Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to research the impact of sustainable office buildings on occupant's comfort and self-assessed performance and work engagement. Design/methodology/approach -The research consists in an empirical study of 18 office buildings and is based on survey data from almost 1,500 employees. Findings -The study shows that the building itself has a clear impact on the comfort level of the building user. Also, the positive impact of certain features, such as operable windows and the absence of air conditioning, can be clearly identified. While productivity is not directly correlated to comfort levels, work engagement is. Generally, the analysis shows that specific building aspects seem to have an influence on user comfort and with that, also an impact on productivity; however, this impact appears to be limited. Originality/value -This is a very important insight since this shows the connection between employee and company and thus demonstrates that a high user comfort can reduce the turnover rate of employees. Therefore, additional planning towards user comfort and social sustainability can be shown to yield real returns.

There is a growing interest in research dealing with energy performance gaps of buildings. Energy performance gaps are usually defined as the difference between energy demand as predicted during the planning phase and energy demand as measured during operation. It is assumed that the research strand, by reducing such gaps, contributes to the United Nations SDGs 7 (clean energy), 11 (sustainable cities) and 13 (climate action). However, in this conceptual article based on literature review we argue that blind spots in the current definition of energy performance gap research (embodied energy, gap between optimal and planned energy performance, greenhouse gas emissions, dynamic character) and weaknesses of frequently used scientific paradigms (techno-economic, psychological) may lead to the fact that the measures identified to eliminate energy-wasting and climate-damaging practices are of limited value. In fact, it is quite possible that conventional energy performance gap research even contributes to perpetuating such practices. The authors therefore call for a definition and paradigm shift in energy performance gap research, suggesting two broader definitions of the research subject (called life cycle energy performance gaps and climate performance gaps) and a promising alternative scientific paradigm (practice theory).

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract