Browse
Engage
Research
CHICAGO, IL, and ATLANTA, GA — A growing number of corporate real estate executives say they are willing to pay more to lease green office space and that they consider sustainability issues when making decisions about locations, according to recently released research from CoreNet Global and Jones Lang LaSalle.
CoreNet Global, an organization for corporate real estate professionals, and commercial real estate services firm Jones Lang LaSalle made the results of their fourth annual Sustainability Survey available yesterday.
Conducted last November, the survey gauges attitudes and trends on sustainability and owned and leased corporate facilities.
Half the respondents now say they are willing to pay more to lease green office space in contrast to 37 percent who said the same in 2009, and 23 percent said they would pay more rent if some of it were offset by lower energy costs.
What’s the tolerance level for premiums on green workspace? Forty-eight percent said they would pay as much as 10 percent more for sustainable space, and 2 percent said they would expect to pay more than that.
Just how important is sustainability to the execs who oversee corporate real estate portfolios? Sixty-four percent said it’s a critical business issue and 92 percent said they consider it when making decisions about locations.
Also, while energy costs continue to be an important sustainability metric, fewer than a third of respondents now say it is their top consideration. Thirty-two percent identified energy costs as their No. 1 concern, compared to 37 percent in 2009. In the meantime, concern for employee health and productivity edged upward with 31 percent saying the factors are an important measure of success; 29 percent deemed them so in 2009. Eleven percent said they now consider employee satisfaction the most important consideration.
“The Sustainability Survey results reflect an evolution that we’re seeing in the industry,” said Dan Probst, chairman of Energy and Sustainability Services at Jones Lang LaSalle, in a statement.
I am curious as to how much
I am curious as to how much “perception” plays into driving the increased upward trend discussed in the article regarding health and productivity improvements. Developers, real estate managers, corporations occupying LEED buildings and others continue to market the claims that LEED buildings can improve human health and increase productivity but the data remains thin. A search of the internet shows more marketing pitch than scientific data to substantiate the claims. There appears to be more research underway to better quantify what building improvements could lead to better health and therefore productivity. That would certainly be a good thing for employers as well as employees. A recent journal article discusses findings from a Michigan State University study of perceived benefits of improved Indoor Environmental Quality on employee health and productivity (http://news.msu.edu/media/documents/2010/08/840514e8-0b32-4aa4-9fc8-276b...). Although promising, the results quantitatively supplement qualitative studies of health improvement but clearly have limitations and need further study. It seems that the jury is still out but worth watching.
As I read the article it was
As I read the article it was more about how companies (want to) save on energy cost. When choosing a new office space they rather go for the low energy one.
If employee health and efficiency also increase - even better.
I think it is great that corporate America finally realizes that going green does not only save the environment but also reduce their spendings.