Introduction
This blog explores the complex relationships between physical characteristics of the environment and its associated impact on health and well-being, satisfaction, productivity and cost issues. These insights can be used to assess work environments on these metrics and to identify appropriate interventions in value-adding management of buildings and facilities.
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”. As such, a healthy workplace can be defined as a workplace that contributes to the physical, mental and social well-being of its users. Health is the result of a complex interaction between the physiological, psychological, personal and organizational resources available to individuals.
The influence of the physical environment on health and well-being
The past decades show a growing awareness of the impact of the physical environment on peoples’ health and well-being, both in academic research and in professional publications. This may be because of the shift from a one-sided focus on cost reduction to a more holistic and integrated value-based approach and an optimal balance between costs and benefits of interventions in buildings, facilities and services.
Besides, people have become more aware of the impact of health and well-being on our quality of life and the risk of health complaints, illness or – in worst cases – burnout. The relationship between physical workplace characteristics and health and well-being has been explored by a variety of studies.
It appears that in particular a poor indoor climate, noise and distraction have a negative impact on employees’ health and well-being, whereas appropriate opportunities to communicate and to concentrate and contact with nature contribute to a healthy workplace. In a survey of 2,000 office workers, occupants reported preferences for lots of natural light, access to outdoor spaces, contemplation spaces, support from colleagues and private as well as collaborative spaces, whereas the main irritants were noise in open-plan areas, lack of natural light, lack of colour, lack of greenery, lack of artwork, lack of fresh air, no personal control of temperature, lack of privacy, clutter and inflexible space ( ref: British Council for Offices, 2018).
Another frequently assessed factor is office type. A literature review by Colenberg et al. (2020) on the relationship between interior office space (layout, furniture, light, greenery, controls and noise) and employees’ physical, psychological and social well-being showed that open-plan offices, shared rooms and higher background noise are negatively related to health. Positive relationships were found between physical well-being and aspects that encourage physical activity; between physical/psychological well-being and (day)light, individual control and real/artificial greenery; and between social well-being and small shared rooms.
Other influencing factors on health and well-being are important as well, such as the context (cultural, social, economic, political), personal characteristics (age, gender, lifestyle), organizational issues (leadership, personal support) and job characteristics (work load, (mis)fit between demands and resources). The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2014) warns for a disbalance between high job demands and available job resources. Too little time, too much work and tight deadlines are the most widely recognized risk factors, resulting in sleep disturbance, changes in mood, fatigue, headaches and stomach irritability.
Healthy workplaces and its influence on business
Healthy workplaces that support employees’ health and well-being can be a goal in itself, but may also bring about intended or unintended effects on other values, such as employee satisfaction, productivity, costs, corporate image and risk. Vice versa, values such as sustainability also contribute quantifiably to health and well-being initiatives at workplace.
For instance, green buildings are supposed to be healthier than non-green buildings, because of its focus on the 3 Ps – people, planet, and profit. Interrelationships between healthy workplaces and other values are much less studied. Thru this blog, we attempt to reduce this gap in the current knowledge, and to answer two research questions:
– What is the relationship between healthy workplaces and employee satisfaction, productivity and costs?
– And what evidence is available to establish these relationships?
These three values turned out to be most frequently prioritized in interviews with corporate real estate and facility managers (Van der Voordt and Jensen, 2014). It is hypothesized that health, satisfaction and productivity go hand in hand. Furthermore, because of the high staff costs compared to facility costs, it is hypothesized that health-supportive interventions are cost-effective.
Because of a limited number of available publications, we decided to select a number of leading journals in the field and to conduct a narrative review (Green et al., 2006; Ferrari, 2015). Thru our desk research, we identified four facilities management and corporate real estate management oriented journals in a 10-year period, covering 2008–2017: Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Corporate Real Estate Journal, Facilities and the Journal of Facilities Management. We also screened the last six volumes of Applied Ergonomics, Building and Environment, Building Research and Information, Environment and Behavior, Ergonomics, Intelligent Buildings International and Journal of Environmental Psychology on the keywords workplace, health, well-being, satisfaction, productivity and cost.
All papers from the screened journals that discuss health in connection to workplace characteristics and satisfaction, productivity and/or cost were included in this review. This has resulted in a selection of 45 papers on health and satisfaction and/or productivity. Because very few scientific papers related to facility cost were found, we have included relevant industry reports and other publications. Papers that discuss the relationship between the physical environment and either health, satisfaction, productivity or cost, without discussing any interrelationships between these variables, have been excluded.
Employee satisfaction
The synopsis of the research topics, methods and findings of eight papers that discuss relationships between physical characteristics of the built environment, health and satisfaction:- Five out of eight studies investigate the impact of office type and workspaces.
The other studies focus on environmental conditions, sense of coherence or green buildings. Open-plan seems to have a negative impact, which can be partly compensated by improved environmental conditions. High density and poor acoustics affect health and satisfaction in a negative way. The green building study showed mixed results. Personal characteristics make a difference as well. Employees with high need for concentration report more distraction in all office types, except in cell, and more cognitive stress in all office types except cell and flex-offices. People suffering from claustrophobia perceive stronger effects.
Labour productivity
The findings on relationships between health and well-being and labour productivity are summarized in four studies that focus on office type and workplace concept (open-plan, work pattern–office type fit, high-performance hub, variety of workplaces). Five studies investigated the impact of indoor air quality (IAQ) and related issues such as thermal comfort and look-and-feel. Four studies focus on sit-stand/adjustable workstations. The other studies show a variety of research topics, i.e. the influence of a healing office design concept, wind-inducing motion of tall buildings, green buildings, workplace safety, biophilia, plants and time spent in the office. The findings show significant positive impacts of IAQ, “green” buildings and sit–stand work on both health and productivity.
Satisfaction and productivity
The 17 studies on health, well-being, satisfaction and productivity include independent variables including office types, non-territorial workspaces, proximity, impact of break out areas, storage space, adopting the WELL criteria, indoor environmental quality (IEQ), shading conditions, sit–stand workstations and plants. Here, too, health, satisfaction and productivity are mainly discussed separately and less regarding possible correlations. In general, activity-based workplaces are perceived to have a positive impact on satisfaction, partly because of superior benefits of a managed IEQ standards, personal control, easiness of interaction and communication, availability of break out areas, windows, sit–stand workstations, comfort of furnishing, modern shading systems and applying to the WELL standard show to have a positive impact on both health and satisfaction, whereas distraction and lack of privacy are important predictors of productivity loss.
All presented studies on health in connection to satisfaction and/or productivity originate from Europe, USA, Australia and New Zealand.
Applied research methods to study health and satisfaction and/or productivity
The discussed papers on health and satisfaction and/or productivity show a variety of research designs and research methods. Ten studies conducted a before–after study; four studies used an experiment in a lab setting. About 80% of the presented studies used a questionnaire survey, some of them as part of a mixed-methods approach with interviews and observations, identifying healthy or unhealthy office design qualities, scores on the WELL standard and data about toxic substances in the air. Measuring physical conditions such as the heart rate or skin temperature is rather rare.
Discussion and conclusions
The discussed studies show that influence health and well-being, employee satisfaction and labour productivity, such as office type, proximity, density, IEQ of IAQ, furniture (ergonomics, sit–stand desks), plants and personal control. Some studies focus on specific building types such as certified green buildings, WELL-certified buildings and tall wind-excited building, specific building components such as shading systems or specific interior elements such as sit–stand desks and furniture comfort.
Overall, a healthy IAQ, opportunities for communication, concentration and privacy, availability of break-out rooms, an attractive look-and-feel, ergonomic furniture, contact with nature and plants go hand-in-hand with higher employee satisfaction and perceived productivity.
Overall, the data indicate a positive impact of healthy workplaces on the reduction of sickness absence.
Because of the impact of many interrelated variables, it is difficult to trace cause–effect relationships between characteristics of healthy work environments and support of other value dimensions.
On the one hand, taking care of healthy work environments is a matter of moral responsibility and has in general a positive effect on employee satisfaction and labour productivity and on society as a whole.
Source: The blog is based on a narrative review of journal papers and other sources covering the fields of building research, corporate real estate management, facilities management, environmental psychology and ergonomics.
Introduction
This blog explores the complex relationships between physical characteristics of the environment and its associated impact on health and well-being, satisfaction, productivity and cost issues. These insights can be used to assess work environments on these metrics and to identify appropriate interventions in value-adding management of buildings and facilities.
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”. As such, a healthy workplace can be defined as a workplace that contributes to the physical, mental and social well-being of its users. Health is the result of a complex interaction between the physiological, psychological, personal and organizational resources available to individuals.
The influence of the physical environment on health and well-being
The past decades show a growing awareness of the impact of the physical environment on peoples’ health and well-being, both in academic research and in professional publications. This may be because of the shift from a one-sided focus on cost reduction to a more holistic and integrated value-based approach and an optimal balance between costs and benefits of interventions in buildings, facilities and services.
Besides, people have become more aware of the impact of health and well-being on our quality of life and the risk of health complaints, illness or – in worst cases – burnout. The relationship between physical workplace characteristics and health and well-being has been explored by a variety of studies.
It appears that in particular a poor indoor climate, noise and distraction have a negative impact on employees’ health and well-being, whereas appropriate opportunities to communicate and to concentrate and contact with nature contribute to a healthy workplace. In a survey of 2,000 office workers, occupants reported preferences for lots of natural light, access to outdoor spaces, contemplation spaces, support from colleagues and private as well as collaborative spaces, whereas the main irritants were noise in open-plan areas, lack of natural light, lack of colour, lack of greenery, lack of artwork, lack of fresh air, no personal control of temperature, lack of privacy, clutter and inflexible space ( ref: British Council for Offices, 2018).
Another frequently assessed factor is office type. A literature review by Colenberg et al. (2020) on the relationship between interior office space (layout, furniture, light, greenery, controls and noise) and employees’ physical, psychological and social well-being showed that open-plan offices, shared rooms and higher background noise are negatively related to health. Positive relationships were found between physical well-being and aspects that encourage physical activity; between physical/psychological well-being and (day)light, individual control and real/artificial greenery; and between social well-being and small shared rooms.
Other influencing factors on health and well-being are important as well, such as the context (cultural, social, economic, political), personal characteristics (age, gender, lifestyle), organizational issues (leadership, personal support) and job characteristics (work load, (mis)fit between demands and resources). The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2014) warns for a disbalance between high job demands and available job resources. Too little time, too much work and tight deadlines are the most widely recognized risk factors, resulting in sleep disturbance, changes in mood, fatigue, headaches and stomach irritability.
Healthy workplaces and its influence on business
Healthy workplaces that support employees’ health and well-being can be a goal in itself, but may also bring about intended or unintended effects on other values, such as employee satisfaction, productivity, costs, corporate image and risk. Vice versa, values such as sustainability also contribute quantifiably to health and well-being initiatives at workplace.
For instance, green buildings are supposed to be healthier than non-green buildings, because of its focus on the 3 Ps – people, planet, and profit. Interrelationships between healthy workplaces and other values are much less studied. Thru this blog, we attempt to reduce this gap in the current knowledge, and to answer two research questions:
– What is the relationship between healthy workplaces and employee satisfaction, productivity and costs?
– And what evidence is available to establish these relationships?
These three values turned out to be most frequently prioritized in interviews with corporate real estate and facility managers (Van der Voordt and Jensen, 2014). It is hypothesized that health, satisfaction and productivity go hand in hand. Furthermore, because of the high staff costs compared to facility costs, it is hypothesized that health-supportive interventions are cost-effective.
Because of a limited number of available publications, we decided to select a number of leading journals in the field and to conduct a narrative review (Green et al., 2006; Ferrari, 2015). Thru our desk research, we identified four facilities management and corporate real estate management oriented journals in a 10-year period, covering 2008–2017: Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Corporate Real Estate Journal, Facilities and the Journal of Facilities Management. We also screened the last six volumes of Applied Ergonomics, Building and Environment, Building Research and Information, Environment and Behavior, Ergonomics, Intelligent Buildings International and Journal of Environmental Psychology on the keywords workplace, health, well-being, satisfaction, productivity and cost.
All papers from the screened journals that discuss health in connection to workplace characteristics and satisfaction, productivity and/or cost were included in this review. This has resulted in a selection of 45 papers on health and satisfaction and/or productivity. Because very few scientific papers related to facility cost were found, we have included relevant industry reports and other publications. Papers that discuss the relationship between the physical environment and either health, satisfaction, productivity or cost, without discussing any interrelationships between these variables, have been excluded.
Employee satisfaction
The synopsis of the research topics, methods and findings of eight papers that discuss relationships between physical characteristics of the built environment, health and satisfaction:- Five out of eight studies investigate the impact of office type and workspaces.
The other studies focus on environmental conditions, sense of coherence or green buildings. Open-plan seems to have a negative impact, which can be partly compensated by improved environmental conditions. High density and poor acoustics affect health and satisfaction in a negative way. The green building study showed mixed results. Personal characteristics make a difference as well. Employees with high need for concentration report more distraction in all office types, except in cell, and more cognitive stress in all office types except cell and flex-offices. People suffering from claustrophobia perceive stronger effects.
Labour productivity
The findings on relationships between health and well-being and labour productivity are summarized in four studies that focus on office type and workplace concept (open-plan, work pattern–office type fit, high-performance hub, variety of workplaces). Five studies investigated the impact of indoor air quality (IAQ) and related issues such as thermal comfort and look-and-feel. Four studies focus on sit-stand/adjustable workstations. The other studies show a variety of research topics, i.e. the influence of a healing office design concept, wind-inducing motion of tall buildings, green buildings, workplace safety, biophilia, plants and time spent in the office. The findings show significant positive impacts of IAQ, “green” buildings and sit–stand work on both health and productivity.
Satisfaction and productivity
The 17 studies on health, well-being, satisfaction and productivity include independent variables including office types, non-territorial workspaces, proximity, impact of break out areas, storage space, adopting the WELL criteria, indoor environmental quality (IEQ), shading conditions, sit–stand workstations and plants. Here, too, health, satisfaction and productivity are mainly discussed separately and less regarding possible correlations. In general, activity-based workplaces are perceived to have a positive impact on satisfaction, partly because of superior benefits of a managed IEQ standards, personal control, easiness of interaction and communication, availability of break out areas, windows, sit–stand workstations, comfort of furnishing, modern shading systems and applying to the WELL standard show to have a positive impact on both health and satisfaction, whereas distraction and lack of privacy are important predictors of productivity loss.
All presented studies on health in connection to satisfaction and/or productivity originate from Europe, USA, Australia and New Zealand.
Applied research methods to study health and satisfaction and/or productivity
The discussed papers on health and satisfaction and/or productivity show a variety of research designs and research methods. Ten studies conducted a before–after study; four studies used an experiment in a lab setting. About 80% of the presented studies used a questionnaire survey, some of them as part of a mixed-methods approach with interviews and observations, identifying healthy or unhealthy office design qualities, scores on the WELL standard and data about toxic substances in the air. Measuring physical conditions such as the heart rate or skin temperature is rather rare.
Discussion and conclusions
The discussed studies show that influence health and well-being, employee satisfaction and labour productivity, such as office type, proximity, density, IEQ of IAQ, furniture (ergonomics, sit–stand desks), plants and personal control. Some studies focus on specific building types such as certified green buildings, WELL-certified buildings and tall wind-excited building, specific building components such as shading systems or specific interior elements such as sit–stand desks and furniture comfort.
Overall, a healthy IAQ, opportunities for communication, concentration and privacy, availability of break-out rooms, an attractive look-and-feel, ergonomic furniture, contact with nature and plants go hand-in-hand with higher employee satisfaction and perceived productivity.
Overall, the data indicate a positive impact of healthy workplaces on the reduction of sickness absence.
Because of the impact of many interrelated variables, it is difficult to trace cause–effect relationships between characteristics of healthy work environments and support of other value dimensions.
On the one hand, taking care of healthy work environments is a matter of moral responsibility and has in general a positive effect on employee satisfaction and labour productivity and on society as a whole.
Source: The blog is based on a narrative review of journal papers and other sources covering the fields of building research, corporate real estate management, facilities management, environmental psychology and ergonomics
Platform
Resources
Company
Contact us
Feel free to contact us !
Copyright © 2024-2025 Caleedo | Powered By PAS Digital
