widespread declines in air pollution from road traffic. One of the steepest was in New Delhi, where average levels of nitrogen dioxide were around two-thirds lower during lockdown compared with the weeks leading up to it.

Lockdowns have also affected residential demand for energy. Although overall electricity consumption plunged by 20% or more, energy utilities reported increased residential demand as a result of people spending more time at home. Hourly demand patterns on weekdays resembled those of a normal Sunday. In some parts of the United States, average residential electricity use on weekdays was up by 20% to 30%. In the United Kingdom, residential electricity consumption jumped by 15% in the days after the lockdown began. 

There is no guarantee that car use will remain low in the immediate aftermath of lockdowns. Prompted by perceived health risks, the shift away from public transport could continue as demand for mobility returns to normal, leading to a rebound in oil consumption. A survey in China by market research firm Ipsos reported a 57% reduction in the share of journeys made by bus and metro, but a doubling in the share made by private car. Globally, if 10% of bus trips were to be made by car instead, this would add some 700,000 barrels a day to fuel demand for cars – roughly 3% of the total amount of oil used for passenger road transport in 2019.

Average rush-hour traffic congestion in selected cities in 2019 and during lockdowns

However, the lockdown experience could give those who can work from home an increased appetite for it, leading to a lasting reduction in commuter traffic as well as a possible increase in residential energy consumption. 

If the overall level of working from home in an economy remained low, then almost all of the drop in transport energy demand would come from the commuter trips by car or motorcycle that would be avoided, since buses and trains would continue to run – albeit at slightly reduced capacity.

Average change in energy demand and CO2 emissions from one day of home working for a single household with a car commute

The impact of home-working on transport varies widely depending on the region and the time of year. In the United States, the average one-way commute by car is around 18 kilometres, and over three-quarters of car commuters travel alone, according to the US Census Bureau. In Europe, the average one-way car commute is 15 kilometres, and in China it is 8 kilometres, with large variations between urban and rural commutes. Differences in fuel efficiency also matter, as the average car in the United States consumes around 45% more fuel than the average in Europe for a trip of the same length. 

The use of mobile air conditioning in cars also has a material impact on fuel consumption, ranging between 3% of overall annual consumption in colder climates to 20% in hotter ones. Mobile air conditioning can peak at over 40% of fuel consumption in warm climates and congested traffic. We estimate that around 4% of total fuel consumption for commuting by car in the United States, China and Europe in 2019 was for mobile air conditioning.

On the residential side, a day of working from home could increase household energy consumption by between 7% and 23% compared with a day working at the office, depending on regional differences in the average size of homes, heating or cooling needs and the efficiency of appliances. In most parts of the world, the extra demand in winter is larger than in summer, due to space heating, and the energy mix in winter typically shifts more towards fossil fuels. In the US, however, the widespread use of air conditioning results in higher electricity demand in summer than in winter. In China, the prevalence of district heating – which is likely to remain switched on irrespective of whether a household is occupied or empty during the day – reduces the energy impact of working from home in the winter.

For commuting by car, a day working from home would on average reduce energy consumption and CO 2 emissions. However, for short commutes by car (less than 6 kilometres in the United States, 3 kilometres in the European Union, and 2 kilometres in China), as well as for those made by public transport, working from home could lead to a small increase in emissions as a result of extra residential energy use. The net effect would depend on the residential fuel mix. For instance in China, the net drop in energy demand translates into only a small decrease in CO 2 emissions – especially in winter – because of the relatively high emissions intensity of the power sector as well as the widespread use of coal for space heating and oil for water heating and cooking. 

The impact of working from home on global energy demand and emissions

At the household level, the impact of working from home on energy demand varies widely according to many factors related to the season and the region. But what would be the global effect if working from home became a trend for societies at large? The answer to this question depends in part on how many people can work from home.

Before the Covid-19 pandemic, an estimated 8% 1 of the global workforce was working exclusively or mainly from home, with large differences among countries, according to the International Labour Organization . For example, around 5% of workers in China were working from home, compared with 14% in the Netherlands.

Based on an analysis done by Jonathan Dingel and Brent Neiman at the University of Chicago as well as work by the International Labour Organization and others 2 , we estimate that around 20% of jobs globally could potentially be done from home. This ranges from around 10% in sub-Saharan Africa to more than 45% in the wealthiest European countries. Overall, there is a positive correlation between the potential to work from home and GDP per capita. This reflects the differences in economic and occupational structures of countries, as well as digital readiness (e.g. broadband internet access, computer ownership), and other structural factors (e.g. housing situation, other types of home-based work).

Change in global CO2 emissions and final energy consumption by fuel in the “home-working” scenario

Working from home will normally reduce net energy demand for a household that commutes by car. But for commuters taking public transport, it is likely to increase net energy demand, although regional and seasonal differences are significant. Taking this into account, however, we find that during an average year, the overall energy saved as a result of less commuting is still around four times larger than the increase in residential energy consumption.

On a global level, oil savings 3 are around 11.9 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe) per year – or about 250,000 barrels a day, corresponding to about 1% of road passenger transport consumption. After including the extra residential demand 4 , overall energy use falls by around 8.5 Mtoe, resulting in a drop of 24 Mt in annual CO 2 emissions. 

The scenario described here assumes a relatively modest one day per week of working from home. If this were to become more frequent, the impacts on private transport and residential energy demand would increase proportionally, but it could also have an increasing number of effects elsewhere in the energy system. Given that only one-fifth of workers can do their jobs remotely, even several days of home working per week would probably have only a small direct impact on public transport. However, fewer commuters could lead to less congestion, faster moving traffic and a possible shift away from public transport. This could either reduce or increase oil demand depending on the specific circumstances.   

The longer term impacts on energy and emissions of a trend towards greater working from home are uncertain. Over time, a more significant shift to home working could also result in a reduction in demand for office space and energy for commercial buildings, and therefore a greater overall reduction in energy consumption and CO 2 emissions. However, habitual home working could lead to people living farther from their place of work, potentially offsetting the demand reductions in energy for commuting.

Additional contributions to this commentary were provided by Apostolos Petropoulos , George Kamiya , Yannick Monschauer and Kevin Lane .

This includes employees who telework, as well as a wide range of occupations including industrial outworkers, artisans, self-employed business owners, and freelancers. Among employees, about 3% were working exclusively or mainly from their home before the Covid-19 pandemic. Source: ILO (2020).

Boeri et al. (2020) ; Brynjolfsson et al. (2020) ; Eurostat (2018) ; Saltiel (2020) .

These savings are estimated by combining the country-level potential for home working with employment data and regional characteristics of commuter travel, as well as average commute distances and vehicle efficiencies.

The potential increase in residential energy consumption is based on combining a regional bottom-up analysis of residential demand by end-use and fuel with week-end and weekday electricity load curves, the emissions intensity of electricity and employment data from the International Labour Organization.  

Reference 1

Reference 2, reference 3, reference 4, subscription successful.

Thank you for subscribing. You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link at the bottom of any IEA newsletter.

01342 332000

Homeworking Emissions Whitepaper

Last updated: 2nd February 2021

First ever open-source carbon calculation methodology for homeworking.

The impacts of coronavirus (COVID-19) have resulted in significant changes to our daily lives; affecting family life, leisure time, the way we travel and the way we do business.

An estimated  47% of UK employees – 14 million people  – were reported to be working from home in April this year, and it is vital that corporates are accounting for the shifting boundaries of their operational emissions.

This paper, written in partnership with Lloyds Banking Group and NatWest Group and with special contribution from Bulb, defines a simple and easy to use process for calculating emissions of a workforce increasingly based at their own homes.

It provides a working methodology to complement the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol for the following three areas:

• Emissions from office equipment
• Emissions from heating
• Emissions from cooling (where geographically relevant)

Download your copy here today to get one step closer to a better understanding of the full emissions impact of today’s business operations.

N.B. The information contained in this entry is provided by the above supplier, and does not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the publisher

Action inspires action. Stay ahead of the curve with sustainability and energy newsletters from edie

empowering sustainable business

Sign up to our daily newsletter to stay ahead of the curve with the latest updates on sustainability and energy

Thanks, I’m not interested

• Hybrid Working Programme Blog

Surfacing the front-line experiences of staff as we evolve our best hybrid working practices, sharing our successes and failures, and learning from each other.

Recent posts

SPACE….(IT and culture) the final frontier(s)

The Carbon Impact of Homeworking

Hybrid Working in Finance (Charles Stewart House)

• Office, Home, and why Hybrid doesn’t work for everyone.
• Enabling and Supporting Work Transitions

Recent comments

• mustafa on Hybrid Working in Finance (Charles Stewart House)
• 12 Firms That Are Buying Carbon Offsets - M2W2 Free Blog Posting Site | Post Lovely blogs a on The Carbon Impact of Homeworking
• The rise of employee share schemes: a key factor in retaining top talent - London Echo on The Carbon Impact of Homeworking
• The rise of employee share schemes: a key factor in retaining top talent – Uber Turco News on The Carbon Impact of Homeworking
• Martin on The Carbon Impact of Homeworking
• December 2021
• November 2021
• October 2021
• September 2021
• August 2021
• hybrid working
• Uncategorised
• Entries feed
• Comments feed
• WordPress.org

Aisling O’Reilly, Projects Coordinator (Energy) asks: what is the impact of homeworking on our carbon emissions and will the future of work be better or worse for our planet?

The past 19 months have changed the way we work forever. The Covid-19 pandemic forced the majority of us to work from home and overall, we liked it. The University’s Home and Hybrid Working Survey showed that over 90% of staff are interested in hybrid working in future. But while we have adjusted to the new normal with Covid-19, another issue has not gone away, the climate crisis.

Early reports

In the early stages of the pandemic, there was a belief that the transition to working from home was better for the environment. With the daily commute eradicated and no offices to heat or cool, it could easily be assumed that working from home was an energy-saving solution for organisations. However, this may not be the case, as home working increased our need for home heating. Organisations took various approaches to estimate the carbon impact of this lifestyle change, leading to early reports that came to very different conclusions.

Zero Waste Scotland Report

Zero Waste Scotland

In May 2020, Zero Waste Scotland reported that from March onwards, when homeworking began, their daily carbon footprint reduced by around 73%. This was as a result of avoided commuting and corporate travel.

Zero Waste Scotland’s report

Other organisations

Conversely, other organisations, such as the environmental consultancy, WSP, reported that a worker who is based at home throughout the year could have a carbon footprint that is 80% higher than a typical office worker.

The high footprint was mainly due to emissions from central heating over the winter months. This figure of 80% was later debunked. It failed to account for multiple occupancy within a household, making emissions seem higher than what they were in reality.

To give an example, if a worker moved from the office to their home during lockdown, which was previously empty and unheated, then the use of the central heating during the day would be classed as additional. But if that worker was working from a home that was occupied and centrally heated before lockdown, then this wouldn’t impact the home heating requirements.

Office vs Home Working: How we can save our carbon footprint (WSP)

A university perspective

Bournemouth university.

Universities have also been investigating the impact of lockdown on their carbon footprint. With Bournemouth University being one of the first to share their findings. They investigated the carbon footprint for April – June 2020 (the period of the first lockdown) and compared it to April – June of previous, non-lockdown years. In non-lockdown years, the largest carbon footprint was from commuting, followed by utilities and then staff business travel.

During lockdown, the university reduced its total carbon footprint by 29%. This was due to the absence of commuting. They also noted that despite the completely shut campuses, the decrease in utilities was lower than expected, with a 45% drop in electricity and a 51% drop in gas. This highlights that substantial amounts of energy are needed to maintain university campuses even in the absence of staff and students.

Cutting-edge research has assessed the carbon footprint of Bournemouth University during the COVID-19 lockdown

The University of Edinburgh

The University of Edinburgh has not yet determined the complete impact of lockdown on its carbon footprint. However, using a methodology produced by EcoAct, the Department for Social Responsibility and Sustainability has conducted a short study, using the University’s Estates Department as a representative example.

EcoAct Homeworking emissions whitepaper

Carbon impact chart

The carbon impact, in tonnes CO₂e for an Estates Department staff member under different working scenarios

• Office-based:  1.03 tCO₂e
• Hybrid-work (two days working from home):  0.99 tCO₂e
• Home-based:   0.91 tCO₂e  

Carbon figures are based on the Estates Department, located at 9-11 and 13 Infirmary Street, housing approximately 300 members of staff. Figures account for energy consumption both at home and in the office, multiple occupancy as well as emissions from commuting. Calculated for the period August 2019 – July 2020.

As you can see above, office-based working full-time has the highest carbon footprint, home-based has the lowest, with hybrid working sitting somewhere in the middle.

There are some interesting things to note with these figures:

• The home-based figure notes that the Estates Department buildings are still consuming energy even while relatively unoccupied.
• With less than a quarter of university staff driving to work, the carbon savings for avoided commuting are not as significant for the University of Edinburgh as they are for other organisations.

Getting the balance right between transport and heating

Research recently published through ClimateXChange, on behalf of the Scottish Government, has provided more clarity on the carbon impact of homeworking.

Some of the overarching findings are outlined below:

• Domestic heating is a large emission source that can offset much of the transport emissions savings of home working.
• Larger properties with oil heating represent the worst place to work from home in terms of emissions.
• The lowest emission future is one where people commuting short to medium distances do so by public and active travel and continue to commute to the office, while people who commute long distances shift to working from home.
• The lowest emission working behaviour is a short commute to work in an energy-efficient office.

Emissions impact of home working in Scotland (ClimateXChange)

Homeworking emissions and the impact of Covid-19 on climate change is an area of research that is still evolving. However, it is becoming clear that the carbon impact of homeworking can be either positive or negative, depending on your home’s energy efficiency and your commute.

Home energy is something we can control. Check out my five tips for managing your heat at home this winter and keep an eye on Home Energy Scotland, to see what grants are available for energy-saving improvements.

To a degree, we can also control our commute, choosing active transport if we’re close to the office, avoiding the car for those commutes which are longer and keeping an eye out for forward-thinking initiatives like the NearHome Project, which aims to retrofit public spaces to create out-of-town alternatives to city-centre offices.

Another thing that is clear is that we are not alone, workplaces around the world are changing and with that comes pitfalls and opportunities. By keeping the climate crisis and our carbon impact at the forefront of our minds, we can make decisions that drive us towards a net-zero future, rather than farther off course.

• Five tips for keeping your Edinburgh home warm this winter
• Home Energy Scotland
• NearHome Project

Posted by Aisling O'Reilly

3rd November 2021

hybrid • hybrid working

Previous post

4 replies to “The Carbon Impact of Homeworking”

Great post. Keep posting such kind of info on your page. Am really impressed by your blog.

• Pingback: The rise of employee share schemes: a key factor in retaining top talent – Uber Turco News
• Pingback: The rise of employee share schemes: a key factor in retaining top talent - London Echo
• Pingback: 12 Firms That Are Buying Carbon Offsets - M2W2 Free Blog Posting Site | Post Lovely blogs a

Leave a reply

Your comment *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

HTML Text The Carbon Impact of Homeworking / Hybrid Working Programme Blog by blogadmin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0

Plain text The Carbon Impact of Homeworking by blogadmin @ is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0

Report this page

To report inappropriate content on this page, please use the form below. Upon receiving your report, we will be in touch as per the Take Down Policy of the service.

Please note that personal data collected through this form is used and stored for the purposes of processing this report and communication with you.

If you are unable to report a concern about content via this form please contact the Service Owner .

• Search for:

No products in the cart.

Return to shop

• Making A Difference Together

Carbon Footprint , Knowledge Article , Sustainability

The carbon emissions of homeworking and office working.

As the world has moved towards hybrid and remote working, Circular Ecology asks the question, what are the carbon emissions of homeworking and office working?

Of course, there are many variables to consider in the answer to that question, and so we will attempt to discuss them in this article. Considerations such as the size of your work or home office, how far you commute, and the transport method you use all influence the emissions of home and office working. Please note that UK specific data has been used within this assessment.

Travelling to Work

The distance travelled to and from the workplace will have an impact on the carbon results of office working. If you are commuting by car, for example, carbon emissions will increase the further you have to commute. In the 2021 Census for England and Wales , data was collected on the distances people travel to work (Office for National Statistics, 2022). The results show that most people who travelled to work, travelled less than 10km. This accounts for a one-way journey, and so this distance should be doubled to account for the travel both to and from the workplace.

Figure 1 – GHG Emissions of Varying Commutes using Transport Methods Weighted Average

Figure 1 shows the increase in emissions as the overall commute distances get longer. This is calculated using the weighted average emissions factor (shown in blue in Figure 2) derived from the census transport to work results and the DEFRA 2023 conversion factors . The 20km total commuting distance (both to and from work) has been used within this assessment and is highlighted in blue.

It is also necessary to assess how people travel to work. Again, we can look to the data from the ONS to find out how people commute. The most selected mode of transport when travelling to work was “driving a car or van” at 45.1% (Office for National Statistics, 2022). The next highest responses were “on foot” and “by bus, minibus or coach”.

The choice in mode of transport will create differences in the carbon results. For example, walking to work would not generate carbon emissions whereas driving by car would. The fuel type of the car or van can also make a difference in the quantity of emissions. For this article, we will use a weighted average from all the transport methods included in the Census results across all the main fuel types where emissions factors are available from DEFRA. The result of this weighted average is shown in Figure 2 in the blue column, for a 20km total commute.

Figure 2 – GHG Emissions of 20km Commute by Transport Method

Of course, when it comes to homeworking, there is no commute and so no associated carbon value needs to be attributed to this.

Energy Usage

For both home and office working scenarios the energy usage within the workspace will result in carbon emissions. The general setup is similar for both environments, with the need for office equipment and temperature controlling equipment such as central heating. In this respect, the main difference between home and office working is the size and layout of the space occupied.

Office-based working commonly takes place in large open-plan office spaces, for which we will need to attribute a part share of total energy use for this assessment. It is important when calculating an emissions factor for this impact that a view of the full calendar year is considered for an average value. For example, gas usage is likely to be higher in the winter due to increased heating of the workspaces, and electricity may be higher due to the need for more lighting during the working day.

Figure 3 shows the emissions factors for office and homeworking in kgCO2e per hour.

Figure 3 – GHG Emissions of Office and Homeworking per Hour

Homeworking

To establish an emissions factor for homeworking, we can refer to the DEFRA 2023 conversion factors. Defra break this factor down into office equipment and heating. To account for varying heating usage over a calendar year, DEFRA provide an annual average for heating which is estimated using data from “Typical Domestic Consumption Values 2020” (Ofgem 2020).

For the office equipment aspects of the homeworking factor, DEFRA state the following:

“Office equipment is an estimation of energy used by a homeworking employee. GHG conversion factors for electricity consumption come from the UK GHG Conversion factors model outputs for UK Electricity. There are 3 assumptions:

• assumed that a homeworking employee only uses energy for a laptop or PC, monitor, phone, printer, and lighting.
• assumed that the energy used by a homeworking employee is 140W, same as the energy used by a workstation (a laptop or PC, monitor, phone, and printer). Electricity use data for a workstation came from CIBSE Guide F (CIBSE, 2012).
• assumed that the energy used for lighting is 10W per homeworking employee (an assumption by EcoAct).” – (DEFRA 2022)

DEFRA’s combined homeworking emissions factor is provided as 0.33378 kgCO2e per hour per person .

There are several real-world variables that could affect this number such as, the size of the room utilised as a home office, the number of people working from home, and the control of heating in the home. For example, for energy saving purposes some people may switch off certain radiators in their home. Homes can also be differently insulated, and boiler efficiency may also affect the amount of energy used when working from home.

Office working

For the office working emissions factor, a study from the University of Exeter has been used. This study uses benchmark data for “general office” buildings taken from CIBSE TM46 to estimate the energy usage of an office. The study also notes that no adjustments were made to account for building efficiency, which is a significant variable in the energy usage, and that the gas heating efficiency rate was assumed to be 80%.

The office occupancy density was also required to calculate this emissions factor. The study used an occupancy report from JLL Estate Agents as well as data from CIBSE TM46. The data was used to calculate square meterage per person for i) very high, ii) high, iii) average and iv) low density offices. A midpoint of these values was then used for the emissions factor calculation to arrive at a baseline scenario factor.

The baseline scenario calculated the office working emissions to be 3.5 kgCO2e per day per person. A working day was said to be 8 hours and therefore the factor can be stated as 0.4375 kgCO2e per hour per person .

The Carbon Footprint of a Working Week

We must now consider different scenarios for a working week, to calculate and compare carbon results based on a person’s potential working patterns.

Scenario One – Office Working Only

This scenario assumes the following

• 5 days a week commuting to an office and 0 days a week working from home
• A working day is 8 hours in length (a total of 40 hours per week)
• The same commute distance to and from work is travelled everyday

When calculating this scenario, the emissions of travelling to and from the place of work and the energy use at the office are accounted for. The results breakdown as shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1 – Scenario One: Office Working Results

Figure 4 – Scenario One Carbon Footprint Breakdown

Figure 4 shows the carbon emissions for this scenario’s working week are quite evenly distributed between travel and office energy emissions, at 48% and 52% respectively. The office energy contributes just 4% more to the overall carbon footprint of 33.43 kgCO2e/week.

Scenario Two – Homeworking Only (Fully remote working)

• 0 days a week commuting to an office and 5 days a week working from home
• There is no attributed commute to the place of work

When calculating this scenario, only the emissions of energy use from the home office are accounted for, as no travel is required to a place of work. The results breakdown as shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2 – Scenario Two: Homeworking Results

Figure 5 – Scenario Two Carbon Footprint Breakdown

Figure 5 shows that as expected, the carbon emissions come solely from the homeworking energy use. The overall carbon footprint is 13.63 kgCO2e/week . This is a difference of 19.8 kgCO2e/week compared to a full working week commuting to and working in an office.

Scenario Three – Hybrid Working

• 2 days a week commuting to an office and 3 days a week working from home
• The same commute distance to and from work is travelled on office working days
• There is no attributed commute to the place of work for homeworking days

A 2022 survey found that the typical UK worker is going into the office “less than 1.5 days per week” (Advanced Workplace Associates 2022). For scenario 3, using these survey results and taking a conservative approach, it has been assumed a hybrid working week would consist of 2 days of office working and 3 days of homeworking . The results breakdown as shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3 – Scenario Three: Hybrid Working Results

Figure 6 – Scenario Three Carbon Footprint Breakdown

gure 6 shows that homeworking energy usage contributes the most to the carbon footprint of the hybrid working scenario. This is to be expected as most days of the week are spent working from home in scenario 3. If the travel and office energy use are added together to represent the office working days, this makes up 62% of the hybrid working footprint despite only being utilised 2 days per week.

Figure 7 – All Scenarios Carbon Footprint Comparison

Figure 7 shows how each of the scenarios presented might compare across a full working week. However, the reality of every individual’s working situation should be assessed against the assumptions made above before determining the option with the lowest impact.

Minimising the Carbon Footprint of Your Workplace

As our working patterns evolve, there may not be a single perfect option for minimising our workspace carbon impacts, and there are many external factors which may affect choices such as insufficient space, access to services and equipment, or personal preference. But if you are looking to reduce the carbon footprint of your workspace, or of your workforce, there are a few things you can consider for both home and office workspaces.

• Consider a green energy tariff for your home or office building
• Consider commuting via public transport, car share, or even biking or walking to work where feasible
• Be careful not to over-utilise heating or air-conditioning. Consider setting or amending individual controls on heating and radiators so they can be switched off in unused rooms
• Turn off office equipment when not in use overnight, or over the weekend
• Use energy efficient lighting such as LED
• Improve the heating efficiency of your workspace

If you would like to measure and reduce the carbon footprint of your organisation, take a look at our Organisational Carbon Footprint page.

Featured image provided royalty free from Unsplash

Circular Ecology

• Carbon Footprint Verification & Assurance
• Carbon Reduction Plan & Target Setting
• Carbon Footprint
• Embodied Carbon Assessment
• Life Cycle Assessment
• Net Zero Carbon Buildings
• Operational Carbon Assessment
• Organisational Carbon Footprint
• Scope 3 Carbon Footprint
• Water Footprint
• Biogas and Cookstoves Kenya
• Biogas and Clean Cooking Cambodia
• Clean Cookstoves Africa
• Clean and Safe Water Project Uganda
• CommuniTree Forestry Project – Nicaragua
• Clean Water Africa
• Forestry Panama
• Rimba Raya REDD+ Biodiversity Reserve Indonesia
• Solar Cooking
• Tree Planting
• Buy Video Training Packages
• Carbon Footprint Training Course – Video Access
• Embodied Carbon Training Course – Video Access
• Module List for Online Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Training Course – Video Access
• Training Course Prices
• Concrete Embodied Carbon Footprint Calculator
• Carbon footprint calculators for construction
• Carbon footprint V embodied carbon
• EN 15804+A2 Update and What it Means for EPDs
• EN15804 Modules Explained
• Environmental Impacts
• Environmental Glossary of Terms – LCA & Footprinting
• Inspirational environmental sustainability facts
• Introduction to Sustainability Guide
• Scoring LCA Green Building Credits in BREEAM, LEED and CEEQUAL
• Solar PV Embodied Carbon
• Sustainability and Sustainable Development
• UN SDG 6 Clean Water and Sanitation
• Video: What Is A Tonne of CO2e?
• Video: Product Carbon Footprinting for Manufacturers and Suppliers
• Video: What is a Water Footprint?

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from our team.

Thank you for subscribing.

• https://twitter.com/circularecology
• https://www.linkedin.com/company/circular-ecology

Username or email address  *

Password  *

Remember me Log in

Lost your password?

Contact Us on 01978 437040 or Email [email protected]

Homeworking Calculator

Homeworking carbon calculator.

This homeworking carbon footprint calculator is a tool designed to help individuals understand the carbon footprint associated with working from home. It can be a valuable resource in today's world, where remote work has become increasingly common.

Tell us about your homeworking

Carbon emission, total emissions, would you like to offset with blocicarbon, minimum order.

To calculate this, the number of FTE (Full-time Equivalent) working hours of which its staff were working from home is multiplied by the conversion factor.

Please note that the heating conversion factor has already taken into consideration both heating months and non-heating months.

The homeworking conversion factors are calculated using the methodology from the Homeworking emission Whitepaper (EcoAct, 2020)

Carbon Footprint Facts about Homeworking

Commuting Savings : By working from home, the average UK employee saves about 0.86 tonnes of CO2 per year by not commuting. That's equivalent to the emissions from driving 2,240 miles in an average car.

Lighting : If you work near a window, you can significantly reduce your carbon footprint by relying on natural light instead of electric lighting. Switching to LED lights can also reduce your lighting-related carbon footprint by up to 85%.

Overall Impact : The Carbon Trust estimates that flexible working practices, like homeworking, could save UK businesses and employees over 3 million tonnes of CO2 per year by 2030. This is equivalent to taking over 1 million cars off the road.

Get In Touch

If you wish to receive further information about how BLOCI is working towards Net Zero Carbon, why not use one of the links below

Our Policies

• Environmental & Sustainability Policy
• Equality & Diversity Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Site Security
• Terms & Conditions

Our Contact Details

Registered Office: 23 Trinity Square, Llandudno, Wales, LL30 2RH

EcoAct launches first ever open-source carbon calculation to overcome remote working emissions gap

By Susan Brownlow   |   7th October, 2020

LONDON, 7th October 2020 – International climate change consultancy EcoAct alongside major corporates today published an open source methodology for companies that need to calculate the impacts of an increasing number of employees working from home on corporate carbon emissions. The paper, written in collaboration with EcoAct clients NatWest Group and Lloyds Banking Group and following a roundtable consultation with six major corporates, aims to define a simple and easy to use process for calculating emissions of a workforce increasingly based at their own homes as a result of the global COVID-19 pandemic. An estimated 47% of UK employees – 14 million people – were reported to be working from home in April this year, and as we head towards the winter months and inevitable increases in energy consumption for heating and lighting, it is vital that corporates are accounting for the shifting boundaries of their operational emissions and have a way to reliably assess them for 2020 and beyond. Research carried out in July 2020 by UK energy supplier Bulb in partnership with EcoAct, estimated that UK firms could face a 'black hole’ of 470,000 tonnes of carbon this year due to unaccounted energy use incurred by employees at home, potentially undermining the UK's long-term net zero emissions ambition. To put this into perspective, this is equivalent to flying around the world over 84,700 times in economy class. This new paper sets out a base case for three areas of emissions generated from homeworking (emissions from office equipment, heating energy and cooling energy) and provides the calculations companies need to robustly assess these emissions in their 2020 reporting. Fiona Cannon, Group Sustainable Business Director, Lloyds Banking Group said: “Even before the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, we have supported an agile approach for our colleagues, enabling them to work from home and look at different working patterns. While the Covid-19 pandemic has resulted in a further reduction in our carbon emissions, most notably through less travel, we recognise the need to balance this against the additional emissions caused by colleagues working from home. This report is a valuable step in navigating the challenge of measuring carbon emissions associated with home working and supports organisations in taking action to tackle the threat of climate change.” NatWest Group agrees that “as our ways of working continue to change through this pandemic and beyond, it is essential that companies understand the full impact such changes are having on their carbon emissions. “This year we announced ambitious targets to reduce our climate impact, which include making our operations net zero by the end of 2020. Homeworking emissions are currently excluded from our footprint calculations due to the historic lack of a clear methodology and the associated data collection challenges. Given the significant shift in working patterns seen in 2020, we feel it is important to be able to assess the materiality of the displaced emissions, enabling us to make better decisions about how we tackle them in the future.” Most large companies choose to disclose emissions in line with the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) protocol standards. Under the GHG protocol, homeworking is currently an optional disclosure covered in the Employee Commuting (Category 7) section. EcoAct’s methodology seeks to supplement and support the GHG protocol by providing a standardised format which businesses can cite in their disclosures. The full report is accessible here: https://info.eco-act.com/en/homeworking-emissions-whitepaper-2020 About EcoAct EcoAct, an Atos company, is a international sustainability consultancy and project developer, headquartered in Paris, with 160 employees in offices across France, the United Kingdom, Spain, the United States and Kenya. The company has unmatched depth and breadth in delivering holistic solutions to enable businesses to reduce their carbon emissions while driving commercial performance. EcoAct has undertaken carbon reduction and sustainability projects for some of the world’s leading brands while also developing and partnering with carbon offset, biodiversity and economic development programmes across Africa, Asia, China and South America. EcoAct is a CDP gold partner, a founding member of ICROA, a strategic partner in the implementation of the Gold Standard for the Global Goals and reports to the UN Global Compact. For more information, visit www.eco-act.com Media contacts For a copy of the report, more information, images or interview requests please contact: Susan Brownlow PR Consultant EcoAct [email protected] Tel: 07739 456292

Words for Industry

Our Environment

Understanding the future workplace

Making sense of changing work behaviours and adapting our practices is essential to the ongoing evolution of the workplace. with this in mind, we invited our staff to complete a work from home survey in autumn 2020, in order to gain greater insight into the environmental implications of remote working..

A third ( 34% ) of our employees submitted their responses, providing invaluable data on homeworking carbon emissions across the firm. Under the Greenhouse Gas Protocol standards, homeworking is an optional disclosure. To date, many firms have not included those associated emissions in their overall sustainability reporting due to the lack of a clear methodology on which to base emissions calculations and the associated data collection challenges.

However, a homeworking emissions whitepaper produced in 2020 by international climate change consultancy EcoAct, in partnership with Lloyds Banking Group and NatWest Group, suggests that this stance will be difficult to maintain following the changes to working practices that have emerged since the COVID-19 crisis began. As a firm, we are acutely aware that our emissions output since 2020 cannot be fully accurate without accounting for homeworking emissions. Consequently, we are exploring the environmental impact of hybrid working practices at the Firm – and how we can collectively mitigate it.

The majority of our staff worked from home 90% or more of the time during the pandemic and the survey revealed that 70% of respondents working from home were accompanied by at least one other person. Although this allows us to factor in other homeworkers when considering the carbon footprint of our employees, we are working with sustainability consultancy Achill to help staff undertake a full assessment of their work from home carbon footprints.

We are confident that this will give our employees a better understanding of their areas of carbon output and help them to work in a more environmentally friendly and efficient way while providing us with essential data to support our 2030 net zero carbon commitment.

of respondents working from home in 2020 were accompanied by at least one other person Source: Charles Russell Speechlys Work From Home Survey

The Chancery Lane Project: Tackling climate change together

The Chancery Lane Project (TCLP) is a collaborative effort by a whole range of lawyers and firms to create an open source depository of contract clauses that seek to establish carbon reduction commitments in supply chains and in different sectors including property, construction, banking & finance, employment and corporate affairs.

Over the last two years, Charles Russell Speechlys has participated in the project to help drive sustainable behaviour in business and our communities – see our Responsible Business Report 2020 for more details.

TCLP is founded on the understanding that the commercial world is a vast interconnected web of contractual relationships. Feeding carbon reduction commitments into that web will cause those commitments to filter down and across the whole network. As one business contracts with various suppliers and those suppliers in turn contract with others, the chain expands. We’re keen to help spread the good news of this free-to-use resource and give guidance on its application – see TCLP for more information and in particular the incredibly useful Net Zero Toolkit.

Alumni • Legal Notices • Accessibility • Privacy Notice • Fraudulent or 'scam' communication • Complaints Procedure • COVID Secure Certification • Pricing Information

© Charles Russell Speechlys 2022. Solicitors Regulation Authority number 420625.

evolveEA’s 2020 Greenhouse Gas Audit

Like most offices, our HQ in Pittsburgh was closed for most of last year with our team working from home. Prior to 2020 evolveEA performed biannual Greenhouse Gas Audits to measure our emissions and then purchase carbon offsets to neutralize them. With big changes to how we work since the 2020 pandemic began, we wanted to see how our office emissions would compare to a “normal” year. So we performed a GHG Audit for last year, and not surprisingly, our total company footprint shrank 78% compared to emissions from 2019!

What We Calculated

We looked at the Scope 1 , Scope 2 , and Scope 3 emissions in our office and compared the data to previous years. Scope 1 includes all direct emissions from the combustion of fuels on site. Scope 2 includes all indirect emissions from the purchase and transmission of electricity. And Scope 3 includes all other indirect emissions that are a result of our operations—transportation, water usage, and waste. Scope 3 was the largest savings for us, with an 87% reduction between 2019 and 2020.

An important note is that our methodology for carbon emissions did not include energy or heating costs for employees working from home. As remote work is incorporated into our long-term strategy of becoming a hybrid office, we will need to find ways to measure the increased energy demands from home office environments. A great resource we found that goes into detail about calculating home energy costs based on workforce composition and regional data is in this Homeworking emissions Whitepaper from EcoAct.

Our 2020 Impact Report Update includes more detailed information from the audit.

How We Calculated

For the first couple of months of 2020, our commuting data was similar to that of 2019. The waste and recycling ratio also remained the same for the beginning part of the year. Everything changed on March 13, 2020 when our office held our last in-person team meeting and began to work primarily from home. The office remained accessible, with COVID precautions and cleaning procedures in place for limited occupancy.

At the end of 2020, we polled our team to see what percentage of time they worked from home and used the information to calculate commute intensities. Our custodial cleaning decreased in frequency from once per week to once per month. Gas, electricity, and water usage were ascertained from ongoing monthly bills, but were noticeably lower. Our gas usage did not change much, with the only real savings being less heating in the Fall and Winter.

The team’s Business Travel by Air was the category with the most drastic reduction in emissions: 93% ! Although some of us did feel like we would rather have had meetings and site visits in person, we have to acknowledge that air travel is the most carbon-intensive activity in our work. Our 2019 GHG audit showed the highest emissions for air travel in the company’s history because as we have grown, the geography of our projects has also expanded. Yet, 2020 taught us that we can still perform this work and put limits on travel.

Looks Can Be Deceiving

Although at first glance it appears that our office dramatically reduced its carbon emissions, this narrow comparison can be misleading. It is true that our office building’s energy use drastically decreased and business travel was sizably slimmed, however, home energy use increased across the board. This inverse is a testament to shifting energy demands, not their elimination.

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research , “Americans spent $6 billion more on at-home power consumption from April to July 2020 than during normal times, nearly offsetting a decline in business and industrial demand.”

How are evolvers Tracking Personal Emissions?

At evolve, we wanted to see how our team fared in the work-from-home era, what measures they had in place, and if anyone noticed an increase in home energy consumption in line with national data. The following are firsthand accounts from a few evolvers.

Nick has a  Belkin Energy Use Monitor that displays how many watts of electricity a device uses when plugged into it. Attached to a smart power strip that distributes electricity only when needed, Nick was able to verify his home office equipment (1 monitor, 1 laptop, printer, occasional space heater, and phone charger) has an electrical rating of 115-122 watts. He then used that data to calculate his CO2e footprint to be 119 lbs CO2e (.059 mT) utilized April 2020 to April 2019 from his home office, which is about 10 lbs a month. In energy costs, he found it to be $1/month to power his office, or about $11.84 for the year.

He also noticed a change in how he and his partner heated their home.

“Our upstairs office gets extremely hot in the winter, therefore we turned the heat down from 70-71 [degrees Fahrenheit] to 65-68 this year. Our living space is usually downstairs and that gets very cold in the winter, but we didn’t use that space as much this year.”

Claudia noted another behavioral habit that was modified during the pandemic:

“I turn down the thermostat when I leave the house, but while working from home I never left the house!”

Although this had a small effect on her heating bill, she said there was not a large difference between winter and summer utilities compared to previous years thanks to the insulation work she had done on her house before the pandemic hit.

Many of us observed a change in habits compared to previous years, from solo inhabitants or those who reside with family members who similarly transitioned to working or learning from home in 2020. Our energy bills reflect this increase in heating/cooling hours, and the increased natural gas use can lead to increased emissions depending on occupancy patterns.

“Consistently, even in spring, fall, winter, summer, I have been using more electricity in the past year than the previous.”

Even if we use green power for our electricity, which many of us do, most of our homes are heated with natural gas. When we work from our primarily Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern homes especially over winter months, that adds to our per-capita emissions.

Although a sizable difference from 2019, we know these 2020 numbers are not the full story of our team’s true carbon footprint. The methods we used to calculate our emissions were not set up to account for people working from home. As we shift toward a hybrid office model, the specifics of which are still TBD, we need to reevaluate how our data might more closely reflect actual energy consumption.

Similar to the way we have been collecting data from our team about personal commutes and business travel to track emissions, we will either need to keep track of where each of us do our work or determine a per-person average that we can apply to company emissions moving forward.

A free tool from Watershed was recently shared to help businesses calculate the impact of shifting from a work-from-home to a hybrid office, and it is a reminder of all the factors that contribute to our personal and work carbon footprint: watershedclimate.com/wfh-calculator

“Many people think the climate-conscious choice is to keep as much of the team working remotely for as long as possible,” reads an explanation on Watershed’s site . “The reality is more complicated. Remote work shifts carbon: Emissions from energy and food still exist, but at employees’ homes, where they may be better or worse than in the office.”

Future Factors

What we know at this point is that wherever we do our work in the future, we will be more intentional about how and where meetings take place. We will think more carefully about booking a flight, but it is likely that we will fly a few miles more next year than we did in 2020. And being together in a certain place may have benefits that justify the trip.

As Anna pointed out,

“It’s not just about our footprint, but our handprint, too.”

The kind of imprint we exchange, whether with communities or at conferences, has a net-positive human connection when our conversations and our work contribute to building resilient, sustainable, and empowered people, places, and processes.

Related Thoughts

• our 2019 impact report

Related Links

• Terrapass Carbon Footprint Calculator
• Hybrid Office Emissions Calculator
• EcoAct's Homeworking Emissions Whitepaper
• evolve office

Share this:

• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Category : Stations of Moscow Metro opened in 2020

Subcategories.

This category has the following 6 subcategories, out of 6 total.

• Aviamotornaya (Bolshaya Koltsevaya Line) ‎ (1 C, 28 F)
• Lefortovo (Moscow Metro) ‎ (2 C, 37 F)
• Nizhegorodskaya (Moscow Metro) ‎ (2 C, 39 F)
• Okskaya (Moscow Metro) ‎ (1 C, 16 F)
• Stakhanovskaya (Moscow Metro) ‎ (1 C, 14 F)
• Yugo-Vostochnaya (Moscow Metro) ‎ (1 C, 51 F)

• Stations of Moscow Metro opened in the 2020s
• Built in Moscow in 2020
• Railway stations opened in 2020

Navigation menu

First refuelling for Russia’s Akademik Lomonosov floating NPP

!{Model.Description}

The FNPP includes two KLT-40S reactor units. In such reactors, nuclear fuel is not replaced in the same way as in standard NPPs – partial replacement of fuel once every 12-18 months. Instead, once every few years the entire reactor core is replaced with and a full load of fresh fuel.

The KLT-40S reactor cores have a number of advantages compared with standard NPPs. For the first time, a cassette core was used, which made it possible to increase the fuel cycle to 3-3.5 years before refuelling, and also reduce by one and a half times the fuel component in the cost of the electricity produced. The operating experience of the FNPP provided the basis for the design of the new series of nuclear icebreaker reactors (series 22220). Currently, three such icebreakers have been launched.

The Akademik Lomonosov was connected to the power grid in December 2019, and put into commercial operation in May 2020.

Electricity generation from the FNPP at the end of 2023 amounted to 194 GWh. The population of Pevek is just over 4,000 people. However, the plant can potentially provide electricity to a city with a population of up to 100,000. The FNPP solved two problems. Firstly, it replaced the retiring capacities of the Bilibino Nuclear Power Plant, which has been operating since 1974, as well as the Chaunskaya Thermal Power Plant, which is more than 70 years old. It also supplies power to the main mining enterprises located in western Chukotka. In September, a 490 km 110 kilovolt power transmission line was put into operation connecting Pevek and Bilibino.

Image courtesy of TVEL

• Terms and conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Newsletter sign up
• Digital Edition
• Editorial Standards

Moscow Metro Font

Moscow Metro is a multi-line display typeface inspired by the Moscow underground map. It comes in Regular and Color versions.

Moscow Metro is ideal for posters and headlines, neon signage and other artworks.

• Share by email

Designed by: Nadira Filatova Website

License: free for commercial use.