| Abstract | "Better buildings" are intended to improve employee well-being and other important organizational productivity metrics, but such effects have been notoriously difficult to quantify convincingly. This paper uses new, multi-metric approaches to develop a framework for valuing these effects. The organizational productivity metrics considered are: absenteeism, employee turnover intent, self-assessed performance, job satisfaction, health and well-being, and complaints to the facilities manager. The effects of several ways of improving building design and operation (improved ventilation, enhanced lighting conditions, green building certification measures) are compared to the effects of other corporate strategies also employed with the intent of influencing employees to improve organizational productivity: office type (private vs open-plan), workplace health programs, bonuses, and flexible work options. Results were derived from a broad search and synthesis of published information from several disciplines: business, medicine, psychology, engineering, and facilities management. The scope was limited to studies conducted in real organizations in large office buildings, with a geographic focus on studies from North America, Europe, and Australia/New Zealand. In summary, better buildings strategies provided benefits on multiple organizational productivity metrics at levels similar to other corporate strategies. This supports greater consideration being given to better buildings strategies to improve organizational productivity beyond energy savings. In this paper, and for want of more primary research, the ‘better buildings’ category blends the effects of different improvements; this synthesis is proposed as a starting point to encourage more buildings research in this context, allowing future differentiation of the effects of specific interventions. |
|---|
