Most corporate decision makers and facility managers are sceptical about biophilic design when they consider it as a capital expense. The simple question is: “What is the return on investment?” “How much will I get back?”
As a researcher who has studied the economic impact of office redesigns for 15 years — in corporate facilities, retail, and healthcare — I can tell you that biophilic design always pays off financially. Always. And, in fact, the ROI is almost always greater than facility managers expect.
The problem is that most organisations cannot quantify the return on investment (ROI) for biophilic design, and therefore treat it as a luxury that enhances well-being, not as a financial imperative.
The Math: Why Productivity Gains Are 112 Times Greater Than Energy Savings
In office economics, there are two fundamental realities:
Productivity gains from biophilic design are 112 times greater than the energy cost savings. Biophilic design always produces some amount of energy savings (typically around 0.8%). However, the greatest financial benefit from biophilic design is the increased productivity of employees working in offices that incorporate natural elements into their designs.
Productivity increases of 6-7% for call centre employees with views of natural areas translate into millions of pounds in recovered productivity each year for companies with large call centres.
The typical office redesign incorporating biophilic principles produces a 6-15% increase in productivity amongst employees. This translates directly into more work being done in the same number of hours, better quality work due to reduced stress and cognitive fatigue, and longer focus periods without needing mental breaks.
To illustrate the potential productivity increases from biophilic design, let us assume an organisation of 100 employees earning average salaries of £35,000 per year. If we assume an 8% productivity increase, the organisation would realise 3,200 hours of productive time per year. With a labour cost of £55 per hour, the organisation would realise £176,000 per year in productivity increases.
Typical biophilic retrofit costs range from £20,000 to £50,000. Therefore, payback for the majority of biophilic retrofit projects would occur in two to three months.
Absenteeism: The Invisible Cost
Absenteeism is another area where organisations may lose money due to inefficiently designed workspaces. Typically, organisations measure sick leave, but they rarely connect it to their workspace design. They should.
A 15% reduction in absenteeism equals £1.44 per square foot in annual savings. Biophilic design consistently produces a reduction in absenteeism.
Absenteeism costs include the cost of replacing an absent worker during the workday; the cost of lost productivity whilst the absent worker is replaced or covered; and the cost of hiring temporary workers to replace the absent worker.
Absenteeism also includes the cost of losing customers or business opportunities whilst employees are absent. Organisations estimate that the true cost of absenteeism is £938 per employee annually in private sector, and £1,250 in public sector.
Therefore, if an organisation with 200 employees were to reduce absenteeism by 10%, they could expect to save £200,000 per year.
Absenteeism and productivity gains are two distinct measures of workplace effectiveness. Both are valuable, and both provide a basis for measuring the financial success of a biophilic design project.
Healthcare Systems: The Clearer ROI
Hospital economics provide an example of the clarity of the financial case for biophilic design. Studies have shown that providing patients with views of nature results in cost savings of £2,000 or more per employee per year.
These savings result primarily from the reduction in patient length of stay and the reduction in medication use.
One study found that biophilic design resulted in a 20% reduction in medication use for gallbladder surgery patients and a corresponding reduction in post-operative complications.
Additionally, US hospitals save an estimated £93 million per year through patient views alone.
Another study found that a 250-bed hospital could achieve £45,625 in annual cost savings through a 0.5-day reduction in patient length of stay, assuming a daily cost of £500 per bed.
Because most hospitals implement multiple biophilic interventions simultaneously, total cost savings are likely to be much larger.
The Conversion Rate: From Investment to Returns
The most robust financial study conducted to date on biophilic design provides a clear benchmark. The study reported that every pound invested in biophilic design yields £2.70 return on investment (ROI) over a seven-year period.
That represents a 270% return on investment, which is exceptional by any measure.
This is not speculation. Rather, it is the result of controlled testing across multiple organisations.
Whilst most capital expenditures in facilities management target 150%-200% ROIs, biophilic design routinely achieves far superior ROIs, and therefore should be prioritised over many other types of facility investments.
Retail: The Unlikely Winner
Retailers who wish to view the financial benefits of biophilic design in its purest form should examine the data related to natural light and greenery in retail stores.
Natural light alone results in 40% increase in sales, and greenery adds an additional 12% to sales.
An example of the financial impact of biophilic design in retail is provided below:
A 5,000 square-foot retail store with average sales of £300 per square foot generates £1.5 million in annual revenue.
Adding 12% in sales through greenery translates into an additional £180,000 in annual revenue.
The cost of adding greenery to a retail store ranges from £5,000 to £15,000.
Given the potential financial returns of biophilic design in retail, it is surprising that more retailers do not utilise biophilic design.
However, those retailers who have incorporated biophilic design into their stores have been rewarded with significant financial benefits.
Sacramento Example: Measuring True Payback
One specific example of the financial benefits of biophilic design was documented in a case study related to an office building in Sacramento.
The study examined the financial benefits of a biophilic intervention that included repositioning desks and strategically placing greenery throughout the office.
The intervention had a cost of approximately £8,000, but resulted in a measured savings of £24,000 in the first year through reduced absenteeism and improved focus and productivity.
Therefore, the payback occurred in four months, rather than several years.
This example illustrates that biophilic design does not necessarily require large capital expenditures to yield significant financial returns.
Rather, targeted and strategically placed biophilic design can generate significant financial returns with relatively modest expenditures.
Presenteeism Problem: The Hidden Cost
Organisations typically focus on absenteeism, but ignore presenteeism — the issue of employees showing up to work but not producing at full capacity due to stress, fatigue, and/or a lack of environmental support.
Studies have shown that presenteeism costs organisations nearly as much as absenteeism, with estimates ranging from £938 per employee annually in private sector, to £1,250 in public sector.
Presenteeism costs organisations approximately 12 days of lost productive capacity per employee per year.
Biophilic design can help mitigate the negative impacts of presenteeism by reducing cognitive load and improving employees’ ability to manage stress.
Implementation Cost: What Actually Costs Money
Many people believe that biophilic design requires a costly and extensive renovation to implement.
Fortunately, that is not always the case. Whilst some biophilic design interventions do require large renovations, many others do not.
Some examples of cost-effective biophilic design interventions include:
Strategically placed plants (£2,000 to £5,000), improved lighting using full-spectrum bulbs (£3,000 to £8,000), and repositioning of desks to optimise views (£1,000 to £3,000).
Total cost for these interventions is typically £6,000 to £16,000.
Whilst more extensive biophilic design interventions such as living walls and water features can cost £20,000 to £100,000, studies have shown that these too can pay for themselves through productivity and absenteeism reductions in as little as 6 to 18 months.
Retail and Public Health Context
According to UK government data, urban green infrastructure in UK saves £65 million per year in public health costs, and £328 million per year in absenteeism costs across the entire economy.
Whilst this data relates to broad-scale economic trends, it provides further confirmation that biophilic design can provide substantial financial benefits for organisations at the organisational scale.
Decision Framework: When to Invest
Based on the above analysis, biophilic design should be implemented by organisations as soon as possible if:
Their annual absenteeism rate exceeds 2.5%, their employee turnover rate exceeds 15%, their current office lease is set to expire, or they are currently experiencing productivity shortfalls.
Biophilic design should be prioritised over other types of facility investments because the ROI is typically superior, and the implementation timeline is typically shorter.
In fact, most organisations report measurable returns from biophilic design within 6 months, which is faster than most capital projects.
Financial Case: Air-Tight
The financial case for biophilic design is air-tight. Studies have shown that biophilic design improves ambient satisfaction amongst employees by 84%, and increases employees’ ability to perform their jobs by increasing productivity.
Since employee costs represent 90% of total operating expenses for most organisations, even modest improvements in productivity can result in large financial returns.
Conclusion: Financial Reality
Biophilic design is not a wellness initiative that has financial benefits. It is a financial initiative that has wellness benefits.
The ROI for biophilic design is real, measurable, and substantial.
Organisations that choose to implement biophilic design without quantifying its financial benefits are underselling it internally and should be presenting it to their CFOs and facility boards as a capital investment, not a morale booster.
Data Supports This Consistently
The data consistently supports the idea that biophilic design is a financially sound investment.
Investing £10,000 in biophilic design will typically result in £25,000 to £50,000 in recovered productivity and absenteeism costs in the first year.
That is not a guess. That is what the evidence shows across healthcare, corporate offices, and retail.
Marcus has worked in Corporate Facilities Management for fifteen (15) years, prior to working as Workplace Wellbeing Consultant. He has successfully overseen biophilic interior designs in workplaces that include start-up companies and Fortune 500 Companies. As such, he is knowledgeable of the unique challenges associated with incorporating nature into commercial space.
He has developed the ability to execute at-scale: How to develop data-based ROI to demonstrate to CFOs the value of Biophilic Design; How to implement Green Design components within Open-Plan Workplaces in a manner that does not create unnecessary Maintenance Burdens; How to avoid the “Green-Washing” pitfall of using Biophilic Design as merely an expensive form of theatrics versus a Functional Strategy for Employee Wellbeing.
He assists facilities managers, HR personnel and Business Leaders who are interested in improving their employees‘ productivity and retention rates but require understanding of the true costs, timelines and implementation challenges of making those improvements. He approaches his work with a realistic view of what a company will actually maintain and what they will not be able to support. His writing cuts through the hype surrounding Wellness Trends and focuses on achieving Measurable Outcomes and Sustainable Implementation.
