To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
As the hot weather returns this week, tackling the
climate emergency should be high on everyone’s agenda. But
should employers give greater weight to the environment when
deciding whether to say yes or no to an employee’s request to
do their job remotely?,
One of the legacies of the covid-19 pandemic is that remote
working has become normal. Workers in the so-called knowledge
economy are now commonly working remotely on a hybrid or fully
remote basis, sometimes moving out of cities in search of a new
lifestyle.
Employees are increasingly asking to work remotely from overseas
locations, either for a few weeks at the end of a holiday or for a
longer spell, perhaps even under a digital nomad visa. At the same
time, environmental issues are becoming more important to
businesses.
The need to address climate change by reducing our carbon
emissions is urgent. Some employers are beginning to calculate
their carbon emissions and, in time, more employers are expected to
focus on slashing them.
What happens if these two trends – remote working and
carbon reduction – start to compete with each other?
Carbon emissions
When deciding whether to grant an employee’s
remote-working request, employers tend to focus mainly on
feasibility: Will the request impact the employee’s
performance? Can service levels be maintained? Does the employee
have a suitable working space and facilities to work remotely? Will
there be immigration, tax, employment law or social security issues
if the employee wants to work remotely from overseas?
The climate, however, does not generally come into the equation.
Employers do not tend to evaluate the environmental impact of
requests to work remotely or assume it to be neutral if not
beneficial compared with office commuting. It is hard to do so
anyway, but maybe the climate should be more of a factor in
decisions about flexible working.
Some remote-working requests, if granted, may lead to reduced
carbon emissions. The obvious example relates to the emissions
generated by the employee’s commute. They come within the
employer’s “scope 3” (indirect) carbon emissions
and there is
technical guidance on how to quantify them. Employees can
save emissions from commuting if they are working from home or
working a reduced working week.
Even greater carbon savings can be achieved if the office
shrinks or closes as employees work from home. The campaign for a
four-day week has argued that shifting to a four-day working week
without loss of pay
could shrink the UK’s carbon footprint by more than the
entire carbon footprint of Switzerland.
Some arrangements might even lead to more specific environmental
benefits where, for example, an employee is planning to move to a
more sustainable home and way of life and the remote-working
arrangement is part of that overall plan.
By contrast, some remote-working arrangements may increase
carbon emissions. In general terms, homeworking results in a
smaller carbon footprint, but the picture is much more complicated
when looked at on an individual level.
Depending upon factors such as their domestic energy source and
consumption, the energy efficiency of the office and the time of
year, employees may increase their employer’s scope 3
emissions by working from home. That’s why, for
example,
it would be better if city-dwelling German workers came to the
office during winter and their Spanish counterparts did so in
summer.
The picture becomes even more complicated if we look at requests
to work remotely from an overseas location. For example, a round
trip to Barbados (one of the first countries to launch a digital
nomad visa) involves nearly
800 kgs of CO2, and that is before taking into account any
emissions caused by air conditioning in the building where the
employee plans to work.
Weighing the merits
Arguably, employers should perhaps be more aware of the specific
climate impact of any remote-working request. But what, then, about
the legal position? Can an employer legally take climate impact
into account when weighing up the merits of a remote-working
request?
If an employee asks for remote working under the statutory
“right to request flexible working” regime, employers
can only say no based on one of eight specific grounds such as
additional cost or impact on performance. None of the eight grounds
obviously relates to the environment. That is not to say that
employers cannot take the environment into account, however.
First, it’s arguable that concepts such as
“cost” or “performance” can stretch to
include environmental costs or performance. Second, the penalties
for infringing the flexible-working regime are very low (up to
eight weeks’ pay). Third, many requests to work remotely are
made outside of the statutory flexible working framework,
especially requests to work temporarily overseas.
Policies that involve rejecting remote requests on environmental
grounds might indirectly discriminate against certain protected
groups (it’s arguable that overseas nationals are more likely
to ask to work remotely from overseas) but may be justified –
and there’s no reason why the environment could not be part
of that objective justification. For employers who are prepared to
be bold, therefore, there is scope for taking greater account of
environmental factors when weighing up remote-working requests.
That said, a greater focus on the environmental impact of
remote-working requests has the potential to cause conflict and
resentment. Various studies show that employees, in general, are
demanding greater action on the climate emergency, but many are
also relishing the new remote-working possibilities thrown up by
the pandemic. Are employees ready for climate-motivated pushback on
their remote-working requests? Or will they strongly resist
that?
In many sectors, there is a recognised shortage of talent as a
result of Brexit, covid, and other factors, so some employers will
be wary of pushing back too hard. This perhaps is where compromises
may have a role to play – you can work remotely for parts of
the year or on the condition you power your home with sustainable
or green energy?
If businesses start evaluating the environmental impact of
remote-working requests, will this cause disgruntled employees to
ask questions about other scope 3 emissions – for example
your approach to business flights or the commuting habits of your
senior management team?
Some employers may struggle with the resources and expertise to
measure remote-working emissions impacts, although tools are
increasingly available. Perhaps employers will be best able to
weather these storms if they have a clear and cohesive
environmental strategy.
For now, we’d advocate greater awareness and discussion
about the environmental impact of remote working so more informed
requests and decisions can be made. In time, we can expect to see
more employers taking a policy stance that puts the environment
into the equation where it was missing before.
Originally Published by International Employment
Lawyer.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
