The impact of healthy workplaces on employee satisfaction, productivity and costs

Purpose – This paper aims to explore the added value of healthy workplaces for employees and organizations,in particularregarding employeesatisfaction, labourproductivity andfacilitycost. Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on a narrative review of journal papers and other sources covering the ﬁ elds of building research, corporate real estate management, facilities management, environmental psychology andergonomics. Findings – The review supports the assumption of positive impacts of appropriate building characteristics on health, satisfaction and productivity. Correlations between these impacts are still underexposed. Data on cost and economic bene ﬁ ts of healthy workplace characteristics is limited, and mainly regard reduced sicknessabsence.Thediscussed papersindicate that investing in healthywork environmentsis cost-effective. Originality/value – The ﬁ ndings contribute to a better understanding of the complex relationships between physical characteristics of the environment and health, satisfaction, productivity and costs. These insights can be used to assess work environments on these topics, and to identify appropriate interventions in value-adding management ofbuildings andfacilities.


Introduction
The WHO defines health as "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity". As such, a healthy workplace can be defined as a workplace that contributes to the physical, mental and social well-being of its users. Health is the result of a complex interaction between the physiological, psychological, personal and organizational resources available to individuals and the stress placed upon them by their physical and social environment at work and home (Clements-Croome, 2018).
Well-being reflects one's feelings about oneself in relation to the world, personal feelings about motivation, competence, aspirations and degree of personal control.
1.1 Impact of the physical environment on health and well-being The past decades show a growing awareness of the impact of the physical environment on peoples' health and well-being, both in academic research and in professional publications. This may be because of the shift from a one-sided focus on cost reduction to a more holistic and integrated value-based approach and an optimal balance between costs and benefits of interventions in buildings, facilities and services (Jensen and Van der Voordt, 2017). Besides, people have become more aware of the impact of health and well-being on our quality of life and the risk of health complaints, illness orin worst casesburnout (Appel-Meulenbroek et al., 2020). The relationship between physical workplace characteristics and health and wellbeing has been explored by a variety of studies, using reviews of the literature (Forooraghi et al., 2020;Van der Voordt, 2021), surveys (Cordero et al., 2020), case studies (Bauer, 2020) and conducting short-term experiments using mobile devices (Nelson and Holzer, 2017).
It appears that in particular a poor indoor climate, noise and distraction have a negative impact on employees' health and well-being, whereas appropriate opportunities to communicate and to concentrate and contact with nature contribute to a healthy workplace. In a survey of 2,000 office workers, occupants reported preferences for lots of natural light, access to outdoor spaces, contemplation spaces, support from colleagues and private as well as collaborative spaces, whereas the main irritants were noise in open-plan areas, lack of natural light, lack of colour, lack of greenery, lack of artwork, lack of fresh air, no personal control of temperature, lack of privacy, clutter and inflexible space (British Council for Offices, 2018).
Another frequently assessed factor is office type. A literature review by Colenberg et al. (2020) on the relationship between interior office space (layout, furniture, light, greenery, controls and noise) and employees' physical, psychological and social well-being showed that open-plan offices, shared rooms and higher background noise are negatively related to health. Positive relationships were found between physical well-being and aspects that encourage physical activity; between physical/psychological well-being and (day)light, individual control and real/artificial greenery; and between social well-being and small shared rooms.
Other influencing factors on health and well-being are important as well, such as the context (cultural, social, economic, political), personal characteristics (age, gender, lifestyle), organizational issues (leadership, personal support) and job characteristics (work load, (mis) fit between demands and resources). The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2014) warns for a disbalance between high job demands and available job resources. Too little time, too much work and tight deadlines are the most widely recognized risk factors, resulting in sleep disturbance, changes in mood, fatigue, headaches and stomach irritability.

Relationship between healthy workplaces and other values
Healthy workplaces that support employees' health and well-being can be a goal in itself, but may also have intended or unintended effects on other values, such as employee satisfaction, productivity, costs, corporate image and risk. Vice versa, values such as sustainability may contribute to health and well-being. For instance, green buildings are supposed to be healthier than non-green buildings, because of its focus on the triple P of people, planet and profit. Interrelationships between healthy workplaces and other values are much less studied. This paper aims to reduce this gap in our knowledge, and to answer two research questions: What is the relationship between healthy workplaces and employee satisfaction, productivity and costs? And which evidence is available for these relationships? JCRE 25,1 These three values turned out to be most frequently prioritized in interviews with corporate real estate and facility managers (Van der Voordt and Jensen, 2014). It is hypothesized that health, satisfaction and productivity go hand in hand. Furthermore, because of the high staff costs compared to facility costs, it is hypothesized that healthsupportive interventions are cost-effective. Figure 1 visualizes the key topics of this paper in blue.

Methods
Because of a limited number of available publications, it was decided to select a number of leading journals in the field and to conduct a narrative review (Green et al., 2006;Ferrari, 2015). In our earlier review of environmental impact factors on healthy workplaces (Jensen and Van der Voordt, 2020), we checked four facilities management and corporate real estate management oriented journals in a 10-year period, covering 2008-2017: Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Corporate Real Estate Journal, Facilities and the Journal of Facilities Management. For the current paper, we extended our search to the period 2018-2021 and to other journals, based on paper citations and journal titles. We also screened the last six volumes of Applied Ergonomics, Building and Environment, Building Research and Information, Environment and Behavior, Ergonomics, Intelligent Buildings International and Journal of Environmental Psychology on the keywords workplace, health, well-being, satisfaction, productivity and cost.
All papers from the screened journals that discuss health in connection to workplace characteristics and satisfaction, productivity and/or cost were included in this review. This has resulted in a selection of 45 papers on health and satisfaction and/or productivity. Because very few scientific papers related to facility cost were found, we have included relevant industry reports and other publications. Papers that discuss the relationship between the physical environment and either health, satisfaction, productivity or cost, without discussing any interrelationships between these variables, have been excluded.
3. Findings on the added value of healthy workplaces 3.1 Employee satisfaction Table 1 summarizes the research topics, methods and findings of eight papers that discuss relationships between physical characteristics of the built environment, health and satisfaction, ranked by year and per year in alphabetical order of the first author. Five out of eight studies investigate the impact of office type and workspaces. The other studies focus  Lower perceived confinement in transitional spaces was associated with better mental health and lower workload fatigue. Underground workers reported lower levels of physical and emotional fatigue. Among the participants working in aboveground offices, effects were stronger for those with higher levels of claustrophobia Wijk et al. (2020) Questionnaire surveys and focus group interviews before relocation from traditional office and after the implementation of activity-based Relationship between indicators of sense of coherence (SOC)meaningfulness, manageability and comprehensibilityand health, well-being and work satisfaction Reduced work satisfaction, unchanged health and well-being. The reduction in satisfaction was smaller among employees with high meaningfulness in the relocation process. All SOC indicators were positively associated with overall health, well-being and satisfaction (continued) on environmental conditions, sense of coherence or green buildings. The findings show positive but also contradictory connections between office type; health and well-being; and employee satisfaction. Open-plan seems to have a negative impact, which can be partly compensated by improved environmental conditions. High density and poor acoustics affect health and satisfaction in a negative way. The green building study showed mixed results. Personal characteristics make a difference as well. Employees with high need for concentration report more distraction in all office types, except in cell, and more cognitive stress in all office types except cell and flex-offices. People suffering from claustrophobia perceive stronger effects.

Labour productivity
The findings on relationships between health and well-being and labour productivity are summarized in Table 2. Four studies focus on office type and workplace concept (open-plan, work pattern-office type fit, high-performance hub, variety of workplaces). Five studies investigated the impact of indoor air quality (IAQ) and related issues such as thermal comfort and look-and-feel. Four studies focus on sit-stand/adjustable workstations. The other studies show a variety of research topics, i.e. the influence of a healing office design concept, wind-inducing motion of tall buildings, green buildings, workplace safety, biophilia, plants and time spent in the office. The findings show significant positive but also mixed impacts of IAQ, "green" buildings and sit-stand work on both health and productivity. Health and productivity are usually discussed separately; correlations between health and productivity were only explored in two studies. Interrelationships are affected by job demands and job stress Table 3 summarizes the findings from 17 studies on health and well-being and both satisfaction and productivity. Independent variables include office types, non-territorial workspaces, proximity, impact of break out areas, storage space, adopting the WELL Repeated surveys in an organization with 120 employees before and after moving to a new certified green building (GB) Effects on occupant perception of indoor environmental quality (IEQ, i.e. ventilation, thermal comfort, lighting and daylighting, noise, acoustics) on thermal comfort and prevalence of SBS Significant differences in thermal conditions enhanced occupant thermal comfort in the GB. Odour, mental concentration and glare were perceived to be poor in the GB and associated with an increase in the prevalence of SBS symptoms Hodzic et al. (2021) Surveys of up to 247 employees before and 2 and 12 months after a relocation to a new headquarters of a large company in Austria Distractions after moving to an activitybased flexible office

Satisfaction and productivity
Moving to the flex office had negative effects on distraction, work engagement, job satisfaction and fatigue. The negative effects of distraction were more pronounced in situations of increased time pressure and unpredictability Table 1.

Methodology
Research topics Findings Karakolis and Callaghan (2014) Literature review Impact of sit-stand workstations (SSW) on worker discomfort and productivity SSW are likely effective in reducing perceived discomfort. Eight of the identified 14 studies reported a productivity outcome; three reported an increase in productivity during sit-stand work, four reported no impact on productivity, one reported mixed results Al Horr et al.
Literature review Impact of IEQ, biophilia, views, look and feel (including colour), location and amenities on occupant productivity Thermal comfort, IAQ, office layout, noise and acoustics were found to be highly significant in affecting occupant productivity. Occupant comfort directly relates to the physical factors of the indoor environment Lamb and Kwok (2016) Longitudinal study with questionnaire surveys; 114 participants from 66 different buildings completing 2,261 surveys across a period of eight months Effects of inadequate IEQ on work performance and well-being in windexcited tall buildings in New Zealand Environmental stress not only reduces the cognitive capacity for work, but also the rate of work. Improving IEQ is likely to produce small but pervasive increases in productivity Jinnett et al. (2017) Questionnaire surveys; 16,926 employees from 314 companies in the USA Impact of workplace safety, employee health and job demands on productivity, measured by absenteeism and presenteeism in the past four weeks, in a worksite wellness program Poor workplace safety and employees' chronic health conditions contributed to absenteeism and job performance The impact was influenced by the physical and cognitive difficulty of the job Lamb and Kwok (2017) Literature review, including own research, simulation studies and surveys Impact of wind-induced motion of tall buildings ("sopite syndrome") on productivity loss and well-being Sickness and productivity loss because of wind-induced building motion are highly variable, depending on the local weather climate, but are likely to be significant in the long term and can go up to 30% reduction in work performance MacNaughton et al. (2017) Cognitive tests of higher order decision-making performance; 109 participants working in 10 office buildings in the USA. Six building had been renovated and obtained LEED certification; four buildings had no green certification Impact of working in a green-certified building on cognitive function and health. IEQ parameters were monitored during the tests Participants in green-certified buildings scored 26% higher on cognitive function tests and had 30% fewer sick building symptoms than those in noncertified buildings. This could partially be explained by IEQ parameters, but the findings indicate that the benefits of green certification go beyond measurable IEQ factors (continued) Literature review Well-being and productivity Well-being showed to be linked to higher levels of labour productivity. Productivity growth may also have detrimental effects on well-being Wargocki (2019) Literature review Impact of IAQ on health and productivity Doubling the outdoor air supply rate can reduce illness and sick leave prevalence by roughly 10% and increase the productivity of office work by roughly 1.5% Bauer (2020) Before/after study of the adoption of the Healing Offices design concept (ten qualities), based on observations, ten interviews and a survey (N before = 92, N after = 120) Impact of a Healing Office on perceived health, engagement, comfort and productivity Increased objective quality of the work environment regarding sustainability, diversity, nature and the possibilities to move and relax. Increased subjective experience regarding feelings of inspiration, comfort and energy, more physical activity and personal contact, increased teamwork and productivity Hähn et al. (2020) Survey; 40 occupants in a modern office building with two potted plants per person introduced into individual offices, and eight in break-out spaces Perceived health, wellbeing and performance Plants in offices had significantly positive effects on occupants' perceived attention, creativity, satisfaction and productivity; plants' removal elicited significantly negative effects in perceived attention, productivity, stress and efficiency. Planting had no significant effect on perceived health, tiredness, motivation or well-being Kaushik et al. (2020) Post-occupancy evaluation (POE) over 12 months in an office with 40 occupants in Effects of IEQ on thermal comfort and occupant productivity and establishing Nine IEQ parameters were ranked according to the degree of effect on occupant thermal comfort and productivity. Temperature had the (continued) Improving the illumination of the work environment helps to improve the light comfort. Reading efficiency is generally improved using a neutral colour temperature. The physiological evaluation indicated that illumination significantly affects the response of the visual centre Marsh and French (2020) Test of 50 employees in a Workplace Performance Hub (WPH) and 20 employees in a control group, across a six-month period Impact of greater variety in workplaces, circadian lighting and biophilia on employee health, wellbeing and performance WPH participants experienced an increase in cognitive performance and a reduction in stress. They were more active and had a lower resting heart rate and saw a rise of 17% in innovation cycles during their stay Morrison and Smollan (2020) Longitudinal study with surveys covering 101 respondents and 24 interviews in an Australian law firm six month after moving to an open-plan office with follow-up 14 months later Impact of open-plan office on performance, wellbeing and collegial relationships Positive outcomes relating to aesthetics, collegiality and communication were achieved through good technical design and thoughtful ergonomic assessment of the needs of employees and the requirements of their tasks Soriano et al. (2020) Questionnaire and diary study; 83 office workers (N = 603 time points) regarding work patterns, identified by using cluster analysis with Neufert's office-type classification Well-being and performance Work pattern-office type (mis)fit moderates the relationship between well-being and performance. The "fit" group shows four out of six positive associations; the "misfit" group shows only one out of six positive associations Wolkoff (2020) Literature review Dry eye symptoms and work performance in offices Dry eyes are among the most reported acute health symptoms in modern offices Perceived dry air in the work environment negatively affects work performance Kar and Hedge (2021) Experimental study in the USA, where 36 participants performed a 60-min computer typing task in two sit-stand workstation configurations Comparison of musculoskeletal discomfort, productivity, postural risks and perceived fatigue for a sit-stand-walk intervention between two workstation configurations Musculoskeletal discomfort and perceived fatigue did not vary significantly between configurations. Postural risks for seated and standing work were significantly lower for a customized configuration, while productivity was significantly higher for a self-adjusted configuration (continued) Here, too, health, satisfaction and productivity are mainly discussed separately and less regarding possible correlations. In general, activity-based workplaces are perceived to have a positive impact on satisfaction, partly because of better technical qualities regarding IEQ. Searching for a workplace needs time and reduces productivity. Personal control, easiness of interaction and communication, availability of break out areas, windows, sitstand workstations, comfort of furnishing, attractive IEQ, modern shading systems and applying to the WELL standard show to have a positive impact on both health and satisfaction, whereas distraction and lack of privacy are important predictors of productivity loss. All presented studies on health in connection to satisfaction and/or productivity originate from Europe, USA, Australia and New Zealand.

Applied research methods to study health and satisfaction and/or productivity
The discussed papers on health and satisfaction and/or productivity show a variety of research designs and research methods (Table 4). Ten studies conducted a before-after study; four studies used an experiment in a lab setting. About 80% of the presented studies used a questionnaire survey, some of them as part of a mixed-methods approach with interviews and observations, identifying healthy or unhealthy office design qualities, scores on the WELL standard and data about toxic substances in the air. Measuring physical conditions such as the heart rate or skin temperature is rather rare.

Financial costs and benefits
Clements-Croome (2018) mentions a return on investment of e5.7 for every euro invested in well-being. However, not much quantitative data was found about the financial impact of changing the spatial layout, supporting new ways of working, providing more contact with nature or the introduction of sit-stand desks. This may be because of the difficulties to quantify the results of healthy workplaces. Various papers discuss the monetary costs and benefits of health-promoting programs such as stop-smoking programs or providing sports facilities and healthier nutrition. However, these topics are not related to physical characteristics of workplaces and are beyond the scope of this paper. Office layout allowing easiness of interaction with colleagues, the ability to adjust/personalize workspace, and the amount of storage space showed to be more important than desk ownership. The comfort of furnishing was identified as the strongest predictor of self-assessed health for shared-desk users Relationships between environmental perceptions and workspace use and selfrated productivity and well-being at work Satisfaction with the physical environment, privacy and communication had the strongest positive associations with productivity and well-being at work. Increased workspace switching was associated with higher productivity. An increase in time spent searching for a workspace was associated with lower productivity and well-being  Questionnaire surveys, spot measurements of IEQ and step-count monitoring in 10 offices before and after relocations from contemporary openplan to ABW Satisfaction, productivity and health ABW had significantly higher satisfaction results on key IEQ dimensions, perceived productivity and health Groen et al. (2019) Survey data from 25,947 respondents and 191 organizations in the Netherlands Comparison with findings from a similar study 10 years ago Relationship between satisfaction with buildings, facilities and services and perceived productivity support. Absence of health complaints was one aspect of productivity support 38% of the variation of office employees' satisfaction with support of productivity could be explained by employee satisfaction with facilities, the organization, current work processes and personal-and job-related characteristics Opportunities to concentrate and to communicate, privacy, level of openness and functionality, comfort and diversity of the workplaces are very important (continued) The study partially supported a hypothesis that higher levels of environmental comfort are associated with higher levels of well-being and productivity. Distractions had the strongest negative impact on the outcomes Jamrozik et al.
Living lab study in the USA, where ten participants worked 14 weeks under three different shading conditions: blackout shade (baseline); manually controlled motorized mesh shades; and windows with automatic, dynamic tinting Effect of different shading systems on cognitive performance, satisfaction and eyestrain Eyestrain symptoms were reduced and satisfaction and performance were improved with modern shading systems. There were no statistical differences between the two modern conditions Davis et al. (2020) Survey among 406 employees, working in differing office configurations Impact of physical proximity and breakout areas on ease of communication, job satisfaction and wellbeing Limited influence of proximity. Access to breakout areas was strongly related to ease of communication, higher job satisfaction and well-being Franke and Nadler (2020) Laboratory test with N = 180 Impact of IEQ factors (tangible vs intangible) on workplace satisfaction, health and productivity Workplace satisfaction, health and productivity are more strongly affected by intangible factors than by tangible ones. Impaired privacy leads to SBS symptoms and less creativity. Personality traits correlate differently with ergonomics and privacy Ko et al. (2020) Laboratory experiment in the USA with 86 participants, in spaces with and without windows in office-like test rooms, including subjective evaluations, skin temperature measurements and cognitive performance tests Assessment of the influence of having a window with a view on thermal and emotional responses as well as on cognitive performance Participants felt more comfortable with windows in the situation with a slightly warm condition. Positive emotions increased while negative emotions decreased with windows. Workingmemory and concentration improved in a space with windows Nappi et al.
Questionnaire surveys before and after relocation of a company in France with various Relationship between stress and workspace attachment, user After the relocation, the employees experienced greater job stress and less workspace satisfaction and felt less attached to their workspaces. The (continued)

Impact of healthy workplaces
project data on financial costs and benefits has been tested scientifically on reliability and validity.

Discussion and conclusions
The discussed studies show a huge variety in environmental characteristics that influence health and well-being, employee satisfaction and labour productivity, such as office type, proximity, density, IEQ of IAQ, furniture (ergonomics, sit-stand desks), plants and personal control. Some studies focus on specific building types such as certified green buildings, WELL-certified buildings and tall wind-excited building, specific building components such as shading systems or specific interior elements such as sit-stand desks and furniture comfort. Research methods range from questionnaire surveys to before-after studies and laboratory experiments. Measuring physical conditions such as heart rates and skin temperature is still underexposed. Remarkably, most discussed papers present findings on perceptions of workspace support to labour productivity did not change Thatcher et al. (2020) Experimental study in a laboratory with student participants, followed by longitudinal studies with surveys in two call-centres in South Africa Impact of indoor plants on performance and well-being In the laboratory study, the condition with indoor plants performed statistically better on three measures of work performance. These positive outcomes could not be replicated in two field studies using various proxy measures of performance and wellbeing Candido et al. (2021) Questionnaire surveys with 1,121 respondents from nine offices in Australia, divided into four with open-plan and five with ABW. All buildings held a Green Building certification; two of them also held a WELL certification Satisfaction, productivity and health Comparison with benchmarks from a research database  The buildings with WELL certification achieved the highest scores for overall satisfaction, workability, perceived productivity and health Offices with ABW had the highest scores on spatial comfort, thermal comfort, noise and privacy, personal control, comfort of furnishing, adjustability of the work area and space to collaborate Licina and Yildirim (2021) Online survey among employees in three companies in Switzerland before and after relocation to new office buildings Occupant satisfaction, productivity and health during a transition to WELL-certified buildings Significant increase in satisfaction in two out of three WELL buildings. The positive effect was evident for building cleanliness and furniture. WELL buildings usually did not attain the 80% standard satisfaction threshold. SBS symptoms and productivity scores revealed no significant differences, except that symptom of tiredness was lower in WELL buildings Zerguine et al. (2021) Mix-method study, including an online survey with 216 respondents from 150 organizations across 18 sectors as well as 17 interviews in Australia Current use and practices to support the implementation of sitstand workstations (SSWs) 40% of organizations provided SSWs on request, whereas 41% reported not using them appropriately. SSWs were perceived effective in reducing discomforts and increasing employees' satisfaction and productivity Table 3. JCRE 25,1 health and satisfaction and/or productivity without discussing correlations between health, satisfaction and productivity.
The reviewed studies indicate positive but also mixed and contradictory effects of healthy workplaces on satisfaction and productivity. Overall, a healthy IAQ, opportunities for communication, concentration and privacy, availability of break-out rooms, an attractive look-and-feel, ergonomic furniture, contact with nature and plants go hand-in-hand with higher employee satisfaction and perceived productivity. Large open-plan offices and centrally controlled air condition show a negative effect on health, satisfaction and productivity. There is some evidence that workplaces in green buildings are healthier than workplaces in conventional buildings. Adjustable workstations with sit-stand desks show to have beneficial effects for comfort and labour productivity. Practitioners should take these findings into account in their design and management activities.
What constitutes a healthy workplace is much dependent on the workstyles and the preferences of the users. The degree to which the workplace has impact on satisfaction is in particular dependent on user preferences in relation to privacy versus social contact. The impact on productivity is in particular dependent on the specific workstyle and how well the workplace supports the work activities. Involving the users in the planning process and change management during implementation is crucial.
Scientific research on monetary cost and benefits of healthy workplaces is limited. Overall, the data indicate a positive impact of healthy workplaces on the reduction of sickness absence.
Because of the impact of many interrelated variables, it is difficult to trace cause-effect relationships between characteristics of healthy work environments and support of other value dimensions. Usually, various interventions are conducted simultaneously. Furthermore, employees' health not only depends on what the workplace does to employees, but also on what workers bring with them to the workplace.
The mixed findings make it hard to provide a sound business case for physical interventions to improve health and well-being. On the one hand, taking care of healthy work environments is a matter of moral responsibility and has in general a positive effect on  Financial and health impact of investments in a hypothetical investment in the WELL Building Standard for a 18,500 m 2 office building Over a period of five years, the Internal Rate of Return from WELL investments is estimated to be almost 300%. Sensitivity analysis around a range of potential cost estimates (e.g. more or less than 0.5% productivity growth, taking into account initial investments to learn new rating systems) results in other figures Marson (2018) Analysis of cost data from Investopedia and the International Well Building Institute

Productivity loss and absenteeism
In the USA, the total annual costs of lost productivity because of employee absenteeism counts e69bn. Creating and implementing well-being programs can reduce employee "sick days" by 26%. A real estate agency that achieved a WELL Gold certification mentioned a reduction of four sick (continued) Impact of healthy workplaces employee satisfaction and labour productivity and on society as a whole. These advantages have to be balanced with the costs of interventions to provide more healthy environments. An obstacle for a more integrated, holistic business case may be that the cost of interventions and its resulting output and outcomes are not always easy to measure in a quantitative way. Another difficulty is that some outcomes might be experienced in the short term and perhaps only temporarily, while others might be sustained, reduced or only experienced in the long term. One solution is to base business cases not only on quantitative data but to take into account well-argued qualitative considerations as well. As such, we plea for a so-called value based business case or "value case".

Suggestions for further research
Additional research is needed to get a deeper, holistic and evidence-based knowledge of the added value of healthy workplaces and interrelationships between health, satisfaction and productivity and financial impacts that integrate different research topics and research methods. A next step can be to use the research findings as input to follow-up transdisciplinary research by academics from different fields, including corporate real estate management, facilities management, human resource management, environmental psychology and work and organizational psychology. Reflections on data by an interdisciplinary team and experimenting with particular interventions may be helpful as well.
Other topics for future research are extension of this literature review with papers from other journals and databases such as Scopus and PubMed, and to conduct additional empirical research with before-after studies of particular interventions and data-collecting techniques such as workshops, group interviews, pilot projects and selfmeasurement of health and health-supportive behaviour, e.g. by using wearables and apps. Cost studies should not only focus on data analysis of sickness absence, but extend their scope to self-reported health risks and health conditions, to get a better understanding of what drives health costs and lost productivity (Jinnett et al., 2017). Besides, more studies are needed into the costs of particular interventions and return on investment.
A particular topic for further research is the use and experience of offices in the post Covid-19 period. Increased "infection risk mitigation" will affect the presence in the office, number of people per m 2 , need for fresh air access, etc. The Covid-19 crisis has resulted in a drastic increase in home working and this experience is likely to have profound implications for office work in the future. Literature review and data from internet Stress, engagement and productivity 57% of employees with high amounts of stress are disengaged in the workplace. Organizations with engaged employees experience increase profitability by more than 20%. Healthy workers are 11% more productive