Working from home and labour productivity

One of the lasting consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic will be the way we work with more time spent on working from home compared to the pre-pandemic situation. Clearly, the possibility to do so depends to a large extent on the industry, the nature of the job but also the country. These developments would have profound implications on where people decide to live, the role of cities, the need for office space, the use of means of transport, the needs in terms of IT infrastructure (high-speed internet), etc. A priori, one would expect a positive impact on productivity, in particular, due to increased worker satisfaction and efficiency. Based on recent surveys, that is also what companies seem to expect. However, empirical research shows that the impact on productivity largely depends on factors such as the IT infrastructure, employee preferences, and the way it is introduced and accompanied by company management.

It seems that one of the lasting consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic will be the way we work. Before the health crisis, only a small percentage of the labour force used to work to some extent from home but this number increased significantly last year. This enabled companies in sectors where working from home was possible and provided that the necessary IT infrastructure was available, to limit the hit of lockdowns or other restrictions on their activity. Quite soon, it became clear that this new way of working was not going to disappear.

A survey of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta in May last year showed that “the anticipated share of working days at home is set to triple after the pandemic ends – rising from 5.5 percent to 16.6 percent of all working days.” The share of full-time employees expected to work at least one day from home per week was expected to see a similar increase, from 10% to nearly 30%. An ECB survey conducted in 2020 showed that “More remote working and an acceleration of digitalisation were the most frequently cited long-term supply-side effects of the pandemic.” More than 75% of survey participants agreed that a significantly higher share of their workforce would continue to work remotely. McKinsey Global Institute has analysed more than 2,000 activities in more than 800 occupations. Their conclusion is that the possibility for remote working very depends on the industry, the nature of the job but also the country. “More than 20 percent of the workforce could work remotely three to five days a week as effectively as they could if working from an office.” This corresponds to three to four times as many than before the pandemic. Clearly, if confirmed, these developments would have profound implications on where people decide to live, the role of cities, the need for office space, the use of means of transport, the needs in terms of IT infrastructure (high-speed internet), etc.

From a business and macroeconomic perspective, two factors are particularly important: productivity and innovation. Several arguments plead in favour of assuming an increase in productivity. Employees may immediately go to their desk at home when they previously left home and hence work longer hours. Meetings start on time and tend to be shorter. Reduced business travel implies less time lost on the road or in public transport. These factors may increase worker satisfaction and efficiency. On the other hand, there may be sources of distraction at home, people may feel alone, there may be frustration in case of hidden overtime or an inappropriate working environment at home. In a survey commissioned by Microsoft involving 9,000 managers and employees in large firms in 15 European countries about working from home during the pandemic, the percentage of respondents who thought that productivity had increased was higher than those thinking the opposite. A British survey of close to 5,000 people sheds light on the employees’ perspective. “On average, employees consider they are about 2% more efficient when working from home. Certainly, there is no evidence that working from home is substantially less efficient, the big fear before the pandemic.” However, the assessment of the experience from working from home during the pandemic may be influenced by several factors such as the quality of the IT infrastructure, the possibility of using video-based communication, the sudden introduction, etc. An overview of the pre-pandemic research on this topic confirms the key role played by factors such as the nature of the job, the preference or reluctance of employees to work from home, and the way this is introduced by company management. “Although these analyses provide an overview of factors that determine whether this organisational change will be successful, they do not allow to determine the macroeconomic impact on productivity.”

Nevertheless, based on the ECB survey, it would seem that companies are optimistic in this respect. “Most respondents considered that the pandemic would have a positive long-term impact on productivity but a negative impact on employment […] 60% said that productivity in their business or sector would increase, while hardly any saw productivity decreasing as a long-term consequence of the pandemic.” Still, the question remains up to which point working from home should be deployed. The OECD argues that there exists an inverted U-shaped relationship between working from home and worker efficiency because, beyond a certain point, negative effects – in terms of communication, knowledge flows, managerial oversight- start to dominate the positive consequences of increased working from home. However, the exact form of this relationship is likely to vary with the relative importance of these factors by sector and occupation. Empirical research will be needed to find out the optimal combination of working from home and on site.

Download The Full EcoFlash

Share: Analysis feed

BNP Paribas is regulated by the FSA for the conduct of its designated investment business in the UK and is a member of the London Stock Exchange. The information and opinions contained in this report have been obtained from public sources believed to be reliable, but no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made that such information is accurate or complete and it should not be relied upon as such. This report does not constitute a prospectus or other offering document or an offer or solicitation to buy any securities or other investment. Information and opinions contained in the report are published for the assistance of recipients, but are not to be relied upon as authoritative or taken in substitution for the exercise of judgement by any recipient, they are subject to change without notice and not intended to provide the sole basis of any evaluation of the instruments discussed herein. Any reference to past performance should not be taken as an indication of future performance. No BNP Paribas Group Company accepts any liability whatsoever for any direct or consequential loss arising from any use of material contained in this report. All estimates and opinions included in this report constitute our judgements as of the date of this report. BNP Paribas and their affiliates ("collectively "BNP Paribas") may make a market in, or may, as principal or agent, buy or sell securities of the issuers mentioned in this report or derivatives thereon. BNP Paribas may have a financial interest in the issuers mentioned in this report, including a long or short position in their securities, and or options, futures or other derivative instruments based thereon. BNP Paribas, including its officers and employees may serve or have served as an officer, director or in an advisory capacity for any issuer mentioned in this report. BNP Paribas may, from time to time, solicit, perform or have performed investment banking, underwriting or other services (including acting as adviser, manager, underwriter or lender) within the last 12 months for any issuer referred to in this report. BNP Paribas, may to the extent permitted by law, have acted upon or used the information contained herein, or the research or analysis on which it was based, before its publication. BNP Paribas may receive or intend to seek compensation for investment banking services in the next three months from an issuer mentioned in this report. Any issuer mentioned in this report may have been provided with sections of this report prior to its publication in order to verify its factual accuracy. This report was produced by a BNP Paribas Group Company. This report is for the use of intended recipients and may not be reproduced (in whole or in part) or delivered or transmitted to any other person without the prior written consent of BNP Paribas. By accepting this document you agree to be bound by the foregoing limitations. Analyst Certification Each analyst responsible for the preparation of this report certifies that (i) all views expressed in this report accurately reflect the analyst's personal views about any and all of the issuers and securities named in this report, and (ii) no part of the analyst's compensation was, is, or will be, directly or indirectly, related to the specific recommendations or views expressed herein. United States: This report is being distributed to US persons by BNP Paribas Securities Corp., or by a subsidiary or affiliate of BNP Paribas that is not registered as a US broker-dealer, to US major institutional investors only. BNP Paribas Securities Corp., a subsidiary of BNP Paribas, is a broker-dealer registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is a member of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. BNP Paribas Securities Corp. accepts responsibility for the content of a report prepared by another non-US affiliate only when distributed to US persons by BNP Paribas Securities Corp. United Kingdom: This report has been approved for publication in the United Kingdom by BNP Paribas London Branch, a branch of BNP Paribas whose head office is in Paris, France. BNP Paribas London Branch is regulated by the Financial Services Authority ("FSA") for the conduct of its designated investment business in the United Kingdom and is a member of the London Stock Exchange. This report is prepared for professional investors and is not intended for Private Customers in the United Kingdom as defined in FSA rules and should not be passed on to any such persons. Japan: This report is being distributed to Japanese based firms by BNP Paribas Securities (Japan) Limited, Tokyo Branch, or by a subsidiary or affiliate of BNP Paribas not registered as a financial instruments firm in Japan, to certain financial institutions permitted by regulation. BNP Paribas Securities (Japan) Limited, Tokyo Branch, a subsidiary of BNP Paribas, is a financial instruments firm registered according to the Financial Instruments and Exchange Law of Japan and a member of the Japan Securities Dealers Association. BNP Paribas Securities (Japan) Limited, Tokyo Branch accepts responsibility for the content of a report prepared by another non-Japan affiliate only when distributed to Japanese based firms by BNP Paribas Securities (Japan) Limited, Tokyo Branch. Hong Kong: This report is being distributed in Hong Kong by BNP Paribas Hong Kong Branch, a branch of BNP Paribas whose head office is in Paris, France. BNP Paribas Hong Kong Branch is regulated as a Licensed Bank by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and is deemed as a Registered Institution by the Securities and Futures Commission for the conduct of Advising on Securities [Regulated Activity Type 4] under the Securities and Futures Ordinance Transitional Arrangements. Singapore: This report is being distributed in Singapore by BNP Paribas Singapore Branch, a branch of BNP Paribas whose head office is in Paris, France. BNP Paribas Singapore is a licensed bank regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore is exempted from holding the required licenses to conduct regulated activities and provide financial advisory services under the Securities and Futures Act and the Financial Advisors Act. © BNP Paribas (2011). All rights reserved.