In the heart of Norway, a groundbreaking study is reshaping our understanding of how office environments impact worker health, with significant implications for the energy sector and beyond. Therese Nitter Moazami, a researcher from the Department of Occupational Health Surveillance at The National Institute of Occupational Health (STAMI) and the Department of Built Environment at Oslo Metropolitan University (OsloMet), has led a comprehensive investigation into the indoor climates of shared versus private offices and their effects on headaches and respiratory symptoms among Norwegian office workers.
The study, published in the journal *Indoor Environments* (translated to English as *Indoor Environments*), analyzed data from a staggering 7,968 office workers collected over two waves in 2016 and 2019. The findings are both eye-opening and thought-provoking. “We found that shared offices, particularly flexible spaces and those with more than 24 occupants, reported significantly poorer indoor climate conditions compared to private offices,” Moazami explains. This poor indoor climate was strongly associated with respiratory symptoms and headaches, with odds ratios of 2.17 and 1.66, respectively.
The research employed advanced statistical methods, including generalized linear models (GLMs) and mediation analysis, to uncover the intricate relationships between office type, indoor climate, and health outcomes. “Interestingly, we didn’t find a direct association between office type and health outcomes,” Moazami notes. “However, the mediation analysis revealed a significant indirect effect of office type on health outcomes via indoor climate. This suggests that the indoor environment plays a crucial role in shaping worker health.”
One of the most compelling aspects of the study is its interaction analysis, which showed that the association between poor indoor climate and respiratory symptoms was stronger in shared offices compared to cell offices. “This highlights the importance of considering both office layout and indoor climate quality when evaluating workplace health,” Moazami emphasizes.
The commercial implications for the energy sector are substantial. As companies increasingly adopt open-plan and flexible office designs to save space and reduce energy costs, the findings underscore the need to prioritize indoor climate quality. Poor indoor environments can lead to increased sick leave, reduced productivity, and higher healthcare costs, ultimately offsetting any savings from energy-efficient designs.
This research is poised to shape future developments in office design and energy management. It calls for a holistic approach that balances energy efficiency with occupant health and well-being. As Moazami puts it, “The goal is to create workplaces that are not only energy-efficient but also promote the health and productivity of their occupants.”
In an era where sustainability and well-being are at the forefront of corporate agendas, this study serves as a timely reminder that the indoor environment is a critical factor in achieving these goals. The findings challenge the energy sector to innovate and develop solutions that enhance indoor climate quality, ultimately fostering healthier and more productive workplaces.