Teleworking, CO2 and ecology: can it help the climate? Study

[Christophe]

Telework, when it is possible, is an interesting way, according to me (but not for all, see remark ps:), reduce its ecological impact. A recent study has evaluated the benefits of teleworking and they are not only environmentally friendly! The economy also wins and not only a little!

So telecommuting, a concrete econological application?

I say yes!

The merit of this Workshifting Benefits: The Bottom Line study, written by the Telework Research Network on behalf of Citrix, is to highlight the benefits of telework for employees, for businesses and for society as a whole.

Studies have already looked at the benefits of teleworking for the carbon footprint.

But the Citrix study reviews several other areas for which it figures the profits that would be generated in the United States by a shift to telecommuting at 50% of the time. For example :

* 27% increase in productivity for employees
* reduction of absenteeism 3,7 days / year
* 362 saving $ / year / telecommuter on fuel
* between 1 962 and 6 808 $ / year / telecommuter work-related expenses (clothing, vehicle, meals, parking, etc.) saved by reducing time spent in the company
* 17% reduction in CO2 emissions compared to 2005 emissions
* 23 billion / year reduction in oil import expenditures
* 95 000 injured and dead avoided in traffic accidents ...

Possible savings achievable in 3 categories.

* for employers: productivity, real estate and associated costs, employee turnover, absenteeism
* for employees: fuel, work-related expenses, time
* for the community: oil, greenhouse gases, accidents, highway maintenance.

Awesome, no? But what are we waiting for to be happy?

Download the study: Workshifting Benefits: The Bottom Line: Download the study (PDF, 2,3 Mo)

Source: http://www.zevillage.net/2010/11/les-be ... une-etude/

Other more complete article of the same site (extract):

Teleworking is much more than just a mechanical reduction of energy compared to office activity. The real effects will be felt when we question the current organization of work: reducing the carbon footprint, improving the balance of life and radically transforming our efficiency at work.

In recent years, the awareness of the impact of human activities on the balance of the planet is very real. This concern is particularly important for climate change related to the increase in the greenhouse effect.

While our Western economies have strongly shifted to tertiary activities, CO2 emissions have only decreased by 5,6% between 1990 and 2007. Transport emissions are up by 19% and accounted for 27% of the total in 2007. Those of the residential-tertiary sector increased by 6%.

These increases were offset by lower industrial and agricultural emissions. The long-term goal set by 2005's Energy Orientation Law is to divide 4's 1990 emissions by 2050 by 20. Europe is committed to reducing its 2020% emissions by the XNUMX horizon.
Telework Helps Reduce Ecological Footprint

The question that arises is: is telework an effective lever for achieving the objectives in the 2020 and 2050 horizons?

We will try to make an accessible synthesis on the subject using as two main sources:

* the study conducted by Jean-Marc Jancovici in 2001 which has always remained in the status of provisional document; http://www.manicore.com/documentation/t ... these.html

* The Green Paper on Sustainable Development (volume 2) Vision and recommendations on Green IT and Sustainable Development - Telecommuting at the service of sustainable development by Syntec;
http://www.zevillage.net/2010/01/livre- ... ormatique/

Our economy has become deeply dematerialized with the rapid development of computers and the Internet, but the organization of work has hardly changed: employees always say: "I go to the office" as they went to the factory yesterday to transform matter.

Suite and source: http://www.zevillage.net/2010/10/lecon- ... a-planete/


Teleworking on econology has been rarely mentioned:
https://www.econologie.com/le-teletrava ... -3786.html
https://www.econologie.com/grippe-a-et- ... -4137.html
-h1n1-flu-will-boost-telework-t8217.html

ps: it's funny how studies change and evolve (in a good way! so much the better), I remember a British study (misleading?) from a few years ago which claimed that working at home was much worse than going to the office because you had to continue to "heat your house" ... it is well known that offices are not heated. Really anything! But some believed it ...

[Christophe]

"Why the" soft revolution "of teleworking is not taking"

Teleworking today seems a very good solution to many everyday problems. Working at home, we avoid the stress of traffic jams, bickering with colleagues, or the time of school leaving, a considerable gain in quality of life. In a context of rising energy prices, this also limits travel and, for companies, to make considerable savings on offices (rental, heating). And yet, few employees today work on a regular basis. Why also little enthusiasm? An article published in ParisTech Review offers some elements of answer ("Why the" soft revolution "of teleworking does not take".)

This revolutionary idea of ​​working remotely returns, according to the author, to Jack Nilles. At the beginning of the 70 years, this "former telecommunications engineer at NASA", thought that "telecommuting" had so many advantages that it would probably become the norm in the future. Not without humor, the author quotes Jon Andrews, consultant at PricewaterwouseCooper, it was "a bit like when, child, you imagine that we would all work in a flying car".

Utopia? According to the article, it is rather blockages of social nature. On the side of the company, the organization of work is upset. The teams are scattered and much more difficult to manage. Group dynamics, created by the proximity and sharing of offices, can no longer be formed. From that of employees, working remotely is not always a sinecure. Beyond the loss of a place of sociability, some are afraid of being excluded from promotions or even pushing their company to outsourcing, being absent. Indeed, if institutionalized teleworking does not "take", the phenomenon of distance work is indeed growing, encouraged by the relocation of services or the increase of executive mobility.

The article raises an interesting point: there is a growing dissociation between work and the workplace. It is possible to work everywhere, all the time, thanks to the new technologies of information and telecommunications. Therefore, it is a balance between professional and personal life that is to rebuild the risk of losing all the benefits of teleworking.

Source: http://www.theshiftproject.org/cet-arti ... -prend-pas

The ParisTech article: http://www.paristechreview.com/2011/03/ ... prend-pas/

[Christophe]

[Christophe]

The covid crisis is helping the climate:

Covid-19: Teleworking is now mandatory under penalty of sanction for companies

On October 29, at a press conference, the Minister of Labor Élisabeth Borne raised the tone: "Teleworking is not an option", she declared. All employees whose tasks can be performed remotely will now have to telework 100% under penalty of sanctions for employers. An obligation that does not pass on the side of the Confederation of SMEs.

The tone has changed on the side of the Executive. While on the evening of October 28, the Head of State announced a generalized reconfinement in France, with some relaxations concerning in particular the opening of schools, the vagueness reigned as to the conditions of teleworking. Because, until now, the Minister of Labor, Élisabeth Borne, evoked a practice "widely recommended" but not compulsory. On October 29, during the press conference of Prime Minister Jean Castex, the announcement was clear: "Teleworking is not an option. This obligation will be included in the new version of the national company protocol".

This new protocol therefore provides for 100% teleworking for all employees who can perform their tasks remotely. "In other cases, the organization of work must make it possible to reduce as much as possible home-work trips and the time spent in the company for the performance of tasks that cannot be carried out by teleworking", adds the text.

"Controls and sanctions"

For activities that cannot be carried out by teleworking, "the employer systematically organizes a smoothing of the employee's departure and arrival times in order to limit the number of people at peak times", according to the protocol. These include businesses that remain open, construction, agriculture or "all home workers". For the latter case, "it will be necessary to have a certificate from the employer".

Government spokesman Gabriel Attal explained to RTL's microphone that in the event of breaches, there would be "checks and sanctions" civil and criminal. "The employer has in the labor code an obligation to protect employees," recalls the Minister of Labor. An injunction that does not pass on the side of business federations.

Obstacles to the generalization of teleworking

"It's unbearable […] Within your company, you must protect [the employee, editor's note], and at home, you have to pamper him so that he does not suffer from isolation", denounces in Le Parisien, the President of the Confederation of SMEs, François Asselin. "Once again, business leaders will have to make do with this additional obligation that weighs on them. I am not saying that we should not take care of our employees but the fact of registering it as an obligation for us. exposes even more, ”he regrets.

According to a survey by Dares, the statistics service of the Ministry of Labor, at the end of September, only 12% of employees were teleworking against 70% on site. 3% were subject to partial unemployment and 15% on leave or on leave.

And this should continue after the crisis! So much the better!

society-and-philosophy / well-organizing-one's-teletorking-for-those-who-can-t16351.html

[Christophe]

This article which dates from December 4, 2019 shows how much the covid has been a doping agent for our societies and habits !!

[Exnihiloest]

Telework, when it is possible, is an interesting way, according to me (but not for all, see remark ps:), to reduce its ecological impact.

At the cost of a lot of collateral damage, we can see it today.

[Christophe]

What damage please? Cite me damage exclusively due to teleworking? So outside the health context?

Then look at the date, I was writing this 10 years ago minus 1 day exactly ... So who is the most visionary? BHL or me?

[Rajqawee]

What damage please? Cite me damage exclusively due to teleworking? So outside the health context?

Then look at the date, I was writing this 10 years ago minus 1 day exactly ... So who is the most visionary? BHL or me?

BHL. For the choice of open shirts. You can't test Christophe.

[Christophe]

It's a question ?