Office environment and employee differences by company health management certification

Arata, S; Sugiuchi, M; Ikaga, T; Shiraishi, Y; Hayashi, T; Ando, S and Kawakubo, S (2024) Office environment and employee differences by company health management certification. Buildings & Cities, 5(1), pp. 723-743. ISSN 2632-6655

Abstract

Company health management is known to have a positive impact on employee work performance and health. Good office environments are also known to improve employee performance and health. However, do certified health management companies consider the maintenance of a superior office environment as a means to maintain high levels of employee performance and health? This study examined whether certified health management companies have better office environments and if their certification in health management is positively related to employee outcomes. A cross-sectional questionnaire survey of 1644 employees across 61 companies in Tokyo, Japan, collected data on their perception of office environment quality and perceived outcomes. A company was deemed to be engaged in health management if it had received certification for health management. The results of the comparison, after controlling for covariates with propensity score matching, showed that certified health management companies tend to have employees who are more satisfied with their office environment and have a higher perceived office environment. In addition, employees in these companies were found to have better perceived outcomes. These findings underscore the importance of integrating healthy office environments into company health-management strategies. PRACTICE RELEVANCE In this study, companies were classified based on whether they were certified under the Japanese health management system (Health and Productivity Management). The analysis found that certified health management companies tend to maintain better office environments, which were positively related to higher employee work performance and health. Employees of certified health management companies that maintain a good office environment reported high work engagement and work efficiency. The economic benefit of higher perceived work efficiency was estimated to be about 224,000 Japanese yen per worker per year, following the methods of previous studies. These findings suggest that integrating high-quality office environment standards into health management strategies can enhance overall organisational performance, providing economic benefits. Businesses aiming to boost productivity and employee health should consider adopting comprehensive health management practices that prioritise the perceived quality of the office environment.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: health; health management; indoor environmental quality; Japan; occupational health; office environment; work efficiency; workplace
Index terms: questionnaire, management practice, Japan, occupational health, survey, certification, management system, Tokyo, work performance, organizational performance, indoor environmental quality, healthy office, productivity, efficiency, management strategy
Subjects: Geography, operations management, performance management, management, performance measurement, occupational health and safety management, environmental health, administrative processes, data collection methods
Topics: Sustainability, Health and Safety, Project Management, Geographical Context, Quality Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Contract Administration, Organizational Design
Descriptive scope: 4 PCEA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here