A systematic review of the energy and climate impacts of teleworking

Abstract

Information and communication technologies (ICTs) increasingly enable employees to work from home and other locations (‘teleworking’). This study explores the extent to which teleworking reduces the need to travel to work and the consequent impacts on economy-wide energy consumption. The paper provides a systematic review of the current state of knowledge of the energy impacts of teleworking. This includes the energy savings from reduced commuter travel and the indirect impacts on energy consumption associated with changes in non-work travel and home energy consumption. The aim is to identify the conditions under which teleworking leads to a net reduction in economy-wide energy consumption, and the circumstances where benefits may be outweighed by unintended impacts. The paper synthesises the results of 39 empirical studies, identified through a comprehensive search of 9000 published articles. Twenty six of the 39 studies suggest that teleworking reduces energy use, and only eight studies suggest that teleworking increases, or has a neutral impact on energy use. However, differences in the methodology, scope and assumptions of the different studies make it difficult to estimate ‘average’ energy savings. The main source of savings is the reduced distance travelled for commuting, potentially with an additional contribution from lower office energy consumption. However, the more rigorous studies that include a wider range of impacts (e.g. non-work travel or home energy use) generally find smaller savings. Despite the generally positive verdict on teleworking as an energy-saving practice, there are numerous uncertainties and ambiguities about its actual or potential benefits. These relate to the extent to which teleworking may lead to unpredictable increases in non-work travel and home energy use that may outweigh the gains from reduced work travel. The available evidence suggests that economy-wide energy savings are typically modest, and in many circumstances could be negative or non-existent.

Does telecommuting save energy? A critical review of quantitative studies and their research methods

“…Table 9 summarizes some of the strengths and weaknesses of common research methods in the context of teleworking research. While the first three methods listed are common [45] , field studies are less so. By field study, we mean in-situ studies where researchers are in the field and taking assorted spot or long-term measurements (e.g., energy use, temperature, etc.).…”

“…This may be a result of the increasing study scope and/or emerging knowledge about rebound effects. In their recent review, Hook, Sovacool et al [45] discovered a related relationship: methodologies that they deemed to be poor tend more frequently predict a reduction of energy vs. those that they considered good or average.…”

Modelling net-zero emissions energy systems requires a change in approach

“…While energy efficiency is often represented to an extent, solutions that lead to avoiding energy service demand, or that shift to cleaner forms of demand provision, are often missing. This includes using less materials in industrial production through material efficiency, circular economies, and reduced consumption of goods (IEA, 2019), changing demand for mobility and/or using more efficient transport modes (Brand et al, 2018), lowering building energy demand through retrofitting to improve energy efficiency (Rosenow et al, 2018), and reducing the demand for energy services such as mobility by teleworking (Hook et al, 2020).…”

Economic Issues in Deep Low-Carbon Energy Systems

“…Considering the method itself, a first question relates to the energy demand projections, which are taken as the starting point to design an energy supply RM to meet them. At the aggregate level, future energy demand, say 35 years ahead, is highly uncertain: e.g., [137] in a detailed although not sufficiently publicized study, find that the technically feasible aggregated energy savings could reach up to 73% of current demand; on the other side, future communications and services could expand electricity demand significantly, an example being bitcoin-generated demand, and the lack of significant declines during the COVID lockdowns despite the massive drop of transport traffic [138].…”