Why employee wellbeing should be front and centre of workplace design

As the frequency, and intensity, of extreme weather events increases, the relationship between the workplace and employee wellbeing is becoming impossible to ignore. Heatwaves are no longer an occasional disruption; they are a design challenge. A challenge that employers, occupiers and developers have a responsibility to invest in solving.

Whether employees are in the office five days a week or working in hybrid patterns, employers are ultimately accountable for creating environments that enable people to work safely, comfortably and productively. Access to air-conditioned transport or a manageable commute is far from guaranteed, meaning the workplace itself must do more of the heavy lifting when it comes to supporting wellbeing.

This is where design moves from aesthetics to essentials. Workplaces must be consciously configured to deliver physically comfortable and psychologically supportive environments – not just spaces that look good, but places that allow people to function at their best.

Designing for comfort in a changing climate

One of the most pressing – and often underestimated – challenges is temperature. There is no single, universally accepted maximum working temperature. What is deemed “acceptable” varies widely across countries and sectors, and many of those working outdoors or in physically demanding roles face significantly fewer protections.

However, what the evidence does show is clear: people perform best within a relatively narrow temperature range. Research cited by ETUC, drawing on World Health Organisation guidance, suggests optimal performance sits between 16°C and 24°C, while productivity begins to fall once temperatures rise beyond this level.

The risks extend beyond comfort. When temperatures exceed 30°C, the likelihood of workplace accidents increases by 5–7%, rising to 10–15% at temperatures above 38°C. These are not marginal impacts – they are material risks to health, safety and business performance.

The hidden cost of thermal discomfort

Thermal discomfort is often framed as a matter of preference – people arguing over thermostats – but its impacts are far more serious. At its simplest, it is the point at which the body and mind are no longer at ease with their environment. But in practice, it has measurable consequences. Studies show that productivity declines as temperatures rise above the comfort zone, with performance at 30°C dropping to around 91% of its peak.

More broadly, thermal discomfort reduces concentration, increases fatigue and can lead to poorer decision-making and higher error rates. For neurodivergent employees, the challenge can be even more acute. Sudden shifts in temperature, moving from a heatwave into aggressively air-conditioned interiors, or from cold outdoor conditions into overheated spaces, can be disorienting and difficult to regulate, exacerbating sensory sensitivities.

Learning from vernacular architecture

While modern buildings rely heavily on mechanical systems to control environment, there is growing value in revisiting vernacular architecture, design that has evolved in response to local climates over time.

These approaches prioritise passive design: materials, layouts and ventilation strategies that naturally regulate temperature across seasons and extremes. Thick walls, shading devices, cross-ventilation and orientation are all proven, low-tech solutions that can reduce reliance on energy-intensive cooling systems while improving resilience.

Incorporating these principles into contemporary workplace design, alongside ensuring buildings exceed minimum energy performance standards, offers a more sustainable and adaptable route to comfort, particularly as climate variability increases.

From reactive measures to proactive design

Alongside the physical fabric of buildings, there are practical, operational measures that can mitigate the worst effects of heat and discomfort. These include designing in flexibility, allowing employees to take breaks between meetings, particularly in periods of high heat or when working from home, and rethinking peak-hour expectations – avoiding a “rush to the office” simply to access air-conditioned space.

Providing access to well-ventilated, adaptable workspaces rather than uniform temperature settings, and treating cooling (and heating) as essential infrastructure, not a luxury add-on. Importantly, these interventions recognise that comfort is not one-size-fits-all. Personal preferences, roles and physical responses to heat vary widely. The objective is not to create a perfectly consistent environment, but to create one that is adaptable enough to prevent discomfort becoming a barrier to performance.

A strategic, not symbolic, priority

Too often, wellbeing is treated as a secondary consideration in workplace design – a feature to be addressed after core decisions have been made. But as climate pressures intensify and occupier expectations grow, this approach is no longer viable.

Designing for wellbeing is not simply about meeting minimum standards or adding amenities. It is about recognising the tangible cost of getting it wrong: reduced productivity, higher risk, increased absenteeism and declining morale.

In a world of rising temperatures and shifting expectations, the question is no longer whether wellbeing should sit at the heart of workplace design, but how quickly organisations can adapt to make it a reality.