Homeworking report An assessment of the impact of teleworking on carbon savings and the longer-term effects on infrastructure services - Vodafone ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Homeworking report An assessment of the impact of teleworking on carbon savings and the longer-term effects on infrastructure services June 2021
Homeworking report Homeworking report
About the Carbon Trust
Established in 2001, the Carbon Trust works with businesses, governments
and institutions around the world, helping them contribute to, and benefit
Contents
from, a more sustainable future through carbon reduction, resource efficiency
strategies, and commercialising low carbon businesses, systems and Executive summary 4
technologies.
1. Introduction 9
The Carbon Trust:
1.1. COVID-19: an unprecedented shift in our working culture 10
• w
orks with corporates and governments, helping them to align their
strategies with climate science and meet the goals of the Paris Agreement; 1.2. Scope and overview of this study 11
• p
rovides expert advice and assurance, giving investors and financial
institutions the confidence that green finance will have genuinely green
2. Methodology 14
outcomes; and
2.1. Overview 14
• s
upports the development of low carbon technologies and solutions,
building the foundations for the energy system of the future.
2.2. Summary of calculations 14
2.3. Teleworking scenarios 15
Headquartered in London, the Carbon Trust has a global team of over 200 staff,
representing over 30 nationalities, based across five continents. 3. Results: on average teleworking leads to carbon emissions savings at an individual level 19
3.1. Results show that pre/during/post-COVID an average teleworker working from home saves carbon19
About Vodafone Institute for 3.2. Regional variability in individual teleworker savings 22
Society and Communications 3.3. Teleworkers homeworking in countries with inefficient offices benefit from greater carbon savings 24
The Vodafone Institute is the European think-tank of the Vodafone Group. 4. Assessing the carbon impact of a teleworker beyond the average profile is complicated 28
The Vodafone Institute analyses the potential of digital technologies and their
responsible use for innovation, growth and sustainable social change. Through 4.1. Homeworking does not always result in individual teleworker savings 28
research and events, Vodafone Institute provides thought leadership and
offer a platform for dialogue between businesses, academia and politics. We
4.2. An optimum carbon emissions analysis needs to look at each country’s energy system 33
are committed to enable better access to technology for all parts of society, 4.3. Understanding how often teleworkers will come into the office or work from home is crucial to avoid
developing and supporting projects to strengthen diversity in the digital economy. increased emissions 34
The wide-ranging expertise of the Advisory Board members reflects the Institute’s
intention to act as a cross–sectoral platform. 4.4. Conclusion of quantitative analysis 38
5. Recommendations 39
5.1. Digital infrastructure and broadband internet access are prerequisites for homeworking 40
5.2. Spatial analysis and urban planning 42
The Carbon Trust team: Acknowledgments 5.3. Smarter systems to optimise our infrastructure 44
Luca Acerini The Carbon Trust wrote this report based on an impartial analysis of primary
5.4. Conclusion of our recommendations 47
Senior Analyst and secondary sources, including expert interviews.
Appendices 48
Sophie Bordat The Carbon Trust would like to thank everyone that has contributed their time
Senior Analyst and expertise during the preparation and completion of this report. Special Appendix 1: Methodology approach: overview of calculations 48
thanks to: Inger Paus, Managing Director of Vodafone Institute for Society
Liam Fitzpatrick Appendix 2: C
hanges in homeworking patterns during and post COVID 62
and Communications and Chairwoman of the Board of Management of
Analyst Appendix 3: Supplementary charts and tables 68
Vodafone Foundation Germany and Ina Krings, Senior Expert Communications
Tom Jennings & Campaigns at Vodafone Institute for Society and Communications, for their
Endnotes77
Director content contributions and report review.
Andie Stephens This report was sponsored by Vodafone Institute. For the avoidance of doubt,
Associate Director this report expresses independent views of the authors.
2 3
Homeworking report Homeworking report
Executive summary Figure 1 Total carbon savings potential in a future post-COVID scenario (MtCO2e/year)
14
12
Key findings 10
MtCO2e/year
8
• Homeworking saves carbon emissions on average over the year in all six countries analysed. 12.2
6
• G
ermany has possibly the greatest potential to enable annual carbon savings in the future 8.7
4
– saving 12MtCO2e per year – the equivalent of over 80 million one-way flights from London
to Berlin; Italian teleworkers can save the most on an individual basis, the equivalent of over 2 4.1 3.9
seven such flights per teleworker. 0.25 0.15
0
UK Germany Spain Sweden Italy Czech
• P
erhaps surprisingly it is saved office emissions that represent the largest contributor, with Republic
avoided commuting secondary, particularly where office buildings are inefficient. Total potential carbon saving (MtCO2e/year)
• H
owever, in winter teleworking doesn’t always save carbon, for instance in the case of the
average urban German teleworker who commutes by train during the winter, who will have
much lower carbon emissions by working in the office than by working from home.
Our analysis shows that homeworking saves The study considered working patterns for
carbon emissions on average over the year in all four COVID related scenarios: pre-, during, post
• P
lanning for a carbon optimum is complex; in a worst-case scenario a hybrid working future
six countries analysed. Germany has possibly (2021) and post (2022+). Carbon savings are
could offset the benefits of cities’ efficiencies.
the greatest potential to enable annual carbon particularly correlated to the average frequency of
savings in the future at 12MtCO2e/year (Figure1), homeworking amongst teleworkers. We see that
• W
e outline five opportunities for decision-makers to take a comprehensive approach in the
assuming that all workers with teleworkable when strict lockdown restrictions were imposed
way they plan for teleworking and ensure they understand the carbon impact of a hybrid
jobs adopt teleworking practices, given the large in 2020 carbon saving per average teleworker
working model.
working population and relatively large proportion was highest compared to pre and post COVID
of that population whose jobs are deemed to be scenarios given that lockdown measures resulted
teleworkable (39%). in fewer days in the office (Figure 2).
The Vodafone Institute commissioned the Carbon This assessment focused on home working and
Trust to provide an assessment of the current state the comparison with office-based working, (the
of affairs related to the impact of teleworking on scope did not include other business related
climate change across six European countries: travel). The study also includes an overview of
United Kingdom (UK), Germany, Spain, Sweden, Italy broader implications teleworking could have
and the Czech Republic. This study assessed the on infrastructure use and further considerations
carbon savings potential that an average teleworker needed for decision-makers to better plan cities,
could reach if working from home for a year-long telecommunications and other infrastructure services
period compared to going into the office. for future teleworking with minimal carbon impact.
4 5
Homeworking report Homeworking report
Across all countries we found that office emissions represent the largest contributor to the emissions
savings (see Figure 3).
Figure 3 Average teleworker carbon impact areas by country during COVID
1,500
988
1,000 776
545 451
kgCO2e/teleworker/year
500 270 342
0
-282 -294 -220 -215 -263
-500 -474
-1,000 -813 -867 -784
-1,153
-1,320
-1,500
Figure 2 Pre, during and post COVID carbon savings per teleworker by country -2,000 -1,988
-2,500
UK Germany Spain Sweden Italy Czech
Republic
2,000
1,861
1,800
During-COVID avoided commuting emissions
1,600
During-COVID additional domestic energy-related emissions
kgCO2e/teleworker/year
1,400
During-COVID avoided office-related emissions
1,215
1,200 1,144
1,055
1,000 889 890 876
801
800 700 689
663
600 563 599 Office-related savings are particularly greater For instance, in the case of Germany our
429 in countries where buildings are inefficient. For analysis shows that in winter the average
400
272 273 243 270 example, we found that in Italy the carbon savings German teleworker that commutes to work by
200 175
124 117 75 117 84 potential is greater than in Sweden. Italy’s office train can save greater emissions than working
0 building stock is less energy efficient and the from home.
UK Germany Spain Sweden Italy Czech Republic country’s heating system heavily relies on high-
emitting sources of energy such as gas. On the Planning for a carbon optimum can be difficult
Total carbon saving per teleworker: Pre-COVID Total carbon saving per teleworker: During-COVID
contrary, Sweden’s savings potential is much less in a world where there is no determined pattern
Total carbon saving per teleworker: Post-COVID (2021) Total carbon saving per teleworker: Post-COVID (2022+)
significant given the more efficient building stock, in people’s commute, energy use and demand
a less carbon-intensive grid and the presence of at homes vs. office buildings. In a worst-case
district heating. scenario a hybrid working future could offset the
benefits of cities’ efficiencies and create a world
The impact areas considered in the study were: (Note, that during the pandemic although However, to get a comprehensive view on the where buildings and homes are used inefficiently
the avoided commuting emissions, the avoided data traffic over the internet increased, carbon impact of teleworking future studies with a transport system that is unable to
office-related emissions, and the additional telecommunications operators reported only need to understand the impact of changing respond to changing demand and potentially
domestic energy consumption when working from very small increases in energy consumption1). behaviours, seasonality and marginal demand more cars on roads.
home. There are other less significant emissions for infrastructure on carbon emissions.
that are broadly similar whether working from
home or in the office, including the emissions
related to data transfer over the internet.
6 7
Homeworking report Homeworking report
There is an opportunity for decision-makers to take a comprehensive approach in the way they plan for
teleworking and ensure they understand the carbon impact of a hybrid working model: 1. Introduction
Telecommunications: European Cities: The pandemic has offered
countries need to address the an opportunity to re-think how urban
broadband internet access gap (particularly dwellers engage with their cities and implement
in rural areas) and accelerate the rollout planning frameworks such as the 15-minute city
of the technology given the switch to an that incentivise greener and healthier lifestyles. In
economy highly dependent on digital and future development plans, spatial analysis could
internet services. At a regional and national account for teleworking trends and how it may
level countries can incentivise and enable further impact emissions (e.g. where satellite
innovation to ramp-up digital and broadband cities or rural areas increase co-working spaces
internet access as well as implement or regional hubs).
investment friendly framework conditions that
can facilitate this development. This could
include greater public subsidy programmes to Transport: Due to COVID-19,
target and support the most isolated areas in commuting patterns have completely
terms of broadband internet access, namely changed. Planners need to better understand
in rural environments. For example, the €750 what these will look like. Local authorities can
billion EU Recovery and Resilience Funds will incentivise city retailers and teleworkers to use
enable European governments to address e-mobility for deliveries or short trips within their
the rural digital divide and barriers to rural municipality to reduce congestion, pollution and
infrastructure investment, with at least 20% transport emissions
of the funding specifically allocated to digital.
Additionally, policy reform could help increase
the provision of internet access, in particular Buildings: Increasing homes and
through investment friendly spectrum auction buildings efficiency needs to be a
design and licence terms, the removal of priority to alleviate additional strain on countries’
network deployment barriers and by providing energy systems and also reduce the carbon
guidance on network sharing arrangements. impact of existing housing stocks that are poorly
insulated and relying on fossil fuel sources of
energy. Local and national governments should
Electricity supply: Better further support financing schemes to implement
understanding of electricity demand housing retrofit measures. EU member states can
is needed but also how movements from urban allocate funds and packages available by the EU
to rural environments might impact demand and Green Deal for renovation of buildings as well as
power generation sites. With more people working offering repayment or loan schemes for energy
from home there is a greater case for home solar renovation for both private and public investors.
panels and storage. Further, energy suppliers need Companies should adopt measures and smart
to think about how to incentivise demand side technologies that can help rationalise offices
responses when people are at home all day. depending on the number of people and where
they are located in the offices.
8 9
Homeworking report Homeworking report
1.1. COVID-19: an unprecedented shift in our working culture 1.2. Scope and overview of this study
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many Organisations have had to adapt to giving up This new pattern of working has had a significant The analysis assesses the carbon footprint
organisations globally have transitioned to face-to-face interactions and heavily rely on short-term impact on emissions, and the way and potential savings of an average teleworker
working at home wherever possible. This is the households’ access to reliable broadband. cities and infrastructure are used, which are and compares results in a pre/during/post
first and the largest teleworking ‘experiment’ in likely to remain long term trends as companies COVID scenario based on the average frequency
history which has accelerated trends towards At a household and individual level this has adopt flexible and hybrid working models. This of homeworking for each of the scenarios.
flexible remote work and digitalisation2. People also shifted the way people depend on broader report aims to assess the current state of affairs A qualitative analysis complements these results
have discovered that they no longer need to be infrastructure including connectivity to cities and of teleworking’s impact on climate change. The to provide a broader understanding on further
in an office and can get most things done offices or how they use their domestic facilities analysis was designed to help decision makers research and implications to consider what would
remotely. They do not need to commute to and appliances that resulted in, for those at inform future teleworking and in-person working give a more granular view on the carbon impact
work and instead have adopted more flexible home, an increase in domestic electricity bills3. plans in a way that they optimise their working of teleworking and potential challenges that our
working hours, splitting life and work activities The pandemic has also given the opportunity to models in general and adopt a sustainable working infrastructure systems could face.
to accommodate home-schooling, curfew re-think what quality of life means, and for some culture with a minimal carbon footprint.
restrictions and other activities. to relocate to places with less urban density and
greater access to green spaces.
The rapidity of these changes has affected
Figure 4 The average number of days per week worked from home per teleworker, pre-COVID, by country
organisational culture with an unprecedented
uptake of collaborative technologies
(videoconferencing, screen-sharing, digital 3.0
shared file storage, digital whiteboards etc.)
that are freely available and sophisticated.
Average number of days per week
worked from home/teleworker
1.9
2.0
2.6
2.6 2.6 2.7
2.5
1.0 1.9 2.5 2.7
What is a teleworker? 1.6
A teleworkable job is defined as a job that is technically possible to conduct remotely/from
home utilising teleworking, regardless of whether it currently is or not4. 2.6 1.6
0
UK
y
en
n
ly
ic
an
ai
A teleworker, in this report, is defined as somebody who regularly does some work from
Ita
bl
ed
Sp
pu
rm
Sw
Re
Ge
home as part of their working pattern. Essentially meaning that a non-teleworker is somebody
h
ec
who never works from home. The aim of this analysis is to best represent an average
Cz
teleworker, in particular a typical office teleworker. This average includes teleworkers that
regularly work from home at any frequency, including if someone works from home only once
a month or 5 days a week. The analysis focuses on six European nations: a marked increase in the average frequency of
UK, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Italy and the homeworking amongst teleworkers (Figure 5).
Czech Republic. As indicated in figure 4 before This increase in teleworking frequency reflects
the COVID-19 pandemic the average frequency the impact of nation-wide implemented lockdown
of homeworking was relatively low across restrictions, stay at home orders, and the
all countries which reflects the varied nature subsequent uptick in working from home rates
of teleworking across Europe.5 During the as shown in Figure 5.
coronavirus pandemic however, we have seen
10 11
Homeworking report Homeworking report
Figure 5 Average number of days per week worked from home by teleworkers during COVID
Figure 6 Average number of days per week worked from home by teleworkers across all COVID scenarios
4.5
4.2
4.0
4.5 4
Average number of days per week
3.6
worked from home/teleworker
3.5
Average number of days per week
4.0 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.3
worked from home/teleworker
3.4 3.0 3.0 3.1
3.5 3.0
3 2.8
2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.7
3.0 2.5
4.2 2.5 2.4
2.5 2.1
2 1.9 1.9
2.0 4.2 4.0
3.6 1.6
3.5 3.4 3.5 4.0 1.5
1.5
2.7
1.0 1
1.0 0.5
3.6 2.7
0
0
UK
y
en
n
ly
ic
UK Germany Spain Sweden Italy Czech
an
ai
Ita
bl
ed
Sp
pu
rm
Republic
Sw
Re
Ge
h
ec
Cz
Average number of days per week worked from Average number of days per week worked from
home by teleworkers pre-COVID home by teleworkers during-COVID
Average number of days per week worked from Average number of days per week worked from
While all six countries analysed have seen an Figure 6 summarises the change in teleworking home by teleworkers post-COVID (2021) home by teleworkers post-COVID (2022+)
increase in the homeworking frequency of frequency for countries across the four COVID
teleworkers, there is again significant regional scenarios, reflecting the predicted change in
variability in this increase from before to during teleworking patterns from pre-COVID to a post-
the pandemic (Figure 5). The UK has shown the COVID world in 2021 and in the longer term (2022+).
greatest increase in days per week worked from In this time period it is projected that European
home by teleworkers by 1.6 days per week, to societies will move out of lockdown restrictions in
4.2 days per week overall during the COVID-19 mid/late 2021. This follows the assumption that
pandemic lockdown 6,7. Germany, meanwhile, whilst teleworkers will begin to return to the office on an
previously having one of the highest homeworking increased basis as restrictions are relaxed.
frequencies, saw the smallest increase during
the lockdown restrictions, of just 0.9 days, to 3.5 However, the post-COVID scenarios reflect that
days per week during COVID8,9. The during COVID the COVID-19 pandemic has had a more profound
trend of homeworking frequency shows a different and lasting impact on teleworking behaviour, for
regional pattern compared to before the pandemic. both those who teleworked before the pandemic
This analysis also looked at the potential future or those newly accustomed to it. This is shown by
frequency of homeworking amongst teleworkers the frequency of teleworking for 2021 and 2022+
in both a short term (post-COVID 2021) and longer dropping to lower than during-COVID levels but
term (post-COVID 2022+) scenario. It must be remaining significantly higher than pre-COVID
noted that the results of these scenarios, especially levels. This is reflective of the fact that more
the frequency of homeworking, are based on workers and jobs have adapted to teleworking
potential future trends from research literature and conditions, and that it will remain a significant part
studies, and are inherently highly uncertain. They of people’s working lives in the future, as projected
represent only one potential future scenario that by various studies10,11. The detail of teleworking
may or may not play out in the coming years. patterns of this analysis can be found in appendix 2.
12 13Homeworking report Homeworking report
2. Methodology countries considered in this report (except for
Sweden, which because of its very low grid
emission factor results in a figure of 0.1 kgCO2e
It should be noted that the energy used for the
internet network transmission and for the home
router remains fairly constant irrespective of the
per year for internet data usage). These are for amount of data being transmitted, and so is a
the emissions of the network transmission and fixed emissions “cost” whether one is working
do not include the emissions associated with from home or from the office.
2.1. Overview the home router used to connect to the internet.
The home router is typically on 24 hours a day, For comparison, a daily commute by car of 10km
and uses about 10 W, which results in an annual (round trip) is about 2 kgCO2e – that is more than
The following section summarises the The countries in the scope of this analysis emissions value between 20 and 40 kgCO2e for the annual emissions associated with the internet
methodological approach taken in this analysis, included: UK, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Italy and the countries considered in this report (except for data transmission for an average person.
to assess the potential carbon savings impact of Czech Republic. Sweden where the value is about 1 kgCO2e).
teleworking, and how the Coronavirus pandemic
has impacted teleworking frequency and carbon
savings potential. 2.3. Teleworking scenarios
2.2. Summary of calculations The average annual teleworker potential
carbon savings were assessed across four
• P
ost-COVID (2021): this scenario represents
the short-term projected frequency of
COVID scenarios, each with a different average teleworking in an immediate post-COVID world,
frequency of days worked from home per as European nations begin to emerge from
This analysis conducted by the Carbon Trust • Internet related activities of working (such as
week. The four scenarios, and how the average lockdown restrictions. The average frequency
calculated the average annual carbon saving per videoconferencing, videocalls, email etc.)
teleworking frequencies were calculated, are of homeworking by teleworkers was assumed
teleworker by country. The scope of the sources of
outlined as follows (see Appendix 2 for to be an average between pre and during COVID
carbon emissions accounted for from an average • S
mall domestic appliances for heating or
details of sources used for each scenario scenario levels of teleworking. This assumption
teleworker included three key areas: cooling (such as desk fans or portable electric
frequency calculation): made by Carbon Trust is based on published
heaters) as well as
reports of teleworking behaviour trends17, and
• A
verage avoided commuting emissions
• P
re-COVID: this scenario represents the aims to reflect a potential short-term future
from teleworking • L
arger domestic appliances such as
typical frequency of teleworking in each teleworking scenario.
dishwashers and cooking appliances
of the six countries prior to March 2020,
• A
verage avoided office-related emissions
i.e. before the impact of COVID lockdown • P
ost-COVID (2022+): this scenario represents a
from teleworking The report acknowledges that these components
restrictions were felt. The average number potential frequency of teleworking in the longer-
are a feature of teleworking but it does not
of days worked from home per teleworker by term post-COVID world. In this scenario, the
• A
verage domestic-related emissions account for their energy use, as the additional
country for this scenario was assessed based frequency of homeworking by teleworkers was
from teleworking emissions impact of each is negligible and similar
on a combination of national statistics data, projected to increase compared to pre-COVID
whether being at home or in an office. This
research, studies and media articles. levels. This reflects assumptions that after
A summary of the key assumptions for the assumption corroborates with other previous
an initial reduction in teleworking frequency
emissions calculation is shown in section 2.3. For studies of homeworking.12,13 For further details of
• D
uring COVID: this scenario represents the after lockdown restrictions are lifted in the
further details of the assumptions, sources used these specific assumptions, see Appendix 2.
average frequency of teleworking during the short-term, in the long-term the frequency of
and the calculations, see Appendix 1.
coronavirus pandemic from March 2020 to teleworking will remain at a rate above pre-
The emissions associated with data transmission
March 2021, whilst lockdown restrictions COVID levels, as more workers and businesses
The primary focus of this study was to analyse, over the internet is comparatively small. Using
were enacted across European nations. The adapt to teleworking as an accepted working
in-depth, the three components (mentioned above) figures for per capita data consumption for
average number of days worked from home pattern, as suggested by survey data from
that exhibit the largest emissions impact on different countries14, an energy intensity value
per teleworker by country for this scenario published reports18. This scenario is based
individual workers. In line with this, certain aspects for fixed broadband data transmission15, and
was assessed based on a combination of on assumptions of future behaviour, and is
of commuting, domestic and office emissions country specific electricity grid emission
national statistics data, research, studies inherently highly uncertain.
have not been included within the scope of the factors16, gives a total annual emission figure
and media articles.
analysis. This list includes: per person of between 1 and 2 kgCO2e for the
14 15Homeworking report Homeworking report
2.3.1. Commuting calculation approach 2.3.2. Domestic energy calculation approach
The average annual avoided commuting carbon For this calculation, key assumptions were The additional domestic energy consumption For this analysis, and the sake of simplicity, it
emissions per teleworker were calculated used, to capture a representative average of accounted for in this analysis encompasses three was assumed that on any given day a teleworker
for each country under each scenario. These commuting patterns and distances travelled core aspects: was working from home, they were working
average annual savings represent the average by office workers for each country. A summary from home alone, i.e. they did not share energy
carbon emissions per teleworker that would of the key parameters and assumptions consumption with others.
1. E
nergy use from home-office
have been emitted over a year-long period if is shown in table 1. For further details of
equipment such as laptops, lighting
the average teleworker had commuted to work, the assumptions, sources used and the The average annual additional emissions
and screens,
rather than worked from home. calculations, see Appendix 1. per teleworker were calculated, reflecting key
parameters and assumptions of each country’s
2. Heating energy consumption,
housing stock and energy consumption.
Table 1 Commuting emissions calculation A summary of the key parameters is shown in
table 2. For further details of the assumptions,
3. Cooling energy consumption sources used and the calculations, see Appendix 1.
Parameters and assumptions Key sources
Frequency of teleworking days per week, by
National employment statistics Table 2 Domestic emissions calculation
COVID scenario
National transport statistics, EU datasets e.g. gov.uk, Parameters and assumptions Key sources
Average commute distance (km) by workers
EuroStat
Frequency of teleworking days per week, by
National transport statistics, EU data sets e.g. National employment statistics
Mix of transport modes used by workers COVID scenario
EuroStat
National housing statistics, EU data sets e.g. destatis,
Average home size (m2), by country
Emissions factors by mode of transport BEIS, DEFRA (2020) EuroStat
Energy consumption from homes, by emission source National energy statistics, EU data sets e.g. EuroStat
Electricity grid emission factors, by source BEIS, DEFRA (2020), IEA (2020)
16 17Homeworking report Homeworking report
2.3.3. Office energy calculation approach
These average annual savings represent the Additionally, the analysis accounted for the space
3. Results: on average
average carbon emissions per teleworker that
would have been emitted over a year-long
utilisation of office workers, in order to allocate
the additional avoided office-related energy teleworking leads to
carbon emissions savings
period if the average teleworker had worked consumption on a per office worker/teleworker
in the office, rather than worked from home. basis. A summary of the key parameters is
The avoided office-related energy consumption shown in table 3. For further details of the
at an individual level
and associated carbon emissions savings assumptions, sources used and the calculations,
were calculated by analysing average national see Appendix 1.
buildings and office energy consumption data,
statistics and literature.
3.1. R
esults show that pre/during/post-COVID an average
Table 3 Office emissions calculation
teleworker working from home saves carbon
Parameters and assumptions Key sources Regardless of where teleworkers work, there is a These are the avoidance of commuting and
balancing of three core emissions components office-related emissions by working from home,
Frequency of teleworking days per week, by at the individual level that define a teleworker’s counteracted by the rebound effect of additional
National employment statistics emissions profile. domestic energy consumption when working
COVID scenario
from home.
Average office workstation size (m2) National statistics, EU data sets e.g. EuroStat
Figure 7 Pre-COVID emissions components and total carbon savings per country
Energy consumption from offices, by emission source National energy statistics, EU data sets e.g. EuroStat 1,000 1,000
800 727 900
600 513 800
The Workspace Consultants (2020), Trading
kgCO2e/teleworker/yr
Rate of desk utilisation (%)19
kgCO2e/teleworker/yr
Economics (2020) 400 336 700
252
196 203
200 600
0 500
Electricity grid emission factors, by source BEIS, DEFRA (2020), IEA (2020) -200 -174
-111 -127
-174 876
-213
-265
400
-400 663
-435 -414 300 563
-600 -598
-546
200
-800 -729 272
100
-1,000 -951 124 75
0
-1,200
UK
y
n
en
ly
ic
UK
y
n
en
ly
ic
an
an
ai
ai
Ita
Ita
bl
bl
ed
ed
Sp
Sp
pu
pu
rm
rm
Sw
Sw
Re
Re
Ge
Ge
h
h
ec
ec
Cz
Cz
Pre-COVID avoided commuting emissions Total carbon saving per teleworker:
Pre-COVID additional domestic energy-related emissions Pre-COVID
Pre-COVID avoided office-related emissions
18 19Homeworking report Homeworking report
The results of this analysis indicate that, on However, on balance, the avoided emissions are Relatively, the UK and Czech Republic saw the Sweden saw the lowest actual increase
an individual level, teleworking can enable enough that an average teleworker in each country greatest increase in average carbon savings (120 kgCO2e/teleworker/year), this is due to the
potential annual carbon savings, based on the can enable a net saving in carbon emissions by (>200%), whilst the biggest actual increase fact that a Swedish teleworker’s carbon impact
average frequencies of homeworking amongst working from home. in carbon savings was seen in Italy (985 is relatively low in general, compared to the
teleworkers. These potential carbon savings have kgCO2e/teleworker/year). Spain and Germany other countries assessed.
been achieved before and during the coronavirus In all countries, the potential annual carbon savings saw relatively low proportional increases in
pandemic, and are also set to be enabled by from avoided commuting and avoided office teleworker carbon savings, although both actual
individual teleworkers in future scenarios. emissions overall outweigh the individual’s annual increases are relatively substantial.
additional domestic emissions, resulting in a net
Figure 7 illustrates how, in a pre-COVID scenario, an annual carbon saving. The total average annual
average teleworker in all six countries can enable carbon savings per teleworker, by scenario, by
potential carbon savings. This graph demonstrates country (kgCO2e/teleworker/year), and the average Figure 9 Total carbon savings per teleworker during vs. post-COVID
the avoided commuting (dark blue bars) and number of days per week worked from home by a
avoided office (light blue bars) related emissions teleworker are outlined in Appendix 3. 2,000
1,861
by a teleworker working from home at the average
1,800
annual frequency for each country, before the As countries locked down during the COVID
coronavirus pandemic. These avoided emissions pandemic, and the frequency of teleworkers 1,600
are represented as negative emissions. The green working from home increased, this resulted in 1,400
kgCO2e/teleworker/yr
bars represent the positive rebound effect emissions an increase in the potential annual carbon 1,215
1,200 1,144
resulting from home energy use when working from savings of individual teleworkers. Figure 8 1,055
home, including heating, cooling and home office illustrates this marked increase in the average 1,000
889 890
equipment throughout the year. These positive annual carbon savings of teleworkers, across 801
800 700
rebound emissions work to offset somewhat the all countries, when shifting from pre-COVID to 689
599
avoided emissions of commuting and office energy. during COVID lockdown measures. 600
429
400
273 243 270
200 175
117 117 84
Figure 8 Total carbon savings per teleworker pre vs. during COVID 0
UK Germany Spain Sweden Italy Czech Republic
2,000 Total carbon savings per teleworker: during-COVID
1,800 Total carbon savings per teleworker: post-COVID (2021)
1,600 Total carbon savings per teleworker: post-COVID (2022+)
kgCO2e/teleworker/yr
1,400
1,200
1,000
1,861
800 Under the future post-COVID scenarios, teleworking Figure 9 illustrates this trend in total carbon savings
patterns in 2021, 2022 and beyond projected that per teleworker in the Post-COVID scenarios.
600 1,144
the average frequency of homeworking is set to fall
400 889 890 876
663 again from during COVID levels. Consequently, the
563
200 124 average teleworker annual carbon saving markedly
272 243 75 270
0
decreases in post-COVID 2021 & 2022+ scenarios,
UK Germany Spain Sweden Italy Czech Republic across all countries, reflecting this modelled
future projection.
Total carbon savings per teleworker: pre-COVID
Total carbon savings per teleworker: during-COVID
20 21Homeworking report Homeworking report
3.2. Regional variability in individual teleworker savings Country analysis: Italy vs Sweden
The results of this analysis demonstrate significant Figure 10 illustrates the potential annual
variability in individual potential carbon savings carbon savings per teleworker by country
between European countries. This regional variability across all scenarios. Figure 11 Italy and Sweden carbon savings per teleworker across all COVID scenarios
is present across all four modelled scenarios.
2,000
Figure 10 Total carbon savings per teleworker by country across all scenarios
kgCO2e/teleworker/yr
1,500
2,000
1,861
1,800 1,000
1,861
1,600
1,215
1,400 500 1,055
kgCO2e/teleworker/yr
876
1,215 243
1,200 1,144
124 175
1,055
117
1,000 889 890
0
876
801 Sweden Italy
800 700 689
663
599 Total carbon savings per teleworker: pre-COVID
600 563
429 Total carbon savings per teleworker: during-COVID
400
272 273 243 270 Total carbon savings per teleworker: post-COVID (2021)
175
200 124 117 117 Total carbon savings per teleworker: post-COVID (2022+)
75 84
0
UK Germany Spain Sweden Italy Czech Republic
Total carbon savings per teleworker: pre-COVID Total carbon savings per teleworker: during-COVID Italy’s carbon savings potential for during-COVID scenario is nearly 8-fold greater than Sweden’s
potential savings. This reflects the variation in energy consumption between the two countries
Total carbon savings per teleworker: post-COVID (2021) Total carbon savings per teleworker: post-COVID (2022+)
• Italy’s large carbon savings are predominantly driven by the much greater energy intensities of
offices in Italy compared to other countries. Thus, by working from home, Italian teleworkers
avoid a significant amount of office energy related emissions.
There is an increase in carbon savings as While Sweden and the Czech Republic
Conversely, teleworkers in Sweden experience the lowest amount of carbon savings by working
teleworking increased between pre-COVID demonstrate the lowest levels of average annual
from home. This is driven by a combination of factors including:
and during-COVID scenarios, however, there is carbon savings. We compare Italy and Sweden’s
substantial variability of carbon savings between carbon savings potential per scenario below.
• Relatively low electricity grid intensity, compared to other EU countries
these countries. Notably, across all scenarios, Italy
demonstrates a significantly higher average annual
• A
doption of lower carbon sources for home heating systems, mainly district heating, electric
savings per teleworker compared to other countries.
heating and biomass and negligible use of oil and gas (compared to other EU countries)
• Generally lower frequencies of working from home amongst teleworkers across all 4 scenarios
22 23Homeworking report Homeworking report
While avoided office-related emissions are typically Figure 13 illustrates the average kWh/m2 in
3.3. T
eleworkers homeworking in countries with inefficient driving teleworker annual savings, there is again office buildings by country, used in this analysis.
offices benefit from greater carbon savings significant regional variability between countries. From this data it is evident how considerably
This regional variability is reflective of differences more energy intensive office space per m2 is
in average buildings energy performance in Italy compared to other countries, driven
Our analysis suggests that the average teleworker their energy consumption on days when working
between countries, as well as variability between by a considerably higher gas consumption
annual carbon saving is primarily being driven from home. The average teleworker in Sweden
commuting patterns. As demonstrated in Figure value. Comparatively, gas consumption in
by office-related consumption. Figure 12 below, has a relatively small impact, and therefore saving,
12, Italy not only has the highest average annual other European countries is almost half that
highlights how the avoided office emissions of from office related energy when working in office
avoided office emissions per teleworker, but also of Italy’s, while Sweden has an exceptionally
teleworkers when working from home during buildings. Instead, Swedish teleworker annual
the highest proportion of office avoided carbon low gas consumption rate, utilising district
the COVID-19 pandemic are, for the majority of savings are driven by their avoided commuting
emissions compared to commuting. heating instead. Electricity grid intensity also
countries, the driving force of avoided emissions emissions. Furthermore, the domestic-related
has a significant role to play in determining the
potential, outweighing both the avoided commuting emissions when Swedish teleworkers work from
In order to understand the impact and variability degree of office-related (and domestic-related)
carbon impacts and the rebound carbon impacts home actually outweigh their office-related savings
of office-related avoided teleworker emissions, emissions of individual teleworkers.
of domestic consumption. What this suggests is impact, suggesting office buildings in Sweden are
it is necessary to dig down into the average
that over a year long period, when working in the significantly energy efficient. A full breakdown of the
energy consumption of office buildings.
office, teleworkers are consuming more energy proportion of enabled avoided emissions, for each
and resulting in higher levels of carbon emissions, country, can be found in Appendix 3.
compared to their commute and, in most cases,
Figure 13 Average annual office energy consumption (kWh/m2) per country
Figure 12 During COVID emissions components and total carbon savings per teleworker by country
350
314
298
1,500 300
2,000
988
1,000
776 1,800 250
kgCO2e/teleworker/yr
545
451 1,600
500 776
270
200
kWh/m2
1,400 174
kgCO2e/teleworker/yr
0 157
-220 -215 -263
1,200 150 135
-282 -294 129
-500 -474
1,000 104 105
1,861 95 97
--1,000 -813 -867
-784 100 88
800
-1,153
-1,320 600 1,144
-1,500 50 37
889 890
400
-2,000 6
-1,988
200 0
243 270 UK Germany Spain Sweden Italy Czech Republic
-2,500
0
Gas Electricity District heating
blic blic
UK
y
n
en
ly
UK
y
n
en
ly
an
an
pu pu
ai
ai
Ita
Ita
ed
ed
Sp
Sp
Re Re
rm
rm
Sw
Sw
Ge
Ge
h h
zec zec
C C
During-COVID avoided commuting emissions Total carbon savings per teleworker:
during COVID
During-COVID additional domestic energy-related emissions
During-COVID avoided office-related emissions
24 25Homeworking report Homeworking report
As figure 14 below illustrates, Sweden has This means while Swedish teleworkers benefit
a much lower grid intensity emission factor from having a lower emissions impact when
compared to other countries (~ 1/30th the size consuming electricity, it also results in them Potential future savings by country
of Germany’s emission factor) where Germany, effectively being penalised in terms of savings,
Italy and the Czech Republic are among the as they avoid much less emissions when To understand the potential carbon savings from increased teleworking, we analysed a future
highest (see Appendix 1 for table of grid working from home. Combining this impact scenario, where everyone who can work from home does so at the number of days per week
emission factors, by country). Consequently, of grid intensity, with differences in building used in the Post-COVID (2022+) scenario (i.e. roughly between two and three days per week,
this results in Swedish teleworkers producing efficiency between countries, results in the depending on the country – see Figure 6).
much lower carbon emissions when significant geographic variability in average
consuming electricity than, for example, Italian teleworker savings and emissions impacts The results in Figure 16 show that Germany has the greatest potential for carbon savings in this
teleworkers, whether at home or in the office. when working from home. scenario at 12 MtCO2e/year, reflecting the large working population and relatively large proportion
of teleworkable jobs (39%) in Germany. The Czech Republic, on the other hand, is likely to result in
the smallest potential carbon savings (0.15 MtCO2e/year), having a much smaller total population
and the lowest number of teleworkable jobs in the working population (32% of all workers).
Figure 14 Grid intensity by country (kgCO2e/kWh)
Figure 15 Total number of teleworkable jobs by country Figure 16 Total potential carbon saving (MtCO2e/year)
0.6 20 14
Number of teleworkable jobs
18
12
16
0.5 14 10
MtCO2e/year
(millions)
12
8
10
8 15.16 17.47 6 12.2
0.4
6 4 8.7
kgCO2e/kWh
4 8.23
6.52 2.13 1.72 2 4.1 3.9
2 0.25
0.3 0.15
0 0
UK Germany Spain Sweden Italy Czech UK Germany Spain Sweden Italy Czech
Republic Republic
0.2 Potential number of teleworker jobs (millions) Total potential carbon saving (MtCO2e/year)
0.1 This analysis used the latest available data on working population and working patterns to estimate the number of teleworkable
jobs by country (see Appendix 3 for sources and assumptions). This is likely to be an underestimate, as, in the future, the
proportion of jobs that are teleworkable will probably increase. To estimate the total potential carbon savings the number of
teleworkable jobs was multiplied by the average carbon saving per teleworker per year for the post-COVID 2022+ scenario
0.0
UK Germany Spain Sweden Italy Czech
Republic
Potential Savings Contextualised
The potential savings for UK and Spain are While at the individual level, the average
each about 4 MtCO2e/year, this is equivalent German teleworker in the Post-COVID (2022+)
to approximately 28 million one-way scenario will save 700 kgCO2e per year from
passenger flights from London to Berlin20. working from home 2.7 days per week,
Italy’s potential savings are just over double which is equivalent to 5 one-way London to
that at 8.7 MtCO2e, equivalent to 60 million Berlin flights. For the other countries in the
London to Berlin flights, and Germany’s Post-COVID (2022+) scenario the equivalent
potential savings at 12 MtCO2e are equivalent number of flights ranges from just below 1
to 83 million flights. for Sweden to just over 7 for Italy.
26 27Homeworking report Homeworking report
4. Assessing the carbon 4.1.1. Seasonality and mode of transport
impact on an average teleworker’s emissions
during the winter, when heating consumption,
which is typically dominated by fuel oil and gas, is
at its highest. Conversely, in summer the German
impact of a teleworker We found that, in winter, the average German
teleworker who commutes by train can reduce
teleworker who works from home will reduce
their carbon impact, regardless of the mode of
beyond the average profile
their carbon impact by working in the office, transport that they would have used. As a result,
whereas in summer they will reduce their impact the teleworker that normally commutes by car
by working at home whether they commute by can save 6.44kgCO2e/day and the teleworker that
is complicated
train or car as indicated in Figure 17. This is driven normally commutes by train can save 3.72kgCO2e/
by the high domestic energy consumption at home day, when working from home.
4.1.
Homeworking does not always result in individual Figure 17 Germany average teleworker emissions winter vs. summer, car vs. train
teleworker savings 14.00
12.00
Our analysis has shown that on average across To illustrate this our analysis assessed the variability
all six European countries teleworking can enable in daily teleworker savings when working from home 10.00 5.97
carbon savings when we look at an average year- compared to working in the office, across different 3.62
kgCO2e/day
long period for all scenarios (pre, during, post- case study scenarios. For each case study, specific 8.00
COVID). However, analysing a national average parameters and assumptions were chosen to 12.71 12.71
6.00
may not reflect the variations in seasonality, reflect the different circumstances and behaviours
of teleworkers, across two countries, Spain and 5.97
individual behaviours or teleworking patterns that 4.00 7.29 7.29 3.62
also impact emissions at a given period or context. Germany, and how that can significantly impact their
2.00 4.47 4.47
For instance, in countries with colder climates we overall emissions footprint. The three parameters
know that in winter there is a greater consumption assessed are as follows: 1.49 1.49
0
of heating as opposed to summer which can result Working Working Working Working Working Working Working Working
from home from office from home from office from home from office from home from office
in increased emissions in winter vs. summer. To • Seasonality (winter vs summer) Scenario 1: German Scenario 2: German Scenario 3: German Scenario 4: German
get a granular understanding of the carbon impact teleworker, commuting teleworker, commuting by teleworker, commuting teleworker, commuting by
by car during the winter car during the summer by train during the winter train during the summer
of future teleworking adoption it is important to • Mode of transport (car vs train)
consider influencing factors that may increase or Commuting emissions Domestic emissions Office emissions
decrease emissions. This could help inform plans to • Regional location (rural vs urban)
incentivise teleworkers to stay at home or come into 8.00
the office at a given time or context when lowest Our case studies show that teleworker carbon 6.00
carbon emissions impact can be achieved. savings are more complex than simply the average 4.00
6.44
kgCO2e/day
annual potential savings, and that individual 2.00 0.55 0.65
savings at a granular level are in fact sensitive to 0
several factors. -2.00 -5.24
-4.00
-6.00
Working from home Working from home Working from home Working from home
Scenario 1: German Scenario 2: German Scenario 3: German Scenario 4: German
teleworker, commuting teleworker, commuting by teleworker, commuting teleworker, commuting by
by car during the winter car during the summer by train during the winter train during the summer
Teleworker saving
28 29Homeworking report Homeworking report
In Spain, however, the average teleworker that works This is driven by the fact that in the summer 4.1.2. Seasonality and location (urban vs. rural) we compared how results change if people live
from home can save up to 4.38kgCO2e/day by months in Spain the average teleworker consumes impact on an average teleworker’s emissions in urban areas typically commuting ~20km to
working from home regardless of their commuting a significant amount of energy for domestic cooling work and if they live in rural areas with a longer
mode of transport, given domestic related emissions at home, which results in higher daily emissions As explained above, many factors can influence commute distance of ~40km on average. In both
do not outweigh the avoided commuting and office compared to average office and commuting the scale of emissions at a given time, whether contexts, we assumed that the average teleworker
emissions. Figure 18 also shows that in summer emissions. By commuting by train in the summer, people live in rural or urban environments which living in a rural area would commute to work by
the Spanish teleworker can reduce their carbon which is a less carbon intensive mode of transport, results in longer commuting distances will also car when going into the office whilst the average
emissions by going into the office regardless of teleworkers can actually save emissions on a daily have a major impact. For Spain and Germany urban teleworker would commute by train.
their mode of transport as they can save up to 2.29 basis by not working from home.
kgCO2e/day by working in the office.
Figure 19 Germany average teleworker emissions winter vs. summer, rural vs. urban
16.00
14.00
Figure 18 Spain average teleworker emissions winter vs. summer, car vs. train
12.00 5.97
3.62
kgCO2e/day
10.00
8.00
8.00
7.00 6.00 12.71 12.71
6.00 4.00 8.62 8.62 5.97
4.47 4.47 3.62
5.00 2.00
kgCO2e/day
3.83 0.88 0.88
2.91 0
4.00 Working Working Working Working Working Working Working Working
from home from office from home from office from home from office from home from office
3.00 5.78 5.78 Scenario 1: German rural Scenario 2: German rural Scenario 3: German urban Scenario 4: German urban
3.83 teleworker, commuting teleworker, commuting by teleworker, commuting by teleworker, commuting by
2.00 2.91 by car during the winter car during the summer train during the winter train during the summer
2.84 2.84 Commuting emissions Domestic emissions Office emissions
1.00 2.29 2.29
0.58 0.58 8.00
0 6.00
Working Working Working Working Working Working Working Working
from home from office from home from office from home from office from home from office 4.00 7.78
kgCO2e/day
1.89
Scenario 5: Spanish Scenario 6: Spanish Scenario 7: Spanish Scenario 8: Spanish 2.00 0.04
teleworker, commuting teleworker, commuting by teleworker, commuting by teleworker, commuting by 0
by car during the winter car during the summer train during the winter train during the summer
-2.00
-5.85
Commuting emissions Domestic emissions Office emissions -4.00
-6.00
5.00
4.00 Working from home Working from home Working from home Working from home
Scenario 1: German rural Scenario 2: German rural Scenario 3: German urban Scenario 4: German urban
3.00
teleworker, commuting by teleworker, commuting by teleworker, commuting by teleworker, commuting by
4.38
kgCO2e/day
2.00 car during the winter car during the summer train during the winter train during the summer
1.00 2.12
Teleworker saving
0
-0.03
-1.00 -2.29
-2.00 In Germany we found that a typical German However, during the winter, a typical urban German
-3.00 teleworker commuting from a rural setting can teleworker working from home results in negative
Working from home Working from home Working from home Working from home enable an average daily carbon saving by working daily carbon savings (-5.85 kgCO2e/day). This is
Scenario 5: Spanish Scenario 6: Spanish Scenario 7: Spanish Scenario 8: Spanish from home in both the winter (1.89 kgCO2e/day) and due to the fact that, as illustrated in Figure 19, the
teleworker, commuting teleworker, commuting by teleworker, commuting by teleworker, commuting by
by car during the winter car during the summer train during the winter train during the summer in the summer (7.78 kgCO2e/day). A typical urban- domestic emissions from working from home
based German teleworker, who instead commutes during winter outweigh the urban teleworker’s train
Teleworker saving by train over a generally shorter distance than rural commute and office-related emissions.
workers, can also just enable savings when working
30 from home during the summer (0.04 kgCO2e/day). 31Homeworking report Homeworking report
Figure 20 Spain average teleworker emissions winter vs. summer, rural vs. urban
14.00
12.00
3.83
10.00 2.91
kgCO2e/day
8.00
6.00
4.00 8.62 8.62
5.78 3.83 5.78
2.00 2.91
2.29 2.29
0.88 0.88
0
Working Working Working Working Working Working Working Working
from home from office from home from office from home from office from home from office
Scenario 5: Spanish rural
teleworker, commuting
Scenario 6: Spanish rural
teleworker, commuting by
Scenario 7: Spanish urban
teleworker, commuting by
Scenario 8: Spanish urban
teleworker, commuting by 4.2.
An optimum carbon emissions analysis needs to look
by car during the winter car during the summer train during the winter train during the summer
at each country’s energy system
Commuting emissions Domestic emissions Office emissions
12.00 As COVID-19 restrictions lift and companies countries with low grid intensity like in Sweden
10.00 transition towards re-opening offices there is an have a smaller footprint. However, as demand
8.00 expectation that a hybrid-working model will be in changes, the generation to supply electricity
kgCO2e/day
6.00 place, providing flexibility for teleworkers to decide also varies to respond to this demand; to better
10.17
4.00 whether to come into offices or work from home understand the carbon impact of teleworkers in
5.75
2.00 as they wish.21 This flexibility is an opportunity for different scenarios it is important to look at the
2.43
0 teleworkers to plan their work-life balance in a way marginal grid intensity and demand.
-1.99
-2.00 that it would contribute to maintaining quality of
-4.00 life, productivity and social interactions.22 However, Lockdowns have shown that peak demand
Working from home Working from home Working from home Working from home
from a carbon perspective, flexible working patterns completely shifted with a slower uptake
Scenario 5: Spanish rural Scenario 6: Spanish rural Scenario 7: Spanish urban Scenario 8: Spanish urban
teleworker, commuting teleworker, commuting by teleworker, commuting by teleworker, commuting by
could mean less predictable patterns in terms of electricity demand in the morning and spikes
by car during the winter car during the summer train during the winter train during the summer of individual habits, workforce coming into the happening when COVID-related announcements
office or not, from varied locations at a given time or other TV programmes are broadcasted23.
Teleworker saving
during the year that could induce greater or less Countries, like the UK, have also experienced their
emissions if not anticipated. electricity system recording ‘greenest days’ as
renewables were able to generate up to 60% of
In comparison, a typical Spanish rural teleworker the summer an urban Spanish teleworker has These variations have a particular influence all electricity on a given day. It is important to get
can also achieve daily carbon savings by working a lower carbon impact when going into the office, on the electricity demand that would result in a more granular view of those nuances at a local
from home in both the summer (5.75 kgCO2e/ as the domestic energy consumption emissions less predictable patterns, which utilities need to level to analyse the carbon impact a teleworker
day) and winter (10.17 kgCO2e/day) when they from cooling and office equipment in the summer grapple with. Factors such as location or people’s has based on their location, the marginal grid
would typically commute longer distances by car. outweigh the emissions of commuting by train movements (from urban to rural) may increase intensity for a given period and seasonality. For
An urban Spanish teleworker who would typically and office-related emissions, resulting in negative demand for more carbon-intensive sourced power instance, if a teleworker is in a home close to clean
commute shorter distances by train during the daily savings when working from home (-1.99 instead of low-carbon sources of energy. Our electricity generation during an abundant season,
winter also enables daily carbon savings (2.43 kgCO2e/day). results have shown that countries with higher grid it might be worth incentivizing homeworking for
kgCO2e/day), however during intensity (i.e. Czech Republic and Germany) result, that teleworker.
on average, in higher teleworking emissions whilst
32 33You can also read
