The Future of Work & The Biomimetic Office

Human history has a paradoxical relationship towards nature. While we are all a product of nature, in Western civilisation we have pro- gressively distanced ourselves from it. Especially since the Industrial Revolution, progress meant overcoming natural limitations. Biomimicry, the adaptation of natural forms and principles to generate not just aesthetic, but functional outcomes, are an emergent area of systematic research and development. A largely untapped potential for the principles of biomimicry is the world of work, and the office in particular, which this paper seeks to explore.

Dr. Ralf Bellm

Introduction: The Nature of Work

Human history has a paradoxical relationship towards nature. While we are all a product of nature, in Western civilisation we have progressively distanced ourselves from it. Architecture and has long served to shield us against the forces of nature. Especially since the Industrial Revolution, progress meant overcoming natural limitations. The invention of electric light suddenly lit factories bright as daylight in the middle of the night, allowing production to progress 24 hours a day. Railways, cars, planes and other modes of transport technology have served to overcome the natural restrictions of time and space. Nature had become a decorum, an aesthetic pleasure that was not functional to socioeconomic development.

Yet there were also singular instances where nature did signal a path to progress and development, such as Leonardo da Vinci’s study of flight. Today, the instances are not far and few between anymore. Some of the technically most ingenious products of daily use are based on nature. For instance, the hooks found in burdock burrs, which attach to other surfaces, inspired Velcro. The Japanese Shinkansen Bullet Train’s nose, a 50 foot long steel beak was inspired by the kingfisher bird, which barely causes a ripple when diving into water. Biomimicry, the adaptation of natural forms and principles to generate not just aesthetic, but functional outcomes, are an emergent area of systematic research and development.

A largely untapped potential for the principles of biomimicry is the world of work, and the office in particular, which this paper seeks to explore.

Economies of Creativity

 Work is undergoing rapid and profound change. As advanced economies reach the limits of growth, as the sectors which contribute to the production of value structurally change, and as principles of sustainability and scarcity challenge our reliance on resource abundance for economic conduct, the way we work becomes increasingly disconnected from the spatial environment in which this work takes place. While work itself is changing, the office still expresses the 20th century-values of production and consumption in a limitless economy, fuelled by growth expressed in GDP.

Today’s knowledge-based economy stands for an unparalleled relevance of the idea of creativity as a component in work. In ‘The Rise of the Creative Class’, Richard Florida suggests that a central transformation in Western Societies is the proliferation of a creative imperative (2000). Being creative has become the central economic requirement in the world of work and forms the back- bone of many distinct sectors. Economies of creativity refer to two things. Firstly, they denote the necessity to dynamically produce novelty and innovation not just once, but on a recurring basis. Secondly, they refer to a personal and social virtue: being creative and appreciating creative artefacts becomes desirable. The imperative of creativity has transformed the urban environment. Since the 1980’s, cities have transformed through spectacular architecture, redevelopment of urban environments and fostering distinct atmospheres to cater to the idea of creativity. Cities moved beyond the provision of living space, working space and infrastructure, to become creative cities that compete in attracting creative industries.

Advertising agencies, technology companies like Facebook and Google and others have understood competitive advantages of this idea and started attracting creative talent through office environments that stimulate creative output. Among other aspects, their offices focus on the idea of play and fun, with slides, bikes, and quirky meeting rooms, which are supposed to provide retreat, inspiration and ‘gamify’ the office experience. But often, the idea of creativity is translated rather literally through unconventional quirks in office furniture and equipment, but does not extend to a more systematic exploration of opportunities that takes into account the building itself. Paired with the pressure of global competition and competition between cities, the office of the future must take the imperative of creativity seriously and systematically explore the factors that actually foster creativity, and incorporate them in all design decisions.

From Technology to an Ecological Turn

The concept of ‘smart cities’ promises to make cities more eco-friendly, enhance quality of life, increase productivity and efficiency through ICT technologie (Hajer & Dassen, 2014). However, the idea of a ‘digital upgrade’ or ‘technological fix’ fails to address central human aspects that enable creativity. A smart cities paradigm risks turning people more into technology, rather than nurturing profoundly human characteristics. As an increasing array of tasks is being outsourced and automated, and creative competition in the knowledge economy becomes global, creating an environment that enables distinctly human resources to thrive becomes a competitive advantage over technology. This is not an issue of luxury, but a basic requirement for creative differentiation.

The idea of designing with nature turns the idea of technologizing people on its head. Many studies have shown the positive effects of nature on the human body and mind in general. Among these effects are those that organisations should care about deeply, as they are directly linked with the productivity of their employees: stress reduction, increased cognitive per- formance, positive emotions and mood (Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2010, Terrapin Bright Green, 2014, World Green Building Council, 2014). Specifically, exposure to nature has been associated with, inter alia, lower blood pressure, improved stress recovery rates, increased learning rates, enhanced mental stamina and focus, improved cognitive functions, and elevated moods (Kaplan, 1992, Joye, 2007, Terrapin Bright Green, 2012).

As a consequence, researchers, architects, and designers have developed design strategies that try to incorporate nature in our working environments. Elements of such design for example include the incorporation of dynamic and diffuse daylight that changes over time, thermal and airflow variability, water, plants and greenery and views of nature. Yet more complex design strategies have emerged that make use of nature’s genius, and biomimicry stands out. Instead of simply seeking natural shapes as a source of inspiration for aesthetics (biomorphism), biomimicry takes nature as an example for function, by understanding and mimicking the principles behind forms, processes and systems in nature and applying them to architecture (Pawlyn, 2011).

The Costs of No Nature

At its simplest, the value of biomimetic design can be understood in a financial argument through the cost-savings it produces in a creative economy. Organisational costs are mainly driven by human resource factors. Salaries and benefits usually account for about 90% of an organisation’s office operating costs, much more than rent (9%) and energy costs (1 %) (Terrapin Bright Green, 2012). Factors that influence human resources therefore potentially have tremendous impacts on operating costs. Absenteeism, presenteeism and turnover are significant productivity killers, driving these costs.

Absenteeism & Presenteeism. A myriad of studies highlight the costs of absenteeism and sick leave. In the U.S., for example, the Department of Labor reported absenteeism rates for 2010 of 3% in the private sector and 4% in the pub- lic sector. According to research by PWC, similar absentee rates were reported for Western Europe and the UK (between 3 % and 4 %) (PWC, 2013. (Percentages are Bettr calculations based on PWC numbers.), though the UK has slightly higher rates than its neighbouring coun- tries. Strikingly, in the UK tech companies have absence levels three times lower than the public sector. Calculations for the average employee show that this translates to about $2,074 in lost productivity per employee per year in the private sector ($2,502 per employee per year in the public sector) (Terrapin Bright Green, 2012). Similar numbers are estima- ted for Germany. A Booz and Company report (2011) calculated that the annual sickness cost per employee in Germany are €1,199.

Presenteeism, or coming to work despite being sick (and entailing reduced productivity), is a similar problem. Terrapin Bright Green (2012) the resulting annual costs per employee in the US between $938 in the private sector and $1,250 in the public sector. In Germany, presenteeism costs are estimated even higher, at €2.399 (Booz & Company, 2011). The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health (207) estimates the business costs for presenteeism due to mental health problems alone is £15.1bn in the UK.

The above calculations refer to an average employee. Highly paid individuals also entail much higher costs of lost producti- vity, as their salary costs are higher and because they are more difficult to replace, leading to work not getting done one time.

Turnover & The Quest for Talent. In a globalized economy, the best companies are competing for talent. Highly skilled workers are not bound to specific countries or cities; they are globally mobile – and well aware of their value. Today’s knowledge workers prefer to work in stimulating environments that support wellbeing and health as much as innovation and creativity. An attractive work environment is often considered more important than a high salary. In today’s world, finding the best knowledge workers is a difficult task. Turnover is expensive: costs of employee turnover often range from 50 % to 200 % of the employee’s annual salary, based on the type and level of job he or she holds – the replacement process for an office clerk is obviously much less complicated than that for a chief information officer (Scott, McMullen & Royal, 2012).

In an average US company of 1000 employees with average compensation cost of $33.24 per hour, the average turnover costs per employee are $25,875 (Loftness, Hakkinen, Adan & Nevalainen, 2007) ($1,000 termination costs, $9,000 replacement costs, $15,875 lost productivity).

For highly skilled employees, the costs are much higher. Again, the more complex the job and the more valuable the employee, the higher the turnover costs. For employees with six figure salaries, the turnover costs thus easily exceed €100,000.

Obviously, employees will never be 100 % productive and not all of these costs can be attributed to lack of nature. Yet, a large body of literature shows that the physical work environment influences the physical and mental health, wellbeing and productivity of employees. It is with these costs in mind that researchers, engineers and architects have developed design solutions that aim to help increase health, wellbeing and productivity of employees.

The Financial Argument for Adding Nature

Researchers have systematically studied the effects of applying nature-inspired design in the workplace on the human mind and body and connected them to turnover, absenteeism, presenteeism and productivity in general.

Research has specifically looked at the effects of nature-inspired design on absenteeism and health. Elzeyadi (2011) for example conducted a study in Oregon examining the effects of different lighting and view configurations in an administrative building. Employees in a nature-inspired configuration (natural daylight, views of nature) took 6.5% fewer days off than their counterparts with less natural daylight and urban views. In a similar vein, Romm & Browning (1998) attribute a 15 % decrease in absenteeism at a Dutch bank to biophilic measures such as improved natural lighting and incorporation of nature in the office.

The effects of lighting and air quality on hormonal stress and headaches have been documented by Thayer et al. (2010). Not surprisingly, office spaces with poor lighting and air quality yielded greater hormonal stress, while office space with lots of daylight and better air quality resulted in significantly less headaches, suggesting higher productivity. Plants and greenery also help increase productivity. Several studies have described positive effects on productivity, concentration (especially for those working behind computers) and creative task-processing (Dortmont & Bergs, 2001, TNO, 2008).

Similarly, views of nature have been associated with better overall performance on the job. A study by California Energy Commission (2003) found office workers with a view of nature to perform 10% to 25% better on tests of memory recall than those without such a view.

These studies have inspired many organisations to incorporate elements of nature into their offices. Yet, often times, this does not go further than adding plants and greenery or fitting larger windows. Architecture can play an important role in applying these principles in a more advanced and integrated fashion. For instance, although not a prime example for office space, the Eastgate Centre in Harare, Zimbabwe, for instance employs biomimetic architecture by mimicking the design of termite mounds to incorporate better and natural airflow and temperature regulation. That way, positive effects of nature are incorporated while at the same time producing energy savings.

Future-Proofing Work for Social and Cultural Transformations

Beyond direct cost-savings, the positive effects as of designing with nature more widely also provide solutions for socio-economic and cultural trends that transform work, strengthening the long- term competitive position of those who embrace it.

Addressing the Always-On Economy. Rest and recuperation are components of economic growth and productivity. Yet they represent a paradox. Constant connec- tivity and communication enjoys prestige and competitive advantage. Regeneration becomes increasingly difficult and structurally impossible in a networked 24/7, always-on economy. Office design has started to address these problems. Campus offices providing childcare, laundry facilities, supermarkets, banks, restaurants, bars and other everyday services reduce employees need to venture outside the office environment for daily tasks and activities by keeping distances short and making the management of everyday life easier (Friedrichs, 2015). However, these all are interventions that assume work to be draining by definition and seek to improve those factors surrounding work, rather than work itself.

A biomimetic office design starts from an entirely different vantage point in that it brings factors that support and stimulate creative output to work itself. These trans- formative trends are by design already incorporated into the office itself. While the below examples are not fully biomimetic offices, they show how even traits of de- signing with nature can help companies and employees navigate the always-on economy.

Dutch bank ING already in the 1980s incorporated elements of nature, such as maximising natural lighting, organic art and water features in its new headquarters in Amsterdam. Romm & Browning (1998) report a 15% decrease in absenteeism as a result (next to significant energy savings). In New York City, the Bank of America Tower at Bryant Park aims to provide 90 % of all employees with views to parks, reen roofs or rivers. The building was explicitly designed with a view to attract and retain the best employees (Terrapin Bright Green, 2012). With similarly high-value employees in mind, competition for talent shows in the design for headquarters of top tech firms. In Seattle, Amazon is constructing three overlapping glass biospheres with room for large, old trees and plants in its new urban headquarters. A similar amount of greenery will be found in Apple’s new $5bn spaceship-like headquarters in Cupertino, the Apple Campus 2.

Seizing the Changing Structure of Companies. Technology start-ups and entrepreneurship are key components of the knowledge-economy. According to property consultants Knight Frank, this sector took up nearly one-third of available commercial properties in London in the 12 months between June 2012 and June 2013, and is set to continue to grow. However, the relationship between companies and landlords is fraught with tensions as the interests and needs of both sides rarely align. Landlords prize stability and long-term commitments, and it is common to ask commercial tenants for five-year commitments in global cities like London. However, start-ups by nature look after flexibility and scalability. They often are unable to plan years ahead and may either have demand for a dozen, or a few hundred people in the time-frame that landlords expects them to commit to. Start-ups might also fail, be bought or merge with another firm. This turns planning for office space into a challenge, and into either risk or missed opportunity for landlords. A biomimetic office is like an organism – flexible and adaptive to the needs of companies. Instead of a largely static grid, which, like conventional office structures, is pre-defined once it is built, a biomimetic office is able to adapt to the changing requirements of companies that operate within it. At the outset of the 21st century, this is a major advantage in attracting tenants, establishing a long-term relationship with tenants, thus offering planning security, and scaling contractual engagement with tenants as their business develops.

Rebooting the Office as the Heart of the Company. Networked technologies have brought companies and employees closer together, yet at the same time created new distances. On the one hand, telecommuting and the idea of remote work have enabled new efficiencies and sustainability by cutting commute time and enabling to work in a global context more rapidly, reflecting the demands of the always-on economy. On the other hand, the lack of physical co-presence has hindered the serendipitous exchange of idea and undermined a sense of belonging. The recent policy change by Yahoo, demanding all employees to physically be present in the office signals a wider culture change, where a sense of place, and ultimately the office, is becoming a key ingredient of corporate identity. However, such changes often are difficult to put to practice.

The biomimetic office provides a solution. It reflects the values that define competition in the knowledge economy and provides a halo effect on the quality of products and services provided by a tenant company. Those values extend beyond the idea of design to the wider environmental benefits that a biomimetic office provides. Over the past decade, the principle of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has moved from the margins of a company, often managed by marketing teams as purely a communication effort bolted on top of an existing, unchanged way of operating and company ethos, to the very heart of the company.

Investing in the office as a heart of the company coincides with a demographic change in company decision makers. Whereas developers and corporate tenants at large remain transfixed on keeping cost low, research and advisory practice ZZA notices a generational shift that emerged after the dotcom boom. Much younger entrepreneurs began to have the money to decide which premises they wanted to take. Their preferences systematically depart from those of established decision makers in that they place stronger emphasis on the quality of the office. As they lack a history of dealing with finding office space, and are not embedded in traditional corporate grids, their financial perception of the office is transforming as well – they not see building innovations as a risk, but as a feature (Scott, 2013).

A Changing Value System. This new breed of entrepreneurs combi- nes decision power with new mind-set about work and the office. Yet this mindset is an expression of a wider shift in Generation Y (‘Millennials’), the cohort of people who spent their teenage years in the decade between 1990 and 2010. This generation has grown up with the idea of 24/7 availability and flexible work schedules. The pressure to perform in a fluid work environment, which is taken for granted, is paired with changing expectations and priorities as to what this work environment shall provide to them in return. The office has ceased to be a 9 to 5 location that is just part of an ever-same, daily routine, which can and should be balanced by leisure activities outside of work. As work time and leisure time boundaries erode, the same requirements of aesthetics, entertainment, health and lifestyle that govern their life out of work, become imposed on work itself. Work is not the antidote to leisure anymore. Monetary rewards and financial security lose the priority of Millennials’ parent generation. While they remain important in absolute terms, their relative importance declines as they are joined by more qualitative factors. Success in work extends beyond the idea of a linear career, beyond ‘climbing up the ladder’, to personal ful- filment more widely. Work shall be meaningful and enriching. More so than just paying rent, work shall open experiences, discoveries, reflect personal hobbies and philosophies (ILM & Ashridge Business School, 2011). Eco-consciousness and sustainability, both of work itself and the work environment are core features of this new priority set (iOpener Institute for People and Performance, 2012).

There is an unsettling reason that it is mainly young entrepreneurs who reflect this in office choice – they are themselves part of Generation Y. However, senior management in most companies today comes from the Baby Boomer generation which is frequently associated with other attributes: workaholic and earnings-oriented (Pew Research, 2010), and struggles to realise that a growing part of their workforce has an entirely different values and priorities.

Company reward structures and employee priorities are increasingly misaligned. This creates systematic talent acquisition, development, and retention problems. In a global war for talent and competitiveness, companies cannot ignore or sideline this culture clash. By 2025, Millennials will comprise 75 % of the global workforce (BPW Foundation, 2011, Deloitte 2014). Neither should property developers forget to build for the future generation. As more Millennials move into decision-maker positions, the real estate sector needs to be ready to cater to their preferences. A biomimetic office is a container that can absorb Millennials’ preferences. Productivity, feel-good factor, and ecologically sustainable philosophy together create an environment that allows companies to get ready for nurturing a Millennial workforce.

Conclusion and Outlook

The office has always been in flux. But despite technologies, management styles and sociodemographic profiles of their occupants transforming, the physical structure of the office has remained unchanged. Bricks and mortar may have been replaced by steel and glass, but the underlying philosophy of what an office should be and what it should provide has not adapted. Global competition for revenue and talent, and the rise of the economy of creativity are new coordinates in which the office needs to rethink its future. The idea of technology as a solution alone appears short-sighted. An ever-more technologically connected work environment from an architecture and design perspective, requires the application of biological principles to make work economically more viable, attractive, and competitive. Buildings have changed history before. The modern hospital reflected advances in medicine and a shift from isolating sick people to curing them. The dungeon, tellingly called ‘oubliette’ in French, literally was a place where people were forgotten. The modern prison building coincided with a new mind-set of dealing with criminals, focussing on social re-integration and control rather than pain. Today, the world of work is rapidly changing beyond recognition. Yet it misses its architectural form that supports and enables this change. Building for the future of society and economy is an issue that corporations and developers alike cannot longer ignore.

Dieser Artikel entstand im Rahmen des Digitalisierungsbarometers. Die Studie ermittelt anhand einer breit angelegten, repräsentativen Erhebung bei den wichtigsten Akteuren der Immobilienbranche in der Schweiz, wie die Auswirkungen der Digitalisierung wahrgenommen werden und welche Auswirkungen für die kommenden Jahre erwartet werden.

Die gesamte Studie können Sie hier beziehen:

Digitalisierungsbarometer 2016 – Kundenverhalten und Geschäftsmodelle

Digitalisierungsbarometer 2017 – Digitales Planen und Bauen

Weiterführende Literatur

• Booz & Company. (2011). Vorteil Vorsorge – Die Rolle der betrieblichen Gesundheitsvorsorge für die Zukunftsfähigkeit des Wirtschaftsstandortes Deutschland. Online (11.04.2016): http://www. felixburda.de/content/download.php?file=doc1318603781129.pdf&type=pdf&name=Stu- die–quot%3BVorteil-Vorsorge-quot%3B.
• BPW Foundation. (2011). Gen Y Women in the Workplace. Focus Group Summary Report: Online (11.04.2016): http://bpwfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/YC_SummaryReport_Final.pdf
• (2014). Big demands and high expectations. The Deloitte Millennial Survey. Online (11.04.2016): https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/About-Deloitte/gx-dttl-2014- millennial-survey-report.pdf
• Van Dortmont, A. & Bergs, J. (2001). Onderzoek planten en productiviteit (Study on Plants and Productivity). Leiden: Bloemenbureau Holland.
• Elzeyadi, I. (2011). Daylighting-Bias and Biophilia: Quantifying the Impact of Daylighting on Occupants Health. Online (11.04.2016): http://www.usgbc.org/resources/daylighting-bias-and-biophilia
• Florida, R. (2002). The Rise Of The Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community And Everday Life. New York: Basic Books.
• Grahn, P. & Stigsdotter, U. (2010). “The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of urban green space and stress restoration.” Elsevier Science, Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning, p. 264-275.
• Hajer, M & Dassen, T. (2014). Smart About Cities: Visualising the Challenge for 21st Century Urbanism. Rotterdam: PBL/nai010
• California Energy Commission (Hrsg.). (2003). Windows and Offices: A Study of Worker Performance and the Indoor Environment. Online (11.04.2016): http://www.energy.ca.gov/2003publications/ CEC-500-2003-082/CEC-500-2003-082-A-09.PDF
• Friedrichs, J. (2015). Entschleunigung. Die Welt ist mir zu viel. Zeit Magazin Nr. 1/2015. Online (16.01.2016): http://www.zeit.de/zeit-magazin/2015/01/entschleunigung-biedermeier-handarbeit-stressabbau
• Institute of Leadership & Management (ILM) & Ashridge Business School. (2011). Great Expectations: Managing Generation Y. Online (11.04.2016): https://www.ashridge.org.uk/getattachment/Facul- ty-Research/Research/Current-Research/Research-Projects/Great-Expectations-Managing-Ge- neration-Y/GENY-Report-2011.pdf
• iOpener Institute for People and Performance. (2012): Job fulfilment, not pay, retains Generation Y talent. Online (11.04.2016): https://www.iopenerinstitute.com/media/73185/iopener_institute_gen_y_ report.pdf
• Joye, Y. (2007). Architectural Lessons From Environmental Psychology: The Case of Biophilic Architecture. Review of General Psychology 2007, Vol. 11, No. 4, 30. Online (11.04.2016): https://www.rug.nl/ gmw/psychology/research/onderzoek_summerschool/firststep/content/papers/5.2.pdf
• Kaplan, R. (1992). The psychological benefits of nearby nature. In Relf D. (Hrsg.). The role of horticulture in human well-being and social development (p. 125-133). Portland, Oregon: Timber Press.
• Loftness, V., Hakkinen, B., Adan, O. & Nevalainen, A. (2007). Elements that contribute to healthy building design. Online (11.04.2016): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892106/
• Pawlyn, M. (2011). Biomimicry in Architecture. London: RIBA Publishing.
• Pew Research. (2010). Baby Boomer Approach 65 – Glumly. Online (16.01.2016): http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/12/20/baby-boomers-approach65-glumly/
• (2013). The rising cost of absence. Online (11.04.2016): http://www.pwc.co.uk/en_UK/uk/human-resource-services/issues/the-rising-cost-of-absence-sick- bills-cost-uk-businesses-29bn-a-year.jhtml
• Romm, J.-J. & Browning, W.-D. (1998). Greening the Building and the Bottom Line. Rocky Mountain Institute. Online (11.04.2016): http://www.columbia.edu/cu/alliance/EDF-2012-documents/Rea- ding_Fox_3.pdf
• Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health. (2007). Policy Paper 8 – Mental Health at Work: Developing the Business Case. Online (11.04.2016): http://www.incorporasaludmental.org/images/doc/D_ ENG_EMP_DOCU_GUIA_0036_Developing_the_business_case.pdf
• Scott, C. (2013). Why sustainable buildings need to focus on community and collaboration. Online (11.04.2016): http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/sustainable-buildings-focus- community-collaboration
• Scott, D., McMullen, T. & Royal, M. (2012). Retention of Key Talent and the Role of Rewards. Scottsdale, USA: WorldatWork. Online (11.04.2016): http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimLink?id=62016
• Terrapin Bright Green. (2012). The Economics of Biophilia – Why Designing With Nature In Mind Makes Financial Sense. Online (11.04.2016): http://www.terrapinbrightgreen.com/report/econo- mics-of-biophilia/
• Terrapin Bright Green. (2014). 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design. Improving Health & Well-Being in the Built Environment. Online (11.04.2016): http://www.terrapinbrightgreen.com/wp/wp-con- tent/uploads/2014/04/14-Patterns-of-Biophilic-Design-Terrapin-2014p.pdf
• Thayer, J.-F. et al. (2010). Effects of the physical work environment on physiological measures of stress. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. The European Society of Cardiology.
• (2008). Onderzoek Met planten aan het werk. (Working with plants). Online (11.04.2016): http://www.degroenestad.nl/Media/download/3080/OnderzoekMet_plantenaanhetwerk.pdf
• World Green Building Council. (2014). Health, Wellbeing & Productivity in Offices. The next chapter for green building. Online (11.04.2016): http://www.worldgbc.org/files/6314/1152/0821/WorldGBC__ Health_Wellbeing__productivity_Full_Report.pdf

Das könnte Sie ebenfalls interessieren:

Entdecken Sie die Welt des Immobilienmanagements und erfahren Sie alles Wissenswerte rund um den MSc Real Estate und den MAS Immobilienmanagement sowie andere Angebote zum Thema Immobilien. Gerne beantworten Ihnen Prof. Dr. Markus Schmidiger, Prof. Dr. John Davidson und Prof. Dr. Michael Trübestein vom IFZ Ihre Fragen.