UK report on national SUSTEL fieldwork. Dr. Peter Hopkinson, University of Bradford Professor Peter James, SustainIT

SUSTEL IST 2001-33228 Sustainable Telework Assessing and Optimising the Ecological and Social Benefits of Teleworking www.sustel.org UK report on national SUSTEL fieldwork Dr. Peter Hopkinson, University of Bradford Professor Peter James, SustainIT p.g.hopkinson@bradford.ac.uk peterj@dsl.pipex.com Report Version: 1 Report Preparation Date: February 2003 Classification: FP5 Contract Start Date: 1/1/2002 Duration: 24 months Project Co-ordinator: UK CEED Partners: Avanzi (Italy), (UK), Danish Technological Institute, Empirica (Germany), Telewerk Forum (Netherlands), University of Bradford (UK) Project funded by the European Community under the Information Society Technology Programme (1998-2002) UK report on national SUSTEL fieldwork 1

Table of content: 1: Introduction...3 2: SUSTEL and national fieldwork...5 2.1: Fieldwork in the country...5 3: Fieldwork results...8 3.1: Executive summary - highlights...8 3.2: Social and personal impacts of teleworking...9 3.3: Economic impacts of teleworking...16 3.4: Environmental impacts of teleworking...22 3.5: Use of information and communication technologies...26 4: Implications of fieldwork culture, policy and RTD...28 4.1: Culture and labour market...28 4.2: Inputs for Policy and RTD recommendations...29 5: General conclusions of the fieldwork...30 Table 30 Conclusions for Key Research Questions from the Fieldwork...33 UK report on national SUSTEL fieldwork 2

1: Introduction Telework in the UK has evolved through several stages. The first organisation to seriously experiment with it was (one of the six UK case studies), in the early 1990s. The UK cases demonstrate that there are many different drivers of teleworking in the UK: Difficult and expensive travel conditions especially in and around London - as a result of large cities with high population densities and an over-crowded and under-resourced transport system. Avoiding travel can therefore create significant savings of both money and time, and greatly reduce levels of stress. High property costs especially in and around London as a result of expensive land and high construction costs. Freeing up office space can therefore result in major financial savings. High housing prices which are making it difficult for first time buyers and those on lower salaries to afford housing in certain locations. Teleworking offers an opportunity to live in lower cost areas whilst working for organisations located in higher priced areas Policy pressures to minimise transport, partly in order to relieve congestion but also to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and pollutants. One manifestation of this pressure is the requirement that all major employers have a travel plan which details the measures they are taking to reduce travel by their staff both to and from, and for, work. Competitive pressures and business efficiency. De-regulation, privatisation and policies aimed at modernisation of public services are increasing pressure for business efficiency. Technology and teleworking are seen by some as a means to increase efficiency Policy and employee pressures for more flexible working conditions. Behind this demand lies relatively poor provision of child care, and longer working hours, in the UK compared to other north European countries. Some areas with full employment and/or high house prices have labour shortages which teleworking can help to overcome. The UK also has several important enablers of teleworking, including: High levels of ICT awareness and use. Home ownership of PCs is one of the highest in the world, and is well above the European average for usage of the Internet, residential access to high speed telecommunications and other indicators. Business support tools such as workflow software provide organisations with an ability to closely monitor business processes and outputs thereby overcoming some of the problems of remote management. UK report on national SUSTEL fieldwork 3

Initiatives such as the Work-Life Balance standard and Investors in People are helping to create a framework which is broadly supportive of work styles such as teleworking Grant-aid. There are various public funds which are available to public bodies which can be used to pilot and experiment with teleworking. Wider diffusion of mobile phones, and telephone systems which offer seamless callfollowing and directing, are providing organisations with an ability to allow teleworking without adversely affecting external facing communication with clients, customers and colleagues. Improved internet security is providing employers with greater trust and confidence in allowing employees remote access to intranets. Falling prices and improved quality of video and web based conferencing technologies is offering organisations new information rich conferencing systems which help to overcome some of the perceived barriers of teleworking. UK report on national SUSTEL fieldwork 4

2: SUSTEL and national fieldwork SUSTEL is an international project on the social, economic and environmental consequences of telework. This is integrative in the sense that it builds upon some of the knowledge created in other telework projects, but on the other hand it addresses all aspects social, economic and environmental. The SUSTEL project started in January 2002 with a conceptual framework that presented the current status of knowledge within the field of teleworking, and highlighted the areas where new information were needed in order to fill out the gaps. In the autumn of 2002 30 case studies and a 6 surveys were conducted in Italy, United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark. This was done both in order to help answer some outstanding research issues about the relationship between teleworking and sustainable development, and to provide material for the business-focused tools and materials which will be produced during the second year of the SUSTEL project. The cases and survey were structured around 27 key research questions that were identified in the SUSTEL conceptual paper (summarised in table 30, and indicated in the text by the designation RQ). This report presents the UK fieldwork six case studies and two surveys conducted at and - within the broader national context. It follows a common template used by all the partner countries. An overview of all the SUSTEL fieldwork can be obtained from www.sustel.org. 2.1: Fieldwork in the country 2.1.1: s The SUSTEL project requirement was for six cases to be done in each partner country. Each of these cases involved an organisation with substantial experience of teleworking. It was also required that at least one case be undertaken on each of an SME, a telecommunications company and a public sector organisation, and that a case also be undertaken on the organisation which was hosting the SUSTEL survey. Table 1 summarises the key features of the six UK cases. Table 1 The UK s Heathrow Bradford MDC Reason for inclusion An SME case. A small budget-strapped NGO which has introduced teleworking in order to retain two staff. Telework style = Full time home working. The section of which administers important aspects of London s Heathrow airport, one of the largest in the world. The second UK survey host. An example of ad hoc teleworking in a large organisation which has no formal policies for it. Telework style = supplementary. A SUSTEL project partner and the UK survey host. Well known both in Britain and internationally as the UK organisation with the longest history of teleworking, and the largest number of teleworkers. Also has a wide variety of teleworkers although the case focuses on the mobile workers who are registered with s workabout scheme. Telework style Home, Alternating and Mobile. A local authority which has introduced a pilot teleworking scheme for its housing benefit staff, primarily to improve staff absenteeism, recruitment UK report on national SUSTEL fieldwork 5

East Midlands Electricity Word Association and retention. Telework style = Fully home based. An electricity distribution company in the English Midlands with a large proportion of teleworkers at its head office. Telework style = Fully/alternating. An SME case. A web design and Internet services organisation which has given up a central office. Telework style = Fully home based. The cases represent varying degrees of success: Three (, Bradford and Word Association) have been extremely successful in meeting their objectives Three (, and EME) have been broadly successful, but experienced some problems. The reliability of the information about teleworking practices and outcomes which has been presented in the cases has been ensured by: Careful examination of a number of internal documents, including survey information Interviews with a variety of staff (4-5 minimum) in different areas in order to get a rounded view Crosschecking against survey information generated by the authors at, and EME. However, organisational life is complex and it is always difficult to establish unambiguous relationships between inputs such as teleworking and outputs such as improved performance or enhanced personal well-being by teleworkers. The table presents some salient points about this relationship at the case companies which should be taken into account when reading the following pages. Table 2 Teleworking and Outcomes in the UK s Heathrow Bradford MDC East Midlands Relationship Between Teleworking and Outcomes The small number of staff involved (2), and the care taken to introduce and manage teleworking, means that causality is highly probable. The absence of a centralised teleworking initiative and the dynamic nature of as an organisation and the competitive pressures which lie behind this creates difficulties in definitely establishing causality although the existence of the survey evidence overcomes some of the problems. The existence of a well-defined group of teleworkers, and the depth and longitudinal reach of survey and other information about them, provides solid evidence. However, the dynamic nature of as an organisation and the competitive pressures which lie behind this mean that there are many other drivers of change. Causal relationships are probable but usually difficult to prove absolutely. The small numbers of staff involved, the facility for detailed measurement of output, and the careful monitoring of outcomes, mean that causality is well proven. However, teleworking has only recently been established so further changes may occur over time. A similarly dynamic situation to and, compounded by less abundant UK report on national SUSTEL fieldwork 6

Electricity Word Association or reliable information. Hard therefore to establish causality. Teleworking is a central feature of how the company operates and is therefore carefully analysed and monitored. Causality is well proven. In addition, six cases and two surveys cannot be representative of an entire country. However, the cumulative picture they describe does build the knowledge base about teleworking in the UK and provide empirical evidence on some topics where it has been lacking. We also feel that many of the practices and outcomes described in the cases, and explored in the survey, are of broader relevance an opinion confirmed by the level of interest in preliminary outputs by other organisations and the UK media. 2.1.2: Survey The main UK survey was conducted at. The company is one of Europe's leading providers of telecommunications services and has around 108,000 employees. The company began implementing telework schemes in 1990 and now probably has the largest number of teleworkers of any UK organisation. Over 5000 of these are registered with the focus of this study, the workabout scheme. This voluntary scheme provides equipment and other support to teleworkers who are giving up a permanent office space to move to a home-based, mobile working pattern. The SUSTEL survey at builds on, and replicates some of the questions from, previous surveys of new registrants to workabout. The questionnaire was confidential, and hosted on a secure third party server. A request to complete the questionnaire was emailed by workabout staff to the 814 recipients in October 2002. By the closing date a total valid response of 199 had been received, providing a response rate of 24%. A second survey was also undertaken at. Questionnaires were sent out to 34 employees in the Planning and Environment section of its Heathrow unit. The staff are all located on the third floor of the West Point office building. A total valid response of 20 was received, providing a response rate of 59%. As the number of responses was relatively small findings are sometimes reported as absolute numbers rather than percentages in the following discussion. 2.1.3: Typology of teleworkers For : For The respondents were predominantly male (60.8%), middle aged (77% over 35) and in senior-intermediate posts within the organisation (83.9%) A majority of respondents were also male (55%) and senior-intermediate in grade (75%) but 50.1% were under the age of 35. UK report on national SUSTEL fieldwork 7

3: Fieldwork results This section provides a brief summary of the fieldwork results, with later sections providing more detailed information. 3.1: Executive summary - highlights In general, teleworking in the UK appears to be a mutually advantageous activity for both individuals and organisations which is creating net economic, environmental and social benefits. The main negative factors discovered are an increase in working hours, and evidence that a small minority has negative feelings about the impact of teleworking on their lives. 3.1.1: Is teleworking generally considered socially sustainable? Social issues are an important driver for employees in all the cases. For, Word and Bradford social issues are an important driver for employers as well. This was less so for ACRE, and EME.. In general, the outcomes appear to be positive for social sustainability (and especially in ACRE, Bradford and ) because: Teleworking contributes to people s feelings that they have a positive high quality of life In this and other ways it is creating self reported health benefits It is leading to reports of greater use of local services and is making it easier for staff to be involved in community development. However, teleworking does seem to lead to increased working hours for many people. This is a general phenomena in the UK and is the source of much debate. Whether teleworking is leading to even more working hours than those being experienced by large parts of the working population is not entirely clear. It is likely however that there are qualitative differences in how people work longer hours as teleworkers, compared to non teleworkers.although most teleworkers don t consider this a problem, a minority do. 3.1.2: Is teleworking generally considered economically sustainable? The answer is yes, based on generally convincing evidence (although its quality does vary between cases). Key benefits include: Improved work performance Reduced absenteeism Increased resilience, especially with regard to overcoming transport disruptions. 3.1.3: Is teleworking generally considered environmentally sustainable? Yes - a large majority of and respondents reported that their commuting had decreased since they became a teleworker. This appears to offset any other increases in transport. However there is some duplication of equipment amongst several of the cases. UK report on national SUSTEL fieldwork 8

3.2: Social and personal impacts of teleworking This section covers: Telework and quality of life (in section 3.2.1) How telework impacts time, satisfaction, health and number of conflicts at home (in section 3.2.2) How telework impacts participation in regard to the labour market, domestic duties and local community (in section 3.2.3). 3.2.1: Telework and Quality of Life A key research question was the impact of teleworking on people s perception of quality of life (RQ17). The majority of respondents at both and felt that they had a better life through teleworking than if they commuted to an office. For example: 79.9% of and 75.1% of respondents felt that they had a good or very good quality of life over the past 12 months Only 5.5% of respondents, and one respondent, felt that it was poor or very poor 90.3% of and 78.2% of respondents felt that teleworking was having a positive effect on their quality of life, with 54.9% of and 29.4% of respondents feeling that this effect was considerable 65.3% of and 76.5% of respondents felt that they had a very good or good work-life balance, which is almost certainly supported by their teleworking. Some of the other survey questions provide insight into the reasons for this improved quality of life. They show that the relationship is complex, with a variety of different influences, particularly the personal advantages (greater job satisfaction, reduced stress) of better work performance, the flexibility and psychological benefit which comes from greater control of personal time, the reduced stress of commuting and the opportunities to spend more time with partners and children. 3.2.2: Telework impact on time, satisfaction, health and conflicts at home Previous research (including the SUSTEL pilot survey) has found that teleworking is associated with increased working hours. We therefore sought more information on whether this was happening, and in what way (RQ18), and found that: 75.7% of and 38.9% of respondents felt that working hours had increased 29.7% of (but no ) staff believed that there hours had increased by 11 hours a week or more (see table 3) compared to only 3 respondents believing the same in all the other 5 case study organisations combined. UK report on national SUSTEL fieldwork 9

Table 3 Additional Working Hours by and respondents Additional Working Hours per Week % of all Respondents Who Identified an Increase in Working Hours (n=137) 0-5 29.1% (37) 71.4% (5) 6-10 40.2% (51) 28.6% (2) 11-15 19.7% (25) 0 16+ 11.0% (14) 0 % of all Respondents Who Identified an Increase in Working Hours (n=7) These findings of increased working hours raise the question of whether they are the main reason for the performance improvements attributed to teleworking. In order to find out we asked respondents who identified an improvement in performance how this was manifested: At 60.1% identified higher productivity, 56.9% better quality of work, 50.5% higher total output and 28.7% more creative work as ways in which improved performance was manifested At 72.2% identified higher productivity, 66.7% better quality of work, 50% more creative work and 38.9% higher total output as ways in which improved performance was manifested. We also asked respondents who identified an improvement in performance what they felt the reasons were: At the main factors were reduced stress (64.9%) and better concentration (50%) with additional working hours being cited by 38.9% and 22.2% more pressure was broadly similar although better conditions was the main reason (61.1%). It therefore appears that performance improvements are manifested in a variety of ways, and have a number of causes. Increased working hours and the extra output which it creates is significant (and therefore something for employers to be concerned about as a potentially negative outcome of teleworking) but not the most important cause or consequence. UK report on national SUSTEL fieldwork 10

Table 4 Findings on Working Patterns of Teleworkers Bradford MDC East Midlands Elec Word Association Do teleworkers work for longer and/or in different patterns than nonteleworkers or before they teleworked? Yes-through ability to work at different times No evidence. Probable but no data on non teleworkers Yes-to the extent that some employees have increased their contracted hours. Yes a survey found that many teleworkers were working outside normal office hours and for longer than before. Yes easier to tailor working hours to family requirements. We were also interested in whether teleworking made people feel more or less connected with others, both at work and in private lives (RQ19). Most respondents felt more isolated from work colleagues with: 21.6% of (but no ) respondents feeling considerably more isolated 37.1% of and 38.9% respondents feeling slightly more isolated 63.3% of but only 14.3% (1) of respondents who felt slightly or considerably more isolated believed that this outcome was negative Only 4.2% of (and no ) respondents felt less isolated. A smaller number of people felt that teleworking was influencing their isolation from non-work contacts: 50% of and 72.2% of respondents felt that it had no effect 34.9% of and 22.3% of respondents felt that it made them less isolated (with 13% of and 1 respondent saying that it made them considerably less isolated) 88.1% of the respondents who felt less isolated (and all of the 4 staff in the same category) felt that this was positive interestingly 10.2% (6) of the respondents felt that it was negative (the only ones in the six companies to do so), perhaps because of greater interference with work 15.1% of respondents and 1 respondent felt that it made them more isolated, with 72% (18) of the staff giving this answer feeling that it was a negative outcome The net effect therefore seems to be that teleworking significantly increases isolation from work colleagues and slightly reduces it for non-work contacts. A large minority of staff find this to be negative although the overall survey findings on quality of life and work-life balance suggest that in most cases this is outweighed by more positive factors. Another of our research questions was whether teleworking influences health and, if so, in what ways (RQ22). The main source of information on this was the surveys. These found that: UK report on national SUSTEL fieldwork 11

54.9% of and 55% of respondents felt that teleworking had a positive effect on their health However 10.3% of respondents felt that it had a negative effect. Table 5 Reasons for the Positive Health Effects of Teleworking Factor % of all Respondents Who Felt That Teleworking was Beneficial to Their Health Citing This Factor (n=90) More/Less Driving 63.3% (57) 66.7% (6) Work Stress 60.0% (54) 33.3% (3) Domestic Harmony 52.2% (47) 44.4% (4) More/Less Exercise 50.0% (45) 50.0% (4) Personal Stress 50.0% (45) 44.4% (4) Diet 47.8% (43) 0 Table 6 Reasons for the Negative Health Effects of Teleworking % of all Respondents Who Felt That Teleworking was Beneficial to Their Health Citing This Factor (n=9) Factor % of all Respondents Who Felt That Teleworking was Bad for Their Health Citing This Factor (n=17) More/Less Driving 35.3% (6) Work Stress 76.5% (13) Domestic Harmony 17.6% (3) More/Less Exercise 70.6% (12) Personal Stress 41.2% (7) Diet 47.1% (8) No Responses As table 5 indicates, teleworking can provide a variety of health benefits. Whilst no-one will be surprised that less driving and stress are important factors in this the high figures for diet and exercise at both and are perhaps more surprising and indicate that teleworking can lead to quite fundamental changes in the way that people live their lives. Table 6 suggests that, for the small minority which identified negative effects of teleworking on health, the main factors are increased work-related stress and reduced exercise. The view that teleworking has health benefits was partially reinforced by the case studies, with both and Bradford finding that there were positive effects. UK report on national SUSTEL fieldwork 12

Table 7 Findings on Health Impacts of Teleworking Does Teleworking Influence Health and, if so, in What Ways? Teleworkers believe that it has, as a result of reduced stress. Yes the survey suggests that, in general, absenteeism through illness is reduced and that people feel healthier. Yes the survey suggests that, in general. absenteeism through illness is reduced and that people feel healthier. Bradford MDC Yes absenteeism (much of it due to illness and stress reduced by 80% East Midlands Elec No evidence. Word Association No evidence. We also asked about the effects of teleworking on levels of domestic conflict (RQ20) and found that: 50.3% of and 41.2% of respondents reported no effect 17.8% of and 23.5% of respondents reported a decrease in conflict (slightly higher than Germany but lower than Denmark and Italy) Slightly more - 25.8% of and 29.4% of respondents - reported a slight increase in domestic conflict, and 2 employees (1.2%) noted a considerable increase (a considerably higher figure than in the continental surveys, the highest of which was Italy where 15.3% of respondents noted an increase in domestic conflict). The results therefore suggest that teleworking does tend to create more negative domestic consequences in the UK than elsewhere. Table 8 indicates some of the ways in which teleworking impinges on domestic life. Table 8 Teleworking Influences on Domestic Conflict Factor % of all Respondents Citing This Factor (n=164) % of all Respondents Citing This Factor (n=17) Too Much Time in House 14.6% (14) 20.0% (3) Too Much Time Working 14.6% (14) 5.9% (1) Domestic Responsibilities 12.2% (20) 6.3% (1) Interruptions 12.2% (20) 11.8% (2) Child Care Responsibility 6.1% (10) 5.9% (1) Access to ICT 3.7% (3) 7.1% (1) We also asked about the impact of teleworking on other family members. In most cases this was positive with: 74.8% of and 83.3% of respondents for whom the question was relevant reporting positive effects on their partners 82.4% of respondents for whom the question was relevant reporting positive effects on their younger children 72.7% of respondents for whom the question was relevant reporting positive effects on their older children (and only 1.5% reporting negative effects) UK report on national SUSTEL fieldwork 13

61.1% of respondents for whom the question was relevant reporting positive effects on their adult dependents. However, 11.5% of respondents (although no respondents) did report negative effects on their partners, although in all but 1 case this was slightly rather than very negative. In conclusion, therefore, teleworking creates a need for adjustment in home as well as working life. 3.2.3: Telework impact on participation labour market, domestic duties and local community One important research question is whether teleworking can increase the potential labour pool for employers, and work opportunities for staff (RQ6). Two of the cases found that it had and none found that it hadn t. Table 9 Findings on Teleworking and Work Opportunities Bradford MDC East Midlands Elec Word Association Can teleworking increase the potential labour pool for employers, and work opportunities for staff? Yes has led to/maintained employment of staff who would not otherwise be employed. No evidence. No firm evidence but a perception that teleworking is helpful for recruitment. Yes has helped retention of existing staff, created new opportunities for part-time work and widened the labour pool. No evidence. No firm evidence but a perception that teleworking will be a helpful recruitment aid. The survey also asked if it would be completely impossible for people to perform their current job if they were unable to telework. 4.7% of respondents said that it would be. A further 24.9% would find it very difficult and 38.5% slightly difficult. 16.7% of respondents also aid that they would find it very difficult, and 33.3% slightly difficult. Table 10 Findings on Teleworking and Disadvantaged Groups Bradford MDC East Midlands Elec Word Association RQ13 Does teleworking have any influence on the recruitment, retention and working conditions of disadvantaged groups? Yes teleworking was introduced to retain employee with child care responsibilities. No evidence. Yes a stated factor in women staying after maternity leave. Yes has enabled retention of mother with children and employee with long-term illness. Will also enable greater recruitment of ethnic minorities. No evidence. Yes has enabled retention/recruitment of employees with child care responsibilities We were also interested if teleworking led to an increase in time spent on domestic tasks (RQ21). The survey first asked if teleworking had increased the amount of time available at home for nonwork activities. 75.2% of and 60% of respondents stated that it had. We then asked how UK report on national SUSTEL fieldwork 14

whether some of this additional time had been devoted to particular domestic activities. As table 11 shows, the answer is yes. One noteworthy feature is with regard to care of others, where elder care is considering that it is little discussed in the teleworking literature relatively high. Table 11 Additional Tine Spent on Domestic Activities Activity % of all Respondents Making a Greater Contribution (n=136) Groceries 58.1% (79) 46.2% (6) Washing up 56.6% (77) 50.0% (6) Cooking 55.1% (75) 61.5% (8) Laundry 48.1% (64) 25.0% (3) Cleaning 44.4% (59) 58.3% (7) Child Care 43.5% (57) 30.0% (3) Homework 18.2% (24) 20.0% (2) Elder care 17.3% (13) 0 % of all Respondents Making a Greater Contribution (n=13) We also asked respondents if they spend more time on community activities which create environmental and/or social benefit as a result of teleworking (RQ23). We then asked if teleworking made such involvement easier or more difficult? 40.2% of and 33.3% of respondents reported that it made it easier, compared to 11.5% of and no respondents who stated that it made it more difficult. Hence, teleworking is supportive of community involvement, which is undertaken by 18.5% of and 35.3% of respondents. Finally, we asked respondents if they would make more or less use of local services (RQ24). 58.6% of and 50% of respondents stated that they did, indicating that teleworking is compatible with local economic development. UK report on national SUSTEL fieldwork 15

3.3: Economic impacts of teleworking In this chapter we will take a look at the results coming from the UK surveys and general case results in regard to economic issues and thus the economic sustainability of telework. This has two perspectives 1: the economic costs and benefits for the organisation (productivity, performance and absenteeism), and 2: the personal perspective (personal finances, competencies and fringe benefits). 3.3.1: The organisational perspective productivity, performance and absenteeism 39.9% of and 33.3% of respondents felt that their work performance had considerably improved in recent years. A further 45.7% of and 61.1% of respondents felt that it had slightly improved. By contrast only 4.9% of respondents, and none from, felt that it had declined. The survey then asked about the impact of teleworking on these changes in performance. At 47.2% of the large majority of respondents which felt that their performance had improved believed that teleworking had made a major contribution to this. A further 50.3% felt that teleworking had made a minor contribution. The impact was less marked at, where 20% (2) employees felt that it made a major contribution and 80% (8) a minor contribution to their performance improvement. Interestingly, however, 7 of the 9 staff (4.9% of all respondents) who felt that their performance had declined in recent years believed that teleworking was a factor. 4 felt that teleworking was a major contributory factor and 3 believed it be a minor one. One issue in the telework literature is the way in which work performance improvements are generated in particular whether they are primarily a result of more working through longer hours, rather than more effective working. To explore this issue we asked the respondents who felt that their performance had improved whether this was manifested as higher total output (which was taken to be closely linked with working for longer) or in other ways. As table 12 shows, around two thirds of respondents at both and identified higher productivity and better quality of work as the main form of improvement. Higher total output was a somewhat less frequent form of improvement at, and much less important at. Table 12 Forms of Performance Improvement Amongst and Teleworkers Form of Performance Improvement % of all Respondents Who Identified Performance Improvement (n = 161) Higher Productivity 68.9% (111) 72.2% (13) Better Quality of 65.2% (105) 66.7% (12) Work Higher Total Output 57.8% (93) 38.9% (7) More Creative Work 32.9% (53) 50.0% (9) Other Effects on Performance 6.2% (10) 0 % of all Respondents Who Identified Performance Improvement (n = 18) We further tested the importance of additional working hours as a driver of improved work performance by asking about the reasons for improvement. As table 13 shows just over a half of, and a third of, respondents identified it as a cause, significantly less than the number citing reduced stress and better concentration in both cases. UK report on national SUSTEL fieldwork 16

It therefore seems that, whilst increased working hours are a factor in teleworking-related work performance improvement (especially at ), other factors are equally or more important. However, whilst suggestive, this evidence is not conclusive because there are other factors than telework in driving performance improvement which could influence outcomes but are not considered in this analysis. Table 13 Causes of Performance Improvement Amongst and Teleworkers Cause of Performance Improvement % of all Respondents Who Identified Performance Improvement (n = 161) Reduced Stress 73.9% (119) 50.0% (9) Better Concentration 66.5% (107) 44.4% (8) Longer Hours 52.8% (85) 38.9% (7) Better Conditions 48.4% (78) 61.1% (11) More Autonomy 36.6% (59) 27.8% (5) More Pressure 31.7% (51) 22.4% (4) Other 4.3% (7) 0 Table 14 Findings on the Benefits and Costs of Teleworking % of all Respondents Who Identified Performance Improvement (n = 18) Bradford MDC East Midlands Elec Word Association Does the organisation have a good understanding of the full benefits and costs of teleworking? Yes a good understanding based on business analysis of its two teleworkers. Main benefit is retention of two good staff who would otherwise have left and who could not have been afforded without offering option to telework. Partial understanding, especially of space where teleworking has avoided the need for additional offices. Perception of beneficial effects on performance, retention and work-life balance but no hard evidence prior to SUSTEL survey. Generally yes. Teleworking has undoubtedly contributed to s large space savings of 180m per annum. publications cite 15-30% performance improvement for hone-based workers - sources are unavailable but confirmed by survey. Likelihood also that teleworking contributes to s below average absenteeism and above average staff retention, especially of women taking maternity leave. Yes a good understanding. Detailed monitoring of performance shows an average performance improvement of 25% and an 80% reduction in absenteeism. Job turnover has also fallen. Partial understanding. A lot of analysis has taken place and both staff (through a survey) and managers feel that performance and productivity are higher. Anecdotal evidence that space costs and absenteeism is reduced. Yes a good understanding based on preparation of a business case for teleworking and monitoring of outcomes. Teleworking has enabled giving up a central office, and increased the satisfaction and work-life balance of staff. UK report on national SUSTEL fieldwork 17

Table 15 Findings on Space Utilisation Bradford MDC East Midlands Elec Word Association Does Teleworking Lead to More Efficient Use of Space? No significant effect. Considerable estimate that one teleworking scheme has contributed to an entire building being released, with annual savings of over 400,000 pa. Space saving is a major driver of teleworking - workabout initiative is run from the Property department. Teleworking has significantly contributed to the 50% reduction in floor space and savings of 180 million pa at since the mid 1990s. No significant effect around 25% of staff need to be teleworking to create opportunity for savings. The new HQ building was designed on flexiwork and teleworking principles. Some problems with space management however. Not all space saving potential being realised. Yes - teleworking has allowed Word to give up a central office, with annual savings of almost 10,000 a substantial proportion of its turnover. Absenteeism and job turnover is also a major cost to most organisations. As table 16 shows, three of the six cases found that teleworking was definitely benefiting absenteeism and job turnover. The surveys provided more information by asking if teleworking helped people to work when they were prevented from reaching a desired working location. 73.7% of and 72.2% of respondents reported that this was the case. Table 16 Findings on Absenteeism and Job Turnover in Organisations Bradford MDC East Midlands Elec Word Association Do teleworkers have lower levels of absenteeism rates and/or job turnover than non-teleworkers? Yes for turnover. Two key staff have only remained because of teleworking. No evidence on absenteeism although a previous teleworking scheme was abandoned because of absenteeism problems. Yes for absenteeism. SUSTEL survey shows that teleworking allows people to work when mildly ill or travel is disrupted. No direct evidence on turnover but perceptions that teleworking has helped. Yes for both. Very likely that teleworking has helped retention, especially of women on maternity leave. SUSTEL survey shows that teleworking allows people to work when mildly ill or travel is disrupted. Yes for both. An 80% reduction in sickness rates and retention of staff who would otherwise have left. No evidence. No impact on absenteeism or turnover which was already low. Both survey and cases were also concerned with the effect of teleworking on communication and knowledge sharing within the organisation (RQ5). As table 9 shows no adverse effects were identified in any of the cases. This view was confirmed by the two SUSTEL surveys. UK report on national SUSTEL fieldwork 18

Table 17 Findings for Communication and Knowledge Sharing Within the Organisation Bradford MDC East Midlands Elec Word Association What is the effect of teleworking on communication and knowledge sharing within the organisation? No adverse effects primarily because it has been seen as an important issue to be managed. No adverse effects. No evidence. Mildly positive at beginning as manager spends more time with worker but this reduces over time. No adverse effects. No adverse effects - primarily because it has been seen as an important issue to be managed. The main responsibility of a member of a staff. Wee were also interested in whether teleworking makes organisations more resilient to disruption. As table 18 shows, three of the six case study organisations noted some positive effects, albeit offset in at least one case by an increased vulnerability to communications disruptions. As noted above, the SUSTEL surveys also confirmed that many teleworkers at both and often work when strikes or other factors would have disrupted their atendance at an office. Table 18 Findings for Teleworking and Resilience Does teleworking make organisations less vulnerable to disruption of their activities? No evidence. No major organisational effects but SUSTEL survey shows that allows many people to overcome effects of travel disruption. No major organisational effects but SUSTEL survey shows that allows many people to overcome effects of travel disruption. Bradford MDC Yes teleworking has made less vulnerable to travel disruptions, but partly offset by risks of broadband failure. East Midlands Elec Yes less affected by weather-related disruption. Word Association Yes unaffected by national fuel strike in 2001. 3.3.2: The personal perspective Personal finances, competencies and fringe benefits Telework can also impact the personal finances of teleworkers through changes in travel costs, energy consumption and other aspects. The survey therefore asked about the net effect on individuals. 21.5% of employees reported a positive benefit of more than 800 euros a year. This was a much greater figure than for the other organisations surveyed with, for example, having no responses in this category. 34.4% of and 44.4% of respondents also reported positive benefits of up to 800 euros. In total, therefore 55.9% of staff believed that they were gaining personal financial benefit from teleworking. However, a small percentage 15.6% for and 16.7% for believed that teleworking was negatively affecting their personal finances. UK report on national SUSTEL fieldwork 19

Table19 Influence of Telework on the Personal Wealth of and Respondents Telework Influences on Personal Wealth % of all Respondents Whose Personal Wealth had Improved Identifying the Influence (n = 104) Commuting Costs 84.6% (84) 62.5% (5) Energy Bills 12.5% (13) 0 Residential Location 7.7% (8) 0 Care Costs 5.8% (6) 0 Work Opportunities 3.8% (4) 0 Other 4.8% (5) 0 % of all Respondents Whose Personal Wealth had Improved Identifying the Influence (n = 8) As table 19 shows, the over-riding cause of increased personal benefit in both organisations was commuting costs. A small but noteworthy number of respondents also indicated that the influence of teleworking on residential location was important, suggesting that there is some substance to the argument that teleworking can influence choice of location (and therefore travel patterns). The survey also asked about the impact of teleworking on non-salary benefits. Only 10% of and no respondents reported that it had. The main effect was with regard to company cars. The cases confirmed the view that teleworking is generating personal financial benefits for individuals (see table 20). The main reason for this is reduced travel costs. Table 20 Findings for Teleworking Effects on Personal Finances Does teleworking influence the benefits and costs of work for individuals and in what ways? Yes - generous employer allowances. Only in a minor way some savings in commute costs. Yes in a number of ways. Most significant is avoided travel, where many individuals are saving over 1000 per annum. Bradford MDC Yes substantial savings from avoided travel. East Midlands Elec Yes survey demonstrated that avoided commuting was saving over 15 per week for 25% of staff. Word Association Yes teleworking has made the organisation more successful, with financial rewards for employees. Most have also saved 50-100 miles commuting a week. 27.8% of and 38.9% of respondents felt that it had a positive influence on career development. This compares to 15.5% of respondents (and one respondent) who felt that it had a negative effect. The majority 56.7% of and 55.6% of respondents therefore felt that it had no impact. Interestingly, far more respondents in Germany (43.9%) and Italy (46.1%) felt that teleworking was having negative impacts on their careers. UK report on national SUSTEL fieldwork 20

Table 21 Findings for Teleworking, Career Development and Skills Bradford MDC East Midlands Elec Word Association Does telework enhance people s career development, and the skills and experience which underpin this? Fosters autonomous ways of working, which can be a valuable skill in the voluntary sector. No evidence from case but SUSTEL survey shows net positive effects. No evidence from case but SUSTEL survey shows net positive effects. No significant effect although teleworkers appear to be taking greater responsibility for technical issues. No evidence but some concern amongst staff that teleworkers might be invisible. Increases familiarity with Internet which has work benefits. UK report on national SUSTEL fieldwork 21

3.4: Environmental impacts of teleworking The main environmental impacts of teleworking are with regard to transport and energy and materials consumption. Table 22 Findings for Teleworking and Business Travel Bradford MDC East Midlands Elec Word Association What is the impact of teleworking on business travel? No effect but significant travel for teleworkers to attend the main office. Positive achieving some reduction. Positive on balance the SUSTEL pilot survey found that 27% of respondents felt that it decreased in-work travel and 13% that it was increased. Slight increase due to managers visiting home-based employees. No evidence. No effect. 3.4.1: Telework impact on commuting Almost all studies of teleworking report a reduction in commuting travel and the SUSTEL surveys are no exception. 89.6% of and 100% of respondents reported that their commuting had decreased since they became a teleworker. 78.6% of respondents and one respondent regarded this as a considerable decrease. The mean commuting reduction was 253 miles per week at and 61 miles per week at. At savings in rail were, at a mean of 366 miles per week, greater than savings for car, with a mean of 214 miles. The survey also asked how much weekly commuting time had been saved as a result of teleworking. 64.7% of respondents were saving 6 or more hours a week, with 12.9% saving 11-15 hours and 10% more than 16 hours. Savings at were much lower, with 81.3% saving up to 2 hours and 18.8% from 3-5 hours. 3.4.2: Telework impact on other types of transportation A key question in teleworking research is the extent of any rebound effects which might offset some of the savings in travel commuting. One such rebound effect is use of the car which is no longer used while people work at home. When asked about this, 20.3% of respondents and 11.1% of respondents stated that it was a similar level to the other survey organisations in continental Europe. The minority whose car was being used for additional journeys were asked about the number of trips, and average mileage, which they attributed to greater availability of their vehicle. For this was a mean of 6.5 trips a week and a mean additional mileage of 77.4 miles. We also asked whether respondents who teleworked still had to make journeys they would otherwise have undertaken as part of commuting. 54.5% of and 77.8% of respondents stated that they didn t. The main journeys undertaken for both organisations was shopping (undertaken by 23.3% of respondents at and 16.7% at ) and transporting children (undertaken by 13.6% of respondents at and 5.6% at ). For the 46.5% of respondents who did undertake such journeys the mean number per week was 4.57 and the mean mileage 34.44. For the 22.2% (5) of respondents who did undertake such journeys the mean number per week was 1.4 and the mean mileage 11.7. UK report on national SUSTEL fieldwork 22

Across the whole sample, we found that these additional non-work journeys resulted in a mean of additional weekly travel of 60 miles at and 16 miles at. This would offset the weekly commuting savings of 253 miles at and 61 miles at by 23.7% and 26.2% respectively, and give net weekly travel reductions per person of 193 miles at and 45 miles at. Hence, it is clear that teleworking is significantly reducing non-business travel even when offsetting or rebound effects are taken into account. One caveat to this is that the survey results only represent a point in time, and it is possible that transport patterns could change because, for example, teleworking makes it easier for people to change their residential location. However, as later chapters discuss, there is little evidence of this having occurred in the or respondents. We also asked if teleworking had any impact on in-work travel. As with the other survey organisations, a majority 73.1% of and 77.8% of respondents stated that it had no effect. However 18% of respondents stated that their in-work travel had increased (which wasn t the case with any other survey organisations), compared to only 9% who stated that it had decreased. However, the mean reduction of 393.85 miles reported by respondents who found that in-work travel had decreased was greater than the mean increase of 266.58 miles for those who believed that in-work travel had increased. 3.4.3: Teleworking impact on equipment consumption We were also interested in whether teleworking has resulted in increased usage of equipment and/or materials (RQ13). In addition to the direct material impacts, these also require energy to create and run. In general, the answer appears to be yes. Two of the cases found that teleworkers have dedicated equipment which might have been shared in a central office, and two others also found partial duplication of equipment and desks. Table 23 Findings for Teleworking and Materials Consumption Bradford MDC East Midlands Elec Word Association Does teleworking increase usage of equipment and/or materials? Yes teleworkers have dedicated equipment which might have been shared in a central office. Yes slight increase in equipment and printing. No most workabout registrants give up dedicated office space equipment but a few do not. A move to mobile teleworking also results in purchase of some new equipment. No home teleworkers have lost their office space and equipment (although there is a team desk which all share). Partially staff do not give up desks but are given laptops for use both at work and home. Yes - teleworkers have dedicated equipment which might have been shared in a central office. The survey also tried to establish whether teleworking was leading to duplication of equipment between home and office. At this was not generally the case. For example, only 9.4% of respondents reported that they had an office desk, 8.8% an office filing cabinet and 4.4% an office desktop. This reflects the nature of the workabout scheme, which is to support people who are giving up a permanent office. There was more duplication within the more conventional teleworking environment of duplication but only for a minority with only 18.2% (2) respondents stating that they had sole use of an office desk, and 36.4% sole use of a desktop PC. UK report on national SUSTEL fieldwork 23