The pandemic sparked a major shift in how we work, with over 40% of U.S. employees going remote at its peak.

Today, while many have returned to the office, 13% still work entirely from home, and another 28% follow a hybrid schedule. This shift has fueled debates on the viability of remote work, often focusing on direct impacts like commuting and productivity.

Yet, one critical aspect frequently overlooked is the effect of remote work on greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). While it might seem that working from home reduces emissions, the reality isn't so clear-cut. Understanding this impact is essential for businesses committed to sustainability and ESG goals.

Breaking Down Emissions: Remote Work vs. Office Life
The emissions impact of remote work has sparked much debate. Advocates highlight reduced transportation emissions from less commuting, suggesting a smaller carbon footprint for individuals working from home.

But it’s not so simple. Some aspects of WFH can actually increase emissions. For instance, corporate offices, especially those designed with sustainability in mind, often operate more efficiently than individual home offices. In many cases, powering numerous homes is less energy-efficient than a centralized, well-managed office space.

This is especially true for LEED-certified buildings, which are designed to exceed standard energy codes. LEED O+M-certified buildings, in particular, prioritize efficiency and outperform facilities of similar size and age. For older buildings, O+M certification provides a roadmap to improve energy performance.

So, which is better—remote work or the office? The truth is it depends. The emissions impact varies for each company, and only a comprehensive emissions inventory can reveal the full picture.

Calculating Employee Emissions
To evaluate the sustainability of remote work, emissions must be assessed on a per-employee basis, categorized into Scope 1, 2, and 3. Scope 1 includes direct emissions generated on-site, such as fuel burned for heating or by company-owned vehicles. Scope 2 covers emissions from purchased energy like electricity and water. Scope 3 involves indirect emissions, such as those from employee commuting, purchased goods and services, and the sales process. To simplify the comparison, the focus is often on three primary areas of emissions:

1.  Commuting Emissions: The Transportation Factor

WFH often reduces emissions by eliminating daily commutes, which for the average U.S. worker is about 40 miles round trip. Driving gasoline-powered vehicles without carpooling contributes significantly to emissions, while alternatives like public transportation, biking, or EVs can lower this footprint.

To truly gauge the impact, companies would need to track employee commuting patterns—vehicle type, distance, and frequency. Without precise data, averages indicate commuting accounts for 10–15% of a company’s Scope 3 emissions. While WFH cuts this category, it doesn’t erase emissions entirely, as employees often drive locally for errands during work-from-home days.

2.  Office Emissions: The Corporate Carbon Footprint

Office emissions primarily fall under Scope 1 and 2, stemming from energy use for heating, cooling, lighting, and other systems. Modern, energy-efficient buildings, especially those with upgrades like solar panels or new HVAC systems, tend to have a lower footprint.

Even unoccupied offices produce emissions. Ventilation systems, emergency lights, and heating to prevent frozen pipes all contribute, even with energy-saving measures in place. Whether the office is full or empty, operational emissions persist.

3.  Home Emissions: The Cost of Remote Work

Remote work shifts some emissions from the office to employees’ homes. If a home is usually unoccupied during the day, WFH likely increases energy use for lighting, heating, cooling, and devices. During the pandemic, residential power demand rose 20–30% during working hours.

Individual habits and home office setups significantly affect emissions. Ignoring these added costs distorts the sustainability argument. Only detailed reporting can determine if savings from reduced commutes outweigh increased home energy use.

A Custom Approach to Understanding Emissions

As workplaces continue to evolve, so does their environmental impact. The emissions footprint of remote work versus office setups varies widely, making it essential to analyze each company’s unique situation. A thorough evaluation of key factors is crucial to understanding and optimizing your sustainability efforts.

Laura Steinbrink and Emerald Built Environments, a Crete United Company, help teams identify whole system visions for sustainability that create practical success for stakeholders. They use keen facilitation skills to move clients and project teams through difficult decisions by pinpointing what matters and exploring team knowledge for innovative solutions. Laura has directly participated in over 50 LEED projects nationwide, including BD+C, ID+C, O+M, C+C, ND, and Homes. She is the firm’s founder and managing member and continues to work with clients, helping them set and achieve sustainability goals and strategies. Recently, she's been busy leading the firm's E in ESG practice area, which supports sustainability strategy development, stakeholder engagement, GHG emissions reporting, and compliance frameworks, including TCFD and GRESB for large privately held companies.