Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
absenteeism. Even more worrying are the suggestions that the office environment
can cause irritation of the eyes, nose, throat and skin. Although some of these
symptoms sound like the side effects of spending an evening in the pub, or too
long in the swimming pool, they are distinguished by being prevalent among the
workforce of some office buildings and not of others. In fact, the symptoms usually
disappear after a few hours of leaving the 'affected' building. This type of condition
is commonly referred to as
sick building syndrome
(SBS) and it clearly leads to
an inefficient use of human resources. It is important to remember that ultimately
buildings are 'machines for working in' and investment in green construction should
also result in a more efficient working environment.
An interesting example of a highly integrated green building is the Rocky
Mountain Institute in western Colorado. Here it is claimed that the staff that work
in the building are productive, alert and cheerful all day - without getting sleepy
or irritable. Weizsäcker (1998: 13) attributes the high rate of productivity to
'the natural light, the healthier indoor air, the low air temperature, high radiant
temperature and high humidity (far healthier than hot, dry air); the sound of the
waterfall (tuned approximately to the brain's alpha rhythm to be more restful);
the lack of mechanical noise, because there are no mechanical systems; the virtual
absence of electromagnetic fields; ...the green plants'.
Occasional days of sick leave mean that employees are being paid but not in
return for any productivity. Equally worrying, and damaging to overall productivity,
is the situation where employees do attend work but spend a part of each day
complaining about their working environment - and ultimately they might be so fed
up that they decide to look for another job. This clearly all adds up to a waste of
resources.
The annual cost of absenteeism from the workplace has received little attention
from economists but it was suggested in 2007 that 15 member states of the EU (with
a population of 375 million) could significantly increase productivity by making
indoor office environments more healthy and comfortable. The report estimated
that this could produce a return of up to 240 billion euro per year (EU 2007: 8).
This figure, however, does not specifically account for the effects of sick building
syndrome. As the following calculation suggests, this is a significant omission.
According to a survey (Hedges and Wilson 1987) involving employees working
across 46 office buildings of varied age, type and quality the incidence of sick
building syndrome is quite widespread. Participants of the survey were asked how
much they thought the physical conditions of the office influenced their productivity.
The majority thought that their productivity was affected by at least 20 per cent.
This is the equivalent of taking one day off in five. Worker self-evaluation, however,
may be subject to exaggeration. But even if we take a reduced figure of 10 per cent,
this would still represent a significant cost. For example, if we assume that £20,000
is the average office salary, then an organisation employing 1,000 people could be
losing in the region of two million pounds each year. (The calculation is simple: a
10 per cent SBS effect on lost productivity represents £2,000 per employee per
year, multiplied by 1000 gives a potential loss of £2,000,000.) Arguably, these
figures are a worst-case scenario, and not everyone is equally affected by SBS - the
