A comparative lifecycle assessment (CLCA) was undertaken to determine the environmental effect or impact of teleworking compared to office-based work in a corporate setting in Australia. Teleworking was demonstrated to have smaller environmental effects than office-based working, but only under certain conditions. Teleworking was more beneficial if an employee travels ≥30 km each workday. The more energy efficient the employer’s buildings are, the lower the environmental value of teleworking. Greater energy efficiency in home offices means greater environmental benefits. If the energy used in the remote (residential) work area increases above 1212 kW h of energy per year, the environmental effects become greater than those from non-teleworking. The greater the use of renewable energy in remote compared with commercial offices, the greater the environmental benefits of teleworking. Rational corporate policy recommendations were developed based on these outcomes.

与澳大利亚公司环境下的办公室工作相比，进行了比较生命周期评估（CLCA），以确定远程工作对环境的影响或影响。事实证明，远程办公对环境的影响小于办公室办公，但仅在某些条件下才行。如果员工在每个工作日旅行≥30 km，则远程办公将更为有益。雇主建筑的能源效率越高，远程办公的环境价值就越低。家庭办公室中更高的能源效率意味着更大的环境效益。如果在偏远（住宅）工作区中使用的能量每年增加到1212 kWh以上，则对环境的影响将大于非远程工作所带来的影响。与商业办公室相比，偏远地区对可再生能源的利用更多，远程办公的环境效益越大。基于这些结果制定了合理的公司政策建议。