At first glance, return-to-office (RTO) policies seem like a push to “get back to normal.” But normal wasn’t efficient, sustainable, or even logical — and it certainly wasn’t good for the planet.
In 2025, forcing workers back into centralized buildings five days a week feels less like a strategy and more like stubborn nostalgia. As if a swivel chair and fluorescent lighting somehow hold the secret to innovation.
Here’s the truth: RTO is wasting time, money, energy — and accelerating environmental harm.
It’s not a return to normal. It’s a return to waste.
The Productivity Myth: What Are We Actually Gaining?
Many RTO arguments rest on the assumption that in-person work is inherently better. But the data tells a more complicated story:
- Numerous studies have shown equal or higher productivity among remote workers
- Knowledge workers save an average of 72 minutes per day by skipping commutes
- Time saved is often re-invested into focused work, family, or rest — all of which improve performance and retention
Instead of boosting productivity, rigid RTO policies often lead to:
- Commutes to Zoom meetings
- Empty office buildings with little collaboration
- Employee resentment and attrition
Workers are showing up to sit in meetings with people still dialing in from home. This isn’t strategy — it’s performative presence.
And all this inefficiency carries a hidden cost: the environmental toll of pretending it’s 2019.
Wasted Time = Wasted Fuel
Every hour spent in traffic is more than a personal inconvenience — it’s a collective act of pollution.
- In the U.S., the average one-way commute is 27.6 minutes — or about 5 full days per year spent just driving to work
- Daily commuting adds hundreds of millions of tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere globally
- 80% of U.S. workers still commute by car, mostly alone
That means one return-to-office mandate = thousands of individual emissions sources needlessly reactivated.
And in most cases, the work itself? Still digital. Still email. Still Slack.
So what exactly are we driving for?
Environmental Waste: More Than Just Exhaust
The waste doesn’t stop at fuel. Returning to the office also increases:
1. Electricity Usage
Large office buildings require constant lighting, heating, cooling, and equipment operation — even when occupancy is low. Many are not energy efficient, and older HVAC systems burn through fossil fuels just to maintain baseline comfort.
2. Water Consumption
From bathrooms to cleaning crews to office kitchens, water use spikes in centralized workspaces. Offices also produce more greywater runoff, which burdens municipal systems and often carries pollutants into local ecosystems.
3. Disposable Everything
Back in the office means back to:
- Takeout lunches in plastic containers
- Coffee pods and paper cups
- Single-use wipes and masks
- Excess paper printing
- Event swag and branded junk
Home workers often cook their own meals, use real dishes, and produce less trash overall. At scale, the difference is significant.
A High-Cost Illusion
Let’s be blunt: RTO mandates often cost more than they deliver.
For Companies:
- Leasing and maintaining office space
- Utilities, cleaning, insurance, and supplies
- Reduced morale = higher turnover = recruiting costs
For Employees:
- Gas, transit passes, wear and tear
- Lost hours with family or in rest
- Increased stress and exposure to illness
For the Planet:
- Higher carbon emissions
- More landfill waste
- Greater energy demand during climate emergencies
If return-to-office doesn’t deliver better work or outcomes, and costs more across every axis… why are we doing it?
Remote Work: A Proven Climate Solution
Remote work isn’t a trend — it’s an environmental win backed by hard numbers.
- One Stanford study found that full-time remote work cuts emissions by up to 54% per worker
- Global Workplace Analytics estimates that widespread remote work could reduce oil dependence by over 37 million barrels annually
- Cities with remote work have seen longer-lasting air quality improvements even after lockdowns ended
It’s not just about skipping the drive. Remote work decentralizes energy use, lowers resource strain, and gives workers more control over their own footprints.
And despite myths to the contrary, it doesn’t have to be isolating or inefficient. Today’s tools allow real-time collaboration, async productivity, and deeper focus than most open-office plans.
Remote work isn’t lazy. It’s logical.
The Bigger Question: What Kind of Future Are We Building?
When companies mandate full-time in-office presence without evidence that it improves results, they’re sending a clear message:
We value control over outcomes. We choose image over impact.
And when the planet is on fire, that’s not just outdated — it’s irresponsible.
We are in the midst of a global climate crisis. Wildfires, heatwaves, floods, and biodiversity collapse are accelerating. Every system needs redesigning. Every opportunity to reduce emissions matters.
Workplace structure isn’t an exception — it’s a front-line climate battleground.
Alternatives to the Office-Only Mentality
Companies don’t have to choose between chaos and cubicles. There are smarter models:
- Remote-first with optional hubs for collaboration
- Flexible hybrid schedules (1–2 days/week)
- Decentralized coworking credits near where people live
- Four-day workweeks with remote Mondays and Fridays
- Incentives for green commuting or carpooling on in-office days
The goal isn’t to eliminate connection. It’s to design it intentionally — without the waste.
Final Thoughts: We Deserve Better Than This
The return-to-office push isn’t just a missed opportunity — it’s a failure of imagination.
We had a global experiment in new ways of working. We saw the benefits. But instead of building forward, too many leaders are reverting to comfort zones built on concrete and parking lots.
We can’t afford to waste time on systems that waste everything else.
A return to office should only happen if it creates more value than it consumes.
It should improve lives, reduce harm, and make the planet more livable — not less.
So next time someone says, “We’re bringing everyone back in,” ask:
For what?
And at what cost?
Because this isn’t just about how we work.
It’s about whether we’re working for the future — or against it.
Reader Interactions