This idea that productivity at work is linked to comfortable temperatures has been studied for many years. There’s plenty of data we can draw on to make the case for designing work environments to the Passive House performance standard, which makes thermal comfort mandatory. Offices are one thing, but warehouses, factories and stores are typically less well heated or cooled or ventilated. As temperature spikes become more common and more extreme, more urgently needs to be done to make all work and learning environments safe for human activity, not just comfortable and productive.
Here are some useful studies and reviews, all open access, which you can use to back up your case for better performing buildings (and people).
Evaluating the Connection between Thermal Comfort and Productivity in Buildings: A Systematic Literature Review provides a good overview of the current literature. From the paper: “[a] systematic literature review was carried out with the aim of verifying the connection between thermal comfort and productivity and the combinations of different thermal and personal factors that can have an effect on productivity.”
The authors conclude that around 22C is the best for office work and as the temperature moves further away from 22C in either direction, productivity drops. This makes for an inverted U-shaped relationship between temperature and labour productivity. It’s easy to understand and seems to fit my experience (I notice I slow down below 19C or above 25C; I wander off for a hot or cold drink more often and find it harder to focus.)
The inverted U-shaped curve is flattened by taking into account human ability to adapt to different temperatures (“adaptive thermal comfort”). The authors of a study discussed in this article, Exploding the 22°C comfort myth, try to turn it into an argument but their findings also fit the data. We can argue about how wide the comfortable/acceptable temperature range is but the point is people are able to work better when the temperature is comfortable.
Another paper concludes, “An inverted U-shaped relationship between the daily maximum temperature and worker productivity is detected. To elaborate, productivity at temperature below [15.5C] is about 11% less than that at [24 to 26C] and it steadily increases over that range. The productivity then decreases to about 8.5% less above [35C].”*
*Paper uses Fahrenheit, I have converted to Centigrade for convenience.
Resources
Evaluating the Connection between Thermal Comfort and Productivity in Buildings: A Systematic Literature Review
Bueno AM, de Paula Xavier AA, Broday EE. Evaluating the Connection between Thermal Comfort and Productivity in Buildings: A Systematic Literature Review. Buildings. 2021; 11(6):244. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11060244
Effects of moderate thermal environments on cognitive performance: A multidisciplinary review
Fan Zhang, Richard de Dear, Peter Hancock. Applied Energy, Volume 236, 2019. Pages 760-777, ISSN 0306-2619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.12.005
Exploding the 22°C comfort myth – HVAC&R News
Mark Vender. HVAC&R News. 27 March 2019.
The impact of temperature on manufacturing worker productivity: Evidence from personnel data.
Xiqian Cai, Yi Lu, Jin Wang, Journal of Comparative Economics, Volume 46, Issue 4, 2018. Pages 889-905, ISSN 0147-5967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2018.06.003
Abstract: This paper presents novel evidence on the impact of temperature on daily indoor worker productivity in a non-climate-controlled manufacturing environment in China. Combining individual worker productivity data from personnel records with weather data, it documents an inverted-U shaped relationship between temperature and labor productivity. Workers do not increase avoidance behavior. The findings suggest that the economic loss from reduced manufacturing labor productivity due to ambient temperature is quantitatively important, providing new insights into the biological effects of climate factor on human labor. Further, back-of-the envelope calculations indicate that the estimated welfare gains from preventing extreme temperatures are substantial.
Keywords: Climate; Temperature; Thermal stress; Manufacturing; Labor productivity