Karl Breeze, CEO at Matrix Booking

For HR professionals, navigating the current landscape of flexible working and evolving employment laws feels like walking a tightrope. The mounting pressures come from balancing new legal requirements with the growing demand for flexible work arrangements.

The surge in tribunal cases related to flexible working makes it more challenging than ever to manage compliance and employee expectations^[1]. With proposals such as compressed workweeks gaining traction^[2], HR teams face the daunting task of updating policies and procedures to accommodate these changes.

This is not just a matter of paperwork. It involves rethinking how work is done to ensure that both the business and its employees can thrive. Adapting to these shifts in real-time, the role of HR becomes even more critical for transforming challenges into opportunities. From redesigning office layouts to developing closer ties with facilities management, there’s much to consider. 

The goal is clear: to build a workplace that effectively navigates and benefits from these changes.

HR pressures and legal challenges

The increasing responsibilities HR teams face stem directly from the evolving maze of employment laws and the growing demand for flexible working arrangements. The introduction of compressed workweeks, remote work options, and flexible hours adds new layers of complexity to an already challenging role. This is made more difficult by the numerous proposed changes in employment laws under the government’s Plan to Make Work Pay^[3], which add even more weight to HR’s responsibilities.

One of the most immediate challenges is ensuring that businesses’ attendance policies are adhered to. Gone are the days when swiping a badge and grabbing a coffee satisfied office attendance requirements. Now, some companies require employees to stay for a minimum period, making oversight more detailed and time-consuming. HR teams must gather more specific data on office attendance, tracking not just presence but how long employees stay, and navigating increasingly complex rules.

Alongside tracking attendance, HR must process an increasing volume of flexible work requests^[4]. This adds to the challenge of balancing employee needs with business objectives, ensuring that requests are either accommodated or clearly justified when denied to comply with the law. Handling these demands requires careful attention, as failing to do so can lead to dissatisfaction, higher turnover, and even legal disputes.

Impact on office usage

The shift towards flexible working is also reshaping how businesses use their office spaces – a development that HR professionals must also stay attuned to. The unpredictable nature of hybrid work means offices are no longer bustling five days a week. This impacts how HR, alongside facilities management (FM) teams, must reconsider office layouts to support fluctuating footfall, ensuring spaces are suited to a workforce that isn’t always present in full.

One solution lies in creating flexible, multi-purpose spaces that can adapt to varying work schedules and styles. This involves everything from enhancing booking systems for desk availability to upgrading meeting rooms and informal spaces for collaboration. As fewer employees spend their full week in the office, HR and FM must rethink how they allocate space, using occupancy data to make adjustments that reflect actual usage.

Without this data, effectively managing office layouts would be nearly impossible. It provides critical insights into how often certain areas are used, helping businesses right-size their office spaces and avoid under- or over-utilisation. For HR, understanding these patterns is key to ensuring that office space complements the company’s wider approach to employee satisfaction and flexible working policies.

Closer collaboration between HR and FM

It’s clear that the success of any flexible working model depends on seamless coordination between HR and FM. HR’s focus on legal compliance and employee wellbeing intersects directly with FM’s responsibility for creating and maintaining workspaces that support the changing demands of the workforce.

Practical collaboration starts with joint planning sessions. HR can provide insights into employee preferences, legal obligations, and attendance patterns, while FM offers data on office occupancy, technology, and workspace usage. This allows the two functions to develop integrated solutions, such as upgrading booking systems for desks or meeting rooms or improving remote working tools. 

Regular reviews of occupancy data and employee feedback will help both HR and FM adjust strategies based on real-world usage and evolving employee needs. For instance, if occupancy data shows low desk usage, this may signal an opportunity to reconfigure spaces or reduce the office footprint. 

Ultimately, this ongoing partnership between HR and FM ensures that flexible working models are practical, legally sound, and supportive of both employee satisfaction and business efficiency.

Building the future of work, together

In the face of evolving employment laws and shifting work patterns, HR professionals have a challenging road ahead. Navigating these changes requires a proactive approach, with HR teams staying on top of legal requirements, employee expectations, and the dynamic nature of office usage.

By establishing closer collaboration with FM, using occupancy data, and focusing on transparent communication, organisations can create a flexible working model that works for both the business and its employees. Flexibility, after all, isn’t just about remote work. It’s about building a workplace where everyone can thrive.

^[1] As Firms Push Back On Remote Work, Tribunal Cases Will Rise

^[2] Labour’s four-day week explained: How it will work and who can do it

^[3] Plan to Make Work Pay

^[4] Businesses could soon be deluged by flexible working requests – but that’s a good thing

Tom Roche, Secretary of the Business Sprinkler Alliance who will be exhibiting at Facilities & Estates Management Live.

As many reflect on the Grenfell Tower Inquiry and its recommendations, it’s important to recognise that the issues brought to light extend far beyond high-rise residential buildings. The challenges highlighted by this tragedy and highlighted in the report are not confined to one type of building or one type of issue, but permeate across our entire built environment.

Anyone watching may have seen a focus on high-rise buildings but if they looked close enough they will see that the changes put in place since the tragedy and called for in the Report are across the built environment. After all, if there are challenges with high rise structures why would there not be challenges with offices, warehouses and other buildings. The same contractors from the same industry groups used similar methods whether they be raw materials, regulations and guidance.

One only has to look at the Building Safety Act, born from the Grenfell tragedy in 2022, which has introduced wide-ranging responsibilities for designers and contractors. Importantly, and perhaps less well understood, these apply to all buildings, not just residential high-rises. This broader scope reflects a fundamental truth that the issues we face in fire safety and building regulations were systemic and universal.

One of the items that we have highlighted for some time is the widespread misunderstanding of building regulations and guidance. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry report makes this finding. It highlights that the Approved Document B (ADB), the go-to guidance for fire safety in common buildings, is often misinterpreted or applied incorrectly against the functional requirements of the Building Regulations. This confusion isn’t limited to residential buildings, we see it manifesting in industrial and commercial structures as well, and that causes problems. There are different risks in those buildings, but they still need to be addressed proportionately.

For instance, we are currently investigating a case of a series of large buildings with no internal subdivisions and no sprinkler system. They are beyond the scope of the guidance, Building Regulations and their functional requirements still apply. How does this happen under the current guidance?  The answer lies in the misinterpretation of that guidance and dare I say, a lack of enforcement. The scenario repeats the same issues that contributed to the Grenfell tragedy – misunderstanding of regulations and failure to meet functional requirements. So we need to be honest to see that there are some broader issues, perhaps with differing potential consequences.

The construction industry has long operated on a principle of compliance, meeting the minimum required and as the Report highlights without always fully understanding the intent behind the regulations. Government and industry can show they have acted. Yet many promised actions are yet to materialise and those regulatory items that are currently in operation are showing the signs of growing pains. It comes as no surprise the construction industry is facing a reckoning. With only 50% of submissions to Gateway Two in the new safety regime making it through, and 20% of submissions to Gateway One being rejected, it’s clear that the industry is struggling to adapt to the new reality. This pain is necessary but also indicative of how far we have to go.

One area we have watched closely has been the approach to guidance. A programme was established, an outline plan and now an ageing update still sits on a lonely page on a government website. Much has been promised. It has been good to see positive action on instructing research, engagement and output. There are a collection of items on externals walls, sprinklers in high rise residential buildings, alert systems, a second staircase and lately the removal of national classes with sprinklers in care homes. However, the plans promised so much more. 

However, as I read the Grenfell Tower phase 2 report I have to admit my heart sunk. It rightly highlights what has been apparent for some time that the guidance is not clearly understood by all stakeholders and once again asks for change. It highlights that research, funded by the public purse, struggles to find the light of day. What has become of research awarded from contracts in the last five years? Perhaps an update will be forthcoming as part of the response to the Inquiry report from Government in March 2025. I am left to ask myself again whether it is change we need or total reformation of the guidance. Madness I here some cry, but wait, I have just told you and if you look carefully we appear to be in a loop on guidance doing the same things expecting a different answer. 

If you still think reformation is madness at least indulge me a little more. Should we not at least be asking whether our requirements and guidance are truly delivering the outcomes we desire? I sat in a conversation this morning where we discussed access to buildings and yet we still have not got our minds around egress for some of the most vulnerable. I stare at a picture of the flats in Dagenham and think about the other buildings over the last seven years that have been destroyed by fires leaving hundreds homeless and yet we treat them as some type of success. 

In my world of commercial property, those large compartment buildings that are destroyed by fires and sit for months as rusting hulks after the fire has been wrestled into submission by most of the resource of one regional fire service. Is this a form of success? I cannot help but wonder if we are missing an element of resilience as much as we should? In an era of climate change and evolving urban landscapes, resilience should be at the minds of our building design and safety considerations.

The lessons from Grenfell are not confined to one sector of our built environment. They call for a fundamental reassessment of how we approach building safety across the board. It’s time to stop looking through the narrow end of the telescope and start viewing the bigger picture. Only then can we hope to create a truly safe and resilient built environment for all.

For more information about the BSA visit the www.business-sprinkler-alliance.org

Bernard Crouch, Managing Director at Acumen FM, tells his experience of networking in the FM sector.

You arrive at your first event, by yourself, you don’t know anyone, you look around? Someone approaches, they ask you, ‘are you here to learn about (insert acronym)’ DDA, RAMS, PHE, BCP, QSHE (or is that SHEQ?)! ‘I err, what does that mean or stand for?’ Not a great start, maybe it is time to leave and not return to this or for that matter any similar event ever!

That is close to how I started my networking journey. My boss suggested that I should try to attend networking events in our sector and so I went along. Everyone was older than me, their social conversations revolved around their houses, holidays, golf, fancy cars and their children. Meanwhile I had a basic company ford car, no house, no children and simply very little in common with them, except work! 

However, I persevered, in part because my manager had convinced me that this was something that I should do.

In time it started to make more sense to me, networking events could lead to job opportunities, either directly offered or via a head-hunter. New friends have been made as well, I remain in contact with many people who I have met over the years.

Here are two examples of how networking has benefited me!

Example one.

After five years selling soft services into large commercial buildings, I was keen to broaden my FM knowledge and experience. At a BIFM event (BIFM now known as IWFM) I got into conversation with the MD of a small but growing FM consultancy. We bumped into each other again at an event the following month. He then invited me in for an interview, and the rest as they say is history. That opportunity (which I doubt would have come about through traditional recruitment channels) enabled me to significantly broaden my FM and Workplace experience and eight years later lead to the point where I felt confident enough to start up my own consultancy.

Example two.

So, twenty years ago I had decided to set up my own consultancy providing FM and workplace related services, including procurement. I did not have a marketing budget, nor did I set out to copy any of my past employers, who typically would maintain a list of past clients and potential future prospects and send out a newsletter every six months or so. I primarily relied on networking to meet new contacts and catch up with old ones. 

To provide an example of this, at a networking event I was chatting to someone, who I knew from networking events. He told me that his company were bidding for an overseas FM project, but didn’t have anyone available to manage the process. That conversation led to sizeable assignment for me which was my first piece of international work.

Best of all is my network of contacts which proves so useful when I need to contact someone and tap into their knowledge or perhaps ask their advice.

Nigel Dews, Managing Director of Restore (one of our exhibitors at Facilities & Estates Management Live) on how paper-based documents still hold power and why combining physical storage with digitisation can be the best ‘paperlite’ storage solution. 

Many businesses think that digitising their documents and leaning towards a completely digital future is an all or nothing deal, but this isn’t always the case. In fact, there are a variety of reasons why the paperless office didn’t happen.

A common reason is simply that people love paper and like to have the physical evidence in their hand. Also, going digital is not as straight forward as it initially sounds.  If advised correctly, organisations do not need to digitise all paper records as they might have originally believed. Instead, paper-light is a popular approach which means digitising high priority and highly active records while still maintaining a physical presence where it’s most cost effective. Many customers still prefer physical records, or don’t have full digital access, so businesses still need to accommodate customers’ preferences.

LEGAL REASONS

In the case of legal situations, storing paper records instead of digitising is beneficial and sometimes required. UK businesses must retain financial records for at least six years and some documents, such as patient records, may need to be stored longer depending on their nature or if there are any potential legal claims associated with them. Additionally, in the case of legal investigations or audits, having the original paper documents can be crucial. If a company is required to produce these documents, keeping them in their original form ensures compliance with legal requests.

PROTECTING AGAINST DAMAGE:

Digitising important documents to protect against damage may seem to be the safest choice. However, this is not the case. In fact, Restore stores more than 22 million boxes full of important records in highly secure facilities. Storing both digital and physical documents comes with risks, so it’s important to provide the right environment, as well as ensure that proper mitigations and standards are in place to minimise damage during the digitising process, such as correct equipment, handling, and preparation procedures. 

THE COSTS

For documents that are highly active and that need to be accessed by multiple people, digitising reduces costs and allows users the efficiency of accessing from anywhere, anytime. Information being used for downstream processing are often more cost effectively captured and input into relevant customer systems when stored as digital, rather than manual data. This is particularly effective when combined with technology driven decision making and the auto routing of documents (a process that automatically directs documents to the right person or department based on specific criteria) post-digitisation.

For documents that have long retention periods it will be cheaper in the long run to digitise them and destroy the original. However, documents that aren’t as important, and do not need to be accessed as often or kept for a long time, would be more expensive to digitise than to put in long term storage. This is why we suggest a smart, hybrid approach which provides the more cost-effective information management solution for customers by taking activity, length of retention and downstream processing requirements into account. 

SUSTAINABILITY

In terms of IT footprint, there is no real difference between digital and physical as both require systems and servers to maintain the service. Additionally, with both options the paper will be securely destroyed and recycled – it just happens sooner in the case of digitisation. 

One additional environmental impact of keeping paper records is that the documents require physical retrieval from storage facilities, which subsequently has further negative effect and contributes to a greater carbon footprint. Though one way of mitigating this is to have the document retrieved digitally. When a document is digitised, they can be accessed remotely regardless of the location . Furthermore, it is advised to digitise any documents that need specialist temperature-controlled environments, to avoid additional utility emissions. 

Consequently, physical storage offers no difference to digital if a document is not going to be active and does not need returning to the customer. Yet, for any documents that are expected to be retrieved more than once in the duration of their lifetime, digital offers a more sustainable and environmentally friendly outcome. 

SECURITY IMPLICATIONS

When it comes to deciding storing documents electronically is safer security wise than with paper, it is a little more complex. Both options have differing implications and depend on the security measures involved and the level of digitisation. 

Although one of the main advantages of digitising is that accessing the information is a lot easier, it also means that it is likely to be easier for that information to be accessed or misused by malevolent individuals, particularly when compared to the likelihood of someone being able to physically break into a high security facility and access a specific box. Therefore, from a criminal security standpoint, physical storage is probably the safest option.

On the other hand, there is no back up when a document is kept just in physical form. If a document is lost or the box is destroyed prematurely, then that information is permanently lost. 

Taking all of this into consideration, there are inherent risks with both approaches, so having the appropriate standards and measures in place is important to ensure that all reasonable precautions have been taken. 

PRIORITISING DOCUMENTS

There are several factors that will determine which documents should be digitised and in what order of priority. Understanding the documents and associated relevance means we can then work with the customer to conduct an analysis and agree which would provide the most benefits by being digitised. These factors include:

• Budget and required ROI – digitisation requires an immediate upfront cost, so understanding a customer’s budget helps to determine whether physical or digital is the best option. 
• Considering the organisation’s information strategy and available digital maturity – if their processes and systems aren’t set up to handle the digital content/ output then there is no point digitising.
• The number of people who need access to those documents – it is more cost effective and efficient having a digital document if a lot of individuals/ teams need access, and even more so if they are remote workers.
• Level of activity and required access – the more active documents provide faster ROI as it removes the cost and time to physically deliver the original paper document each time. 
• Downstream BPO (business process outsourcing) and the impact on the next stage of processing the information- if the information needs to be available in further systems for processing or needs fast actioning by the customer’s team, having it available digitally speeds up the process and removes the need for manual data capture further downstream.
• Retention period – digitising a document has a higher upfront cost than storing it physically. Analysis of the length of time to realise an ROI of the digitisation in comparison to the document’s retention period will determine the most cost-effective solution. 
•  Information criticality – highly important business information may want to be digitised to ensure that it is backed up in case of damage/ loss of the original.
• Legal/ regulatory requirements – documents that must be retained physically, whether digitised or not, will require additional advantages from digitising to be needed to justify the additional cost.
• Change management – it’s about changing the culture as customers transition from using physical to digital information and the training of systems to access.

The prevailing consensus on whether digitising documents or keeping them, as physical paper is that it overtly depends on many factors. While going entirely paperless is not the best solution for everyone, it’s about finding the right balance and beginning the transition to a digital future can bring many advantages to your organisation. 

Read more of Restore’s case studies here: https://bit.ly/40LhK6Q

This is part 2 of a 3-part series looking at the main Scope 3 emissions challenges in the FM industry. Kristen Mierzejewski, Senior Consultant at Acclero Advisory, talks tackling data challenges in Scope 3 Emissions for FM companies.

Scope 3 Emissions are notoriously complex and difficult to address, presenting significant challenges across all industries, including Facilities Management. With increasing pressure from governments, regulators, shareholders, and clients, FM providers are having to look more closely at their indirect emissions and devise new ways to tackle them. 

The need for high quality data

High-quality, comparable, and reliable data is the foundation of an effective Scope 3 emissions strategy. For FM providers, where indirect emissions account for a large portion of their carbon footprint, accurate data is essential to understand the company’s full environmental impact. 

Reliable data allows companies to set accurate baselines, track progress, and identify key opportunities. High-quality data supports better decision-making, enabling organisations to develop robust sustainability strategies and communicate credible emission reductions to clients. Transparency is a key tenet of disclosure, and allows a company to demonstrate its commitment to decarbonisation. Comparability, meanwhile, allows organisations to benchmark themselves against the industry, as well as track progress towards their sustainability goals.

Navigating data gaps and inconsistencies in complex supply chains

However, achieving this standard of data has proven difficult for FM providers. Obtaining accurate and sufficiently granular Scope 3 emissions data from suppliers is both costly and time-consuming. FM providers frequently lack the knowledge and training to understand what information to request, and what format it needs to be in. A comprehensive understanding of Scope 3 emissions is essential to requesting the correct data from suppliers. Certain services provided will have more of an environmental impact, but without an understanding of what these are, FM providers may not be getting an accurate picture of their overall emissions.

Suppliers often lack the resources, tools, or expertise to provide reliable data. Smaller suppliers, in particular, may lack the tools, resources, and training to respond effectively to emissions data requests. This issue is further complicated by the diverse and complex nature of supply chains of in the FM sector. Suppliers can span across countries and industries, with varying approaches to data collection and reporting. 

In many cases, FM providers rely on spend-based estimations to calculate emissions. While permissible under the GHG Protocol, this approach lacks precision and limits the company’s ability to identify emissions reduction opportunities. Spend-based methods use financial data to estimate emissions based on industry averages but fail to capture the unique characteristics of individual suppliers or activities. This limitation makes it difficult to identify reduction opportunities or report transparently.

Activity-based data, which directly measures emissions from specific activities, is far more reliable but harder to obtain. To achieve this level of granularity, FM providers must work closely with their suppliers to understand operational details and establish streamlined data-sharing processes. For example, instead of relying on overall spend for cleaning services, activity data might include the specific energy consumption of cleaning equipment, or the emissions associated with transportation of cleaning staff. Gathering this type of data allows for an FM provider to find inefficiencies and areas for improvement, and they can work collaboratively with suppliers to reduce emissions.

Increasing Regulatory and Client Pressure

Another challenge in data collection is the lack of consistency in reporting standards among suppliers. Larger suppliers may follow specific frameworks to record their data, while smaller suppliers may not adhere to any standards. This can make it difficult for FM companies to aggregate, compare, and verify data across their supply chain. Variations in reporting standards, differing levels of granularity, and lack of verification adds to the problem. This can not only prevent accurate reporting but also hinders FM companies’ ability to meaningfully engage with their suppliers on sustainability topics.

As explored in our previous article, the demand for high-quality data will only continue to grow. Regulatory requirements like the CSRD in the EU and frameworks like ISSB and the Science-Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) are driving the push for more accurate Scope 3 emissions reporting, increasing the pressure on FM companies to improve their data collection processes. For FM providers to remain competitive, they must align their practices with these frameworks while meeting client expectations for transparent and accurate reporting.

How the SFMI can help with Scope 3 emissions for FM 

Our Scope 3 Emissions Project is specifically designed to combat these challenges. By providing a robust framework for data collection alongside a unique data tool, the project provides FM companies with actionable insights to help overcome these limitations and enhance their engagement and collaboration with their clients. 

The key focus of the next phase of this project is the Scope 3 Emissions Tool, which is designed to help FM companies comprehensively map their emissions. This tool builds on The Scope 3 Framework for Facilities Management, which outlines what data is needed, from whom, and how it should be structured. Through breaking down emissions across various categories, the tool helps FM companies identify the data required to build up their Scope 3 emissions profile. Our data tool analyses this data to identify hotspots and opportunities for reductions. This structured approach ensures no area of the value chain is overlooked, and provides FM companies with critical insights to allow them to engage more effectively with their clients and value chain. 

For example, by identifying high-emission hotspots such as energy-intensive activities or inefficient transportation methods, FM providers can collaborate with suppliers to implement more sustainable practices. This might include switching to renewable energy sources, optimising logistics, or adopting circular economy principles in procurement.

As regulatory requirements come into effect in the EU and the UK, FM companies will increasingly need to have oversight over their value chain and provide clients with data on their emissions. Ensuring data quality is the foundation of effective emissions management. Through our Scope 3 Project, Partners benefit from thorough data validation and an organised approach to data collection. This not only improves data reliability but also enhances reporting accuracy, ensuring FM companies can trust the insights they derive. 

To become involved in the next stage of this project and position your company as a leader of sustainability in the FM industry, please get in touch. 

Kristen Mierzejewski, Senior Consultant at Acclaro Advisory.

The first in a series of articles from the Sustainable Facilities Management Index (SFMI) around Scope 3 in FM. 

Scope 3 Emissions are notoriously complex and difficult to address, presenting significant challenges across all industries, including Facilities Management. With increasing pressure from governments, regulators, shareholders, and clients, FM providers are having to look more closely at their indirect emissions and devise new ways to tackle them. 

The emergence of CSRD and ISSB 

The evolving regulatory landscape adds another layer of complexity. Recent regulations, like the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), and global frameworks, like the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), are setting new expectations for companies to report on their Scope 3 emissions. In the UK, the government is currently determining how to incorporate ISSB standards into the upcoming UK Sustainability Reporting Standards (SRS), with plans to consult on the proposed legislation early next year. Last year, the government launched a Call for Evidence to gather feedback on Scope 3 emissions reporting, signalling its intent to standardise and strengthen sustainability disclosures.

In the EU, 2024 is a pivotal year for companies that fall within the scope of CSRD, as it marks the first reporting period for material sustainability impacts, including Scope 3 emissions. For most companies, this will mean adopting a full value chain approach, requiring them to identify and address indirect emissions. The demand for detailed and transparent reporting is no longer optional, and this represents a significant shift towards more comprehensive disclosures to ensure regulatory compliance.

Challenges for FM providers in aligning with Scope 3 reporting demands

For FM providers, these changes will bring significant challenges. Many companies currently lack the internal capacity or expertise to measure and report on Scope 3 emissions effectively. A lack of accurate and granular data from suppliers is a significant hurdle, and gathering data requires significant resource and time. Unlike emissions directly controlled by the organisation, Scope 3 emissions entail extensive engagement across the supply chain. Companies that have not regularly tracked their Scope 3 emissions before may be unaware of the data they need to collect or lack the tools to analyse it. 

Many FM companies are often driven by compliance needs, focusing on minimising costs rather than integrating sustainability into their core strategies. The patchwork of various regulations, each with different reporting requirements, can make it difficult to establish a consistent approach. Meanwhile, as FM clients adopt their own sustainability goals, and begin reporting on their emissions in line with regulations such as CSRD or frameworks such as ISSB, FM providers are likely to face growing demands to provide robust Scope 3 data as part of their services.

How the SFMI can help with Scope 3 emissions for FM 

The SFMI (Sustainable Facilities Management Index)’s Scope 3 Framework for Facilities Managementprovides the industry’s first standardised approach to emissions measurement. This is an important step toward standardising emissions reporting across the FM sector, helping providers align with regulatory requirements and build a foundation for meaningful action.

Building on the success of the framework, the SFMI will launch the next phase of their Scope 3 Research Project in February 2025. This phase will focus on developing a Scope 3 emissions tool with input from FM providers and representatives from professional institutes such as IWFM, RICS, and IEMA. Project Partners will gain the ability to report emissions transparently, engage effectively with value chains and clients, and respond to growing demands for data. This competitive edge will not only help FM providers stand out amongst their peers, but also prepare them for regulatory changes.

As the regulatory landscape continues to evolve, FM providers have an opportunity to position themselves as decarbonisation leaders, and to get ahead of evolving regulation. By addressing Scope 3 proactively, they can not only ensure compliance but also position themselves as trusted partners for clients and stakeholders. With the right tools and strategies, the FM industry can transform these challenges into opportunities, driving impactful change across their operations and supply chains.

Please get in touch with the SFMI to find out more about becoming a partner. 

Madeleine Ford, Editorial & Events Assistant

WORKTECH Panel: James Kendall, Director of Enterprise Engineering at SwiftConnect, and John Psyllos, Global Security Technology Lead at IBM discuss the future of mobile access control in the workplace. 

Providing seamless access for employees, customers and visitors while still maintaining robust security is a key priority in sustaining top employee experience according to both Kendall and Psyllos. Speaking on a panel at WORKTECH London about the partnership between SwiftConnect and IBM, they both reiterated the basic fact that, at the very least, workplaces must be buildings where people want to come and work. Creating ‘smart offices’ enables great cultures to be built within these spaces.

SwiftConnect, “a unified, software-first approach to permissions and credentials”, is an access network, centred around ‘smart office’ solutions offering employee experience enhancements, office space management and building operations. Services focus on improving the efficiency, flexibility and general experience of the workplace.

Kendall stated that the top reason that clients deploy the technology is for user experience. The aim is to allow people to have a similar experience of travelling through the tube in London, with a simple tap and go into the building using Apple or Google wallet credentials. This allows access in the same way a plastic card would, but with more security and less plastic. This point was reiterated by Psyllos who confirmed that the user experience was the main driving factor in the decision to deploy the technology at IBM’s New York office this past September, where they now have just under 2000 users.

This goes much further than just building access. SwiftConnect’s booking system means reserving desks, meeting rooms, and shared workspaces on demand through an app. This delivers a seamless experience and the insights show organisations which areas are overcrowded or underutilised. Data-driven insights which show how an office space is being used means companies can better configure workspaces to fit the needs of their employees. This leads to increased cost efficiency and resource optimisation. 

Practicality is at the core of SwiftConnect’s workplace solutions. In cities such as London and New York where it is common practise to tap throughout your day for the tube, to buy lunch, and to add your train ticket to your Apple wallet – life revolves around this convenience. John Psyllos is definitely accurate in stating that this practise is not only becoming familiar, but it is becoming increasingly expected and the best thing companies can do for employee experience is lean into it.

Safety, comfort and convenience have become three key factors in successful employee experience and are all something that mobile access and ‘smart offices’ can provide on a daily basis. Simplifying the way offices are managed and accessed allows for a seamless, touchless and practical experience day-to-day in the workplace, and enhanced employee satisfaction. 

Madeleine Ford, events coordinator of Facilities and Estates Management Live on the growing importance of Biophilic Design.

As humans, we need a connection to nature, from time immemorial we have been connected to the earth, land, wind, rain, sun and sea but in our more recent history we have evolved to spending most of our lives inside. As a species, our current distance from our inherent connection to the world is miles away from where it once was and where it needs to be.

Oliver Heath, keynote speaker of the Biophilic Design Conference, encapsulated the topic with his opening question- “what is a healthy proportion of nature and how do we deliver it and create it in the spaces that matter most to us?”

The purpose of biophilic design is to think about how people connect with nature in the built environment, particularly where we see intense amounts of stress and anxiety. In interior design Biophilia is often represented directly, for example by bringing plants in, encouraging natural light and fresh air, or by the mimicking of nature such as printed views, using colours from nature, sound scaping or improving acoustics. 

Each speaker at the conference upheld the same ethos regarding biophilic design, emphasising that it is so much more than just aesthetics, it is about creating meaningful and supportive environments for users – or more specifically – designing for community. Shared moments in nature can create deeper connections for spaces, places and the people within them, enhancing social and ecological communities. Forging a sense of community in a workspace is crucial to increase the value of social interactions and overall satisfaction levels.

Organisations with a stronger sense of community have lower employee turnover rates, higher economic returns and revenue, more passion and a sense of purpose among employees and increased collaboration. 

Furthermore, studies have found that the addition of natural features in the workspace can increase wellbeing by 15 per cent, productivity by 6 per cent, creativity by 15 per cent and improved performance in mental function and memory recall by 10 to 25 per cent. 

When it comes to biophilic design in an office space, simple measures such as the office layout can have a significant impact. For example, more organically planned desks instead of rows and ensuring all employees have a view of a window to ensure access to natural light which is imperative for hormone regulation and maintaining sleep patterns. 

Expanding on this, environmental psychologist Dr Nigel Oseland emphasised the preference for natural temperature and ventilation variations and the calming effects of natural sounds and social interactions. 

The mimicking of nature in different aspects of office life is key to encouraging these behaviours and improve stress, cognitive production, emotion and mood. As stated by speaker Paige Hodsman, Concept Development and Workplace Acoustic Specialist, “biophilia is taking the external environmental factors that aid our survival and reinterpreting them in the interior environments to optimise the functioning of the body and mind”. It entails going back to where we evolved, how we process the world around us and the importance of nature. When we prioritise our heath, both physically and mentally, it makes us more resilient, and we can create this balance between human health and the environment.

As further emphasised by Lori Pinkerton-Rolet, Director of Park Grove Design, “we can make the journey of life so much more meaningful by not separating ourselves as a species from the world at large just because we can.” 

The conference, organised by the Journal of Biophilic Design, made the importance of biophilia inherently clear, emphasising that if we embrace what is natural to us as humans, the benefits, whether mental or physical, are unmatched for individuals and organisations. 

Adil Sheikh, Managing Director at modular workspace provider, MuteBox.

London has some of the best corporate buildings in the world. The Shard, The Gherkin, The Cheesegrater and so on, all pierce London’s skyline to create an image that’s iconic and inspiring in equal measure.  

But how about London’s offices? Are they as well received as some of the buildings they’re found in? Well, apparently not. Some 50% of UK workers are positively uninspired by their working environments – which is problematic for several reasons.  

We will spend approximately 90,000 hours of our lives working, and supposing you come into the office 3 days a week on average, you could be in for 60,000 hours of working in an environment you don’t really like. Drab offices stifle creativity and happiness, which as you might expect does little to help with productivity. 

What’s more, for companies encouraging workers to return to the office, a working environment less inviting than one’s home office can make this a rather tough sell. Add to this picture Labour’s 2024 Employment Rights Bill, which grants employees greater flex with respect to WFH, and you can see why more needs to be done to incentivise higher footfall into company offices.  

In addition, landlords are also finding it hard to entice companies into renting their commercial buildings for office use. Post-pandemic, close to 10% of office space in London is unoccupied, a figure that sat at only 4% before the virus accelerated a shift towards hybrid working patterns and fully remote roles. The trouble here is that some companies are not that convinced that a dedicated office space is worth the investment with so many workers now choosing to WFH or come in once a week at most. Also, many may remain unconvinced following the uprated employer NI contributions outlined in the Autumn Statement, which has forced companies to think carefully about every penny spent, including those on office real estate.  

That being said, facilities managers and landlords can make commercial buildings more attractive to both employees and companies seeking office spaces and bolster the health and happiness of workers by embracing the Danish concept of Hygge (pronounced hoo-gah). For example, recent research has indicated a 33% increase in employee happiness following improvements to office design.  

At its core, Hygge is a cozy, contented vibe associated with warmth, wellbeing and happiness. Think sinking into an armchair, candlelit reading and a hot cup of cocoa. While sipping cocoa in an armchair probably isn’t part of your JD, there is much that can be done to bring that same cozy feel to the workplace – and boost office attendance as well as happiness and productivity as a result.  

Traditional office lighting can be harsh, clinical and less than relaxing. Opting for softer, warmer lighting can go a long way in bringing a calming atmosphere to desks and meeting rooms and help create a sense of homeliness in the workplace. Another simple way to encourage contentment within the workplace is to incorporate more biophilic elements, including plants and natural materials like wooden desks and woollen throws.  

Open plan offices, which have become increasingly popular, can sometimes come with challenges in concentration, especially as a cacophony of calls can very easily descend upon workers post-pandemic. Indeed, Zoom reported asubstantial increase in business customers following the imposition of Covid restrictions, rising from about 80,000 in 2019 to 470,00 in 2020 – and since then numerous, sometimes simultaneous, Zoom, Teams, and Slack calls punctuate (and occasionally interfere with) our working day. As such, introducing quiet areas or quiet meeting pods for focused work and calls can mute distracting noises, reduce stress and is another sure-fire way to add a dash of Hygge into your office.  

Finally, welcoming personal touches such as artwork, books, handcrafted stationary and even minimalist clocks can transform a sterile working environment into something that feels more curated, mindful and productive. The inclusion of these small but intentional additions helps foster a sense of ownership and personality in the workplace, contributing to a more engaging and enjoyable daily working environment.  

Our ways of working have changed dramatically in the last few years.  Although more employees are heading back into the office, more still needs to be done to create workspaces that compete with the luxuries afforded to them when working from home. But by injecting a large dose of Hygge into their offices and commercial buildings, facilities managers and landlords can respectively go a long way in making this happen.