Workplace and Office Lighting Standards and Policy
Typical office lighting arrangement
Lighting Policies in the Workplace
Office managers and company officials of assorted ranks are often faced with making decisions regarding lighting in the office space. Lots of opinions are bounced around, but decisions are frequently made based on misinformation or even just someone's opinions because he or she happens to be the one in charge. In light of recent events in this author’s experience, reasons were given for imposing a policy that insisted all lights in the office be turned on that included OSHA as a primary justification and that “bright lights will make everyone happier and more productive.” This decision was obviously meant to be in the best interest of the company, but it met with many complaints and even a few instances of very intense emotional opposition. One person was so upset she didn’t even come to work the next day. Some people were happy with the decision and even called those who favor a much darker workspace “cave dwellers.” It seems very likely many companies have had lighting issues with their personnel about which decisions are made with the justification of OSHA regulations and improved productivity beneath brighter lights.
What follows is an analysis of these two concepts compiled after careful reading from numerous academic, governmental, and industry sources, including a detailed lighting experiment carried out by the Light Right Consortium, managed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and contracted by the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute’s Lighting Research Center and the National Research Council of Canada Institute for Research in Construction (NRC-IRC), along with several other academic inquiries involved with lighting, its effects on productivity, psychology, and mood. In addition, the actual documentation from OSHA has been carefully reviewed. The findings of this research have come to the following three conclusions:
- OSHA does have a minimum standard for office environments and lowers it even further for workstations.
- There is no uniform lighting level to optimize productivity, and while lighting levels do correspond to individual productivity, they do so on a highly variable and individual basis.
- Non-daylight lighting can have negative impacts on business in three key areas, including emotional/psychological issues involved with human neurobiology and physiology; financial implications due to heat generation as well as energy consumption and environmental factors; and productivity/profit.
OSHA on Office and Workplace Lighting
To begin, OSHA has set forth a standard of 30 foot-candles as a minimum lighting requirement for “office” space (United States, Illumination). For clarification, Webster defines the term "foot-candle" thusly, “A foot-candle is a unit of illuminance or illumination, equivalent to the illumination produced by a source of one candle at a distance of one foot and equal to one lumen incident per square foot” (“Foot-candle” 746). The OSHA chart has been reproduced below and can be quickly viewed HERE.
The rules are clear regarding where and when illumination is required and how much, including 30 foot-candles for an office environment. However, OSHA has appended this standard by creating a separate guideline for workstations (seen HERE). In this document, OSHA sets the guidelines as follows, “Generally, for paper tasks and offices with CRT displays, office lighting should range between 20 to 50 foot-candles" (United States, Computer). The softening of the 30 foot-candle regulation indicates recognition on the part of OSHA that in the actual workspace, there is less need for brilliant lighting in some cases. This is not mere supposition, as that particular document begins with the acknowledgment that environmental factors do have an impact on productivity and even links “comfort” with “productivity” in one line (United States, Computer Workstations).
Office Lighting: The Relationship Between Light and Productivity
In considering this factor, the relationship of comfort to productivity, there is a vast sea of research making that relationship perfectly clear. In the extensive experiment conducted by the group working for the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory mentioned in the introduction above, this was one of the essential components of their investigation. Ultimately the conclusion they had in this regard was as follows:
"Overall, these experiments found that changing lighting installations influenced appraisals of lighting quality, and that people who were more satisfied with their lighting (regardless of the type of lighting they experienced) considered the space to be more attractive, were happier, and were more comfortable and more satisfied with their environment and their work." (Veitch 145)
First, it should be noted that the term “quality lighting” was established and was defined as “the intersection of individual needs, architectural form and external conditions (energy, environment, and economics)” (Veitch 146). With that definition in mind, consider the above passage. People that were satisfied with lighting were “comfortable with their environment and work.” Arguments can be made as to whether a company wants its workers to be comfortable or not, but to assume discomfort as preferable seems counter-intuitive. In addition, the use of the parenthetical “regardless of the type of lighting they experienced” gives evidence of the variable nature of preference amongst the people participating in the studies, as there were several different lighting setups used over the course of the experimental process.
Variability and Personal Choice
This variability in what pleased who led to the conclusion that having personal control over lighting was the best choice for a workplace environment. The essential point was that different people wanted and needed different levels of lighting. In fact, the main thrust coming out of this experiment was to suggest that for optimal productivity, workplaces should consider installing lighting with individual unit controls so that each person has total control of the light levels in their own workstation. This conclusion is supported by the work of Nancy Clanton, a lighting design specialist who speaks internationally on lighting issues and who teaches lighting courses and seminars around the world as well as at the University of Colorado. Clanton writes:
"Controls are extremely important in office-lighting design . . . Manual controls give workers control over their individual work environments, increasing user satisfaction and acceptance. Because each person has different lighting-level requirements, glare tolerances, and task performance goals." (9)
Once again, the importance of the “individual” is clear, and Clanton emphasizes the idea that “each person has different lighting-level requirements.”
Psychologists have further developed this idea and have linked productivity to personality traits of extroversion or introversion:
"Extroverts generally have a higher threshold for sensory stimulation than introverts do, which means extroverts aren’t as affected by bright lights or loud noises. Introverts tend to prefer less stimulation, and are more affected by sensory input. Introverts also tend to be easily distracted by their senses. Bright lights and loud noises wear them out. In contrast, extroverts are more comfortable in the midst of a 'gong show.' Their performance and mental state may not be as negatively influenced by sensory stimulation.
"If you’re an introvert at work, make sure your office or space offers low amounts of sensory stimulation." (Pawlik-Kienlen)
The evidence is clear in support of the notion that different people have different light requirements, and this documentation even provides a breakdown as to the who and why that is the case and even goes on to illustrate why some people are going to be more productive in a much lower light environment than others. There simply is no one-size-fits-all lighting level. The experts are in agreement that the best situation for the workers is to be allowed to determine what lighting suits them best individually.
Other Benefits of Lighting the Workplace Right
Positive impact on the satisfaction and mood of workers is not only advantageous to the workers. The organization benefits as well. Offices wherein lighting is not perceived as being unfavorable by workers are more productive, have higher levels of customer satisfaction from their clientele, and have less employee turnover. Veitch, one of the authors participating in the experiments referenced above, wrote,
"Other researchers have demonstrated that satisfaction with lighting contributes to greater environmental satisfaction, which in turn leads to greater job satisfaction and that higher environmental and job satisfaction leads to greater organizational commitment and reduced intent to turnover. Moreover, organisations whose employees are more satisfied show better customer satisfaction and business unit performance [Sic]." (146)
This reduction in turnover and improved productivity is not the only benefit of workers being satisfied that an organization will enjoy. Clanton wrote:
"What building owners, developers, and employers do not realize is that maximizing daylighting [Clanton’s term for use of windows and sky lights for natural light], installing suspended luminaires, and giving employees control over lighting raises user-satisfaction levels well above 20 percent. Considering that employee salaries are close to $90 per square foot per year, while lighting and control first costs $5 to $10, improving visual quality is a safe investment." (9)
Not only is she championing the benefits of individual controls here, but she is also even suggesting that spending money to improve lighting by installing personal controls (and “daylighting,” which will be addressed a bit further down) is worth spending money on if those controls are not already in place. Now it is not the intent of this article to propose investment in lighting controls for all companies, but it is the intent of the document to suggest that mandatory maximum lighting may not be in the interest of maximum productivity. The evidence supports allowing individuals to control their light spaces as much as possible to accommodate the highly divergent nature of personal preference, which translates to individual productivity.
Psychology, Physiology and Less Tangible Things Are Affected by Workplace Lights
Personal preference is obviously a key and almost random-seeming factor here. Where some prefer bright light, others prefer to work nearly in the dark. Very few people like glaring fluorescent lights. Un-natural lighting (as referenced in opposition by the term “daylighting” above), particularly in large amounts, is counter-productive to the workplace and human physiology. This is partly due to psychological and biological reality. In his article discussing the color variability in light, Jeff Sauer writes:
"Many people tend to find that the warmer white light of tungsten creates a more pleasant environment than the colder light of an office environment. Although in either case our brains do a good job re-establishing our own internal white balance, thereby creating a new reference by which we judge a healthy face or edible fruit." (19)
Clearly, what is at stake here is the very ability to recognize the recognizable. Communication is at stake, implicated by the suggestion that we judge “healthy faces” and, by reasonable extrapolation, the expressions thereupon. This is verified in Clanton’s work as well. She writes, “Directional light from parabolic troffers creates uncomplimentary lighting for people’s faces. Because non-verbal communication depends on realistic facial views, the parabolic effect can be disastrous [Sic]” (9). “Disastrous!” she says. The very nature of communication is at stake. Good communication is essential in a workplace, and too much unnatural light actually puts that at risk. Too much unnatural light impacts how we understand each other and how we interpret our environment. Going back to the latter part of Sauer’s comment regarding “recognizing edible fruit,” the impact of un-natural light actually works on deeply rooted, primitive parts of our cognitive process, too, invoking the pre-historical, early formative portions of our neurology, bringing in how we locate ourselves in the familiar and the safe. And while Sauer writes that we do a “good job” of “re-establishing our own internal white balance,” this does require that people actually make that unnatural adjustment. Human history is one that took place primarily beneath the sun and for tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of years by firelight. It is no accident that the natural light of fire is used in spiritual ceremonies across religions around the globe. Naturally occurring light is comforting. Artificial is not. Massive amounts of artificial light can be even more uncomfortable, particularly for some.
Two bulbs are depicted here. Imagine 12 of them directly over a very small area.
Beyond the Human: Cost and Environmental Impact of Office Light
In addition to the human elements of lighting, and the obvious productivity issues that unpleasant lighting conditions create, there are other costs associated with lighting as well. According to Paul Walitskey, the North American Environmental Affairs Manager for Philips, “Lighting consumes about 40% to 50% of energy use in a typical office building” (3). Obviously, companies with large rooms filled with Internet servers or other variables will have different percentages, but nonetheless, this statement suggests that the costs involved with lighting are extremely large and not something that should be ignored. Given this, any reduction of lighting that falls within legal standards should be considered as a means of saving money. An example of this would be the lighting above the marketing department at this author’s workplace. Four fixtures are mounted above that area, primarily over one cubicle. According to OSHA, “A standard fluorescent light fixture on a nine-foot ceiling with four, 40-watt bulbs will produce approximately 50 foot-candles of light at the desktop level” (United States, Computer Workstation). If OSHA standards want 30 foot-candle minimums, and actual workstations only require 20 foot-candles of light, this particular cubicle is getting approximately two hundred foot-candles of light. That is TEN TIMES the amount specified by OSHA. Not only might that much blinding glare be unfavorable to the individual working beneath that luminous onslaught, but it also costs the company 10 times more to light that area than the company needs to pay. This factor can be multiplied out across the office space, mediated, of course, by personal preference in such cases wherein certain individuals may favor more light. In those cases, while the light is costing more, remember what was said earlier regarding “improving visual quality is a safe investment” (Clanton 9). In instances of preference for more lighting, the cost is justifiable as that individual’s productivity will, according to the data, be higher for his or her being comfortable in that work environment. The point is that any reduction in lighting is a reduction in cost, not to mention a reduction in energy consumption as well. “Even a reduction of 100 watts is going in the right direction,” says George Milner, the senior vice president of energy, environmental, and governmental affairs for a large paper company after his plant underwent a massive process and equipment evaluation to reduce their carbon footprint and energy expense (qtd in Mitchell 24). Productivity and profits are improved on the macro level by micro-level adjustments across the board.
Office Lighting Policies Should be Flexible
In conclusion, the data and research suggest that having mandatory maximum lighting throughout the building may have negative impacts on productivity and, therefore, profit. The evidence suggests that allowing people to select their own lighting levels based on some unquantifiable factors but factors that are rooted in primal processes of physiological and psychological origin is the most efficient route for a company to take short of actually investing in advanced lighting processes and designs. By allowing the lights to be on or off by departmental and individual preference, not only is overall productivity at its best, there will be less employee turnover, better communication amongst the staff, a healthier environment, and lowered overall company expense. Furthermore, no OSHA violations are put in play with the lowered lighting so long as the workspace lighting does not dip below twenty foot-candles. If verification needs to be done regarding minimums, a process for determining this is simple:
"Foot-candles can be easily measured and calculated with the use of a (manual) camera equipped with a built-in light meter. With the film speed set to ASA 25 and the shutter speed set to 1/60th of a second, focus on a sheet of white paper placed in the area where intensity is to be measured. Adjust the f-stop for proper exposure. Each f-stop has an approximate corresponding foot-candle reading." (“Foot candle” 2)
Short of violating actual OSHA standards, it is the recommendation of this author that policies of mandatory maximum lighting should not be enacted. Such policies, while perhaps well-intended and founded on a belief that the more light there is, the more productive an organization will be, are not supported by the facts.
Works Cited
Clanton, Nancy. "Seeing the Light on Office Lighting." Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning HPAC Engineering 76.9 (Sep. 2004): 9-9. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. California State University of Sacramento, Sacramento, CA. 23 May 2009 <http://proxy.lib.csus.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.csus.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14412851&site=ehost-live>.
“Foot-candle.” Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. 2nd Ed. 2001.
“Foot-candle” (2). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 23 May 2009. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-candle>.
Mitchell, Robert L. "Mohawk Fine Papers Inc." Computerworld 43.15 (20 Apr. 2009): 24-24. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. California State University of Sacramento, Sacramento, CA. 23 May 2009 <http://proxy.lib.csus.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.csus.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=38813776&site=ehost-live>.
Pawlik-Keinlen, Laurie. “How Light Affects Your Mood: Sensory Data Improves Extroverts’ Performance, Decreases Introverts.’” 26 March 2009. Suite 101.com. 24 May 2009. <http://psychology.suite101.com/article.cfm/how_light_affects_your_mood.>
Sauer, Jeff. "In Search of a Consistent Gray." Sound & Video Contractor 26.12 (Dec. 2008): 18-21. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. California State University of Sacramento, Sacramento, CA. 23 May 2009 <http://proxy.lib.csus.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.csus.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=36011303&site=ehost-live>.
Veitch, J. A., et al. "Lighting appraisal, well-being and performance in open-plan offices: A linked mechanisms approach." Lighting Research & Technology 40.2 (June 2008): 133-151. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. California State University of Sacramento, Sacramento, CA. 23 May 2009 <http://proxy.lib.csus.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.csus.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=32187185&site=ehost-live>.
Walitsky, Paul. “Sustainable Lighting Products: Energy Use and Toxic Content-Choices for Sustainability.” 23 May 2009. <http://www.energycodes.gov/news/2002_workshop/pdfs/walitsky.pdf>.
United States Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Illumination. 1926.56. 23 May 2009. <http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=10630>.
---. Computer Workstation. 23 May 2009. <http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/computerworkstations/wkstation_enviro.html>.
This article is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge. Content is for informational or entertainment purposes only and does not substitute for personal counsel or professional advice in business, financial, legal, or technical matters.
Comments
drheaton on September 03, 2015:
Part 1926 is for construction activities. I work in a completed office. Where is the OSHA light level for regular office workers?
Your article says:
"). The OSHA chart has been reproduced below, and can be quickly viewed HERE. https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_docu... "
Pin It
Shadesbreath (author) from California on February 04, 2012:
Holy crap, Ron. LOL. Normally, I would just refuse all of that in the comments of a hub, but I actually read it (well, until you got to the symptoms and and cleaning stuff), but I do agree it's all about profits. I just don't think there's enough people who give a crap to do anything about it. It's hard to start up a movement of outrage for the fact that we're getting ripped out of our retirements and nobody can afford to go to the doctor (and even if you can, it takes 9 weeks to get an appointment, so you better hope whatever you have isn't fatal). So, yeah, I just don't see the movement to stop the greed from winning out. We'll get proper lighting back when some company sees the profit in counter marketing, as "niche" and underground incandescent bulbs become trendy and nostalgia brings people back to when light used to be pleasant. For now, get used to grumpy people, because that's what happens under this shitty lights.
Ron Lentjes on February 04, 2012:
CFL DANGERS
SIMILAR INSTRUCTIONS
From Canada.
Minimizing Your Risk
* Always handle CFLs carefully when installing and removing them.
* Check with your municipality to see if CFLs can be recycled in your area.
Recycling them means that the small amount of mercury they contain will
not end up in the environment.
* If you have skin sensitivities to UV, or have Lupus or another auto-immune disease
that makes you sensitive to UV, you can take these steps:
o Buy CFLs that are marked low UV.
o Buy CFLs that have a glass cover already added, which will help
further filter out UV radiation.
o Use additional glass, plastic or fabric materials in your lighting
fixtures to act as UV filters.
o Increase the distance you are from the CFL,
as this will reduce the level of UV exposure.
* If you break a CFL, follow these directions for clean-up:
o Leave the room
+ Remove people and pets from the room and keep them out of the room during
the clean-up process.
+ Avoid stepping on any broken glass.
o Ventilation
+ Ventilate the room for at least 15 minutes prior to starting clean-up by
opening windows and doors to the outdoors. This will ensure that
mercury vapour levels are reduced before you start cleaning.
o Clean-up Directions for Hard and Carpeted Surfaces
+ Do not use a vacuum to clean up the initial breakage, as it will
spread the mercury vapour and dust throughout the area and may
contaminate the vacuum.
+ Wear disposable gloves, if available, to avoid direct contact with
mercury and to prevent cuts.
+ Scoop or sweep up the broken pieces and debris with two pieces of stiff
paper or cardboard. Do not use a broom.
+ Use sticky tape, such as duct tape or masking tape, to pick up any
remaining fine glass or powder.
+ Wipe the area with a damp paper towel, cloth or disposable wet wipe
to remove any residual particles.
+ Place the broken glass and clean-up materials in a glass container
with a tight fitting lid to further minimize the release of mercury vapour.
o Carpeting - Steps to Take After the Initial Clean-up
+ If the rug is removable, take it outside, shake and air it out for as
long as is practical.
# The first time you vacuum on installed carpet after the clean-up,
shut the door to the room or close off the area as much as possible
and ventilate the room in which the lamp was broken by opening the
windows and doors to the outside. When the vacuuming is done,
remove the bag, wipe the vacuum with a damp paper towel, cloth
or disposable wet wipe, and then place the vacuum bag and paper
towel in a sealed plastic bag outside. In the case of a canister
vacuum, wipe the canister out with a wet paper towel and dispose
of the towel as outlined above. Continue to ventilate the room for
15 minutes once the vacuuming is completed.
o Disposal
+ Immediately place waste material outside of the building in a
protected area away from children.
+ Room with an open doorDispose of the waste at a household hazardous waste
location as soon as possible. Check with local, provincial,
or territorial authorities about the requirements for recycling
and for the location of household hazardous waste depots or pick-up.
+ Do not dispose of the waste in your household trash.
+ For further information on disposal, please contact Environment Canada.
o Washing
+ Wash your hands after storing and disposing of waste.
* Additional Information
o Remove and install the CFL by handling only the base of the lamp to prevent
any unnecessary pressure on the glass that may cause it to break.
o Consider using a drop cloth when replacing a CFL to minimize the chance of
breakage should the lamp fall or to protect the flooring and assist
in clean-up should the bulb drop and break.
o Store fluorescent lamps in containers that prevent them from breaking,
such as in their original packaging.
o Consider avoiding the use of CFLs in areas where the lamps may be easily broken.
Those who have Lupus or another auto-immune disease and certain skin conditions
can be sensitive to the UV from CFLs, in the same way they would be sensitive
to sunlight and other light bulbs that emit UV. If you believe you are suffering
from symptoms related to UV, you should consult your health care provider.
Note: The limits of exposure for Canada are: no closer than 30cm for 3hr or 1hr depending on CFL light.
Ron Lentjes on February 04, 2012:
CFL DANGERS
Recommendation: If there are young children or pregnant women in the house,
seek additional advice from your local or state health or
state environmental agency.
Many states and local agencies have developed collection/exchange programs
for mercury-containing devices. Some counties and cities also have household
hazardous waste collection programs. For information about these programs,
contact your local officials to find out when and where a collection will
be held in your area. Earth911 also provides information about local
collection programs. For information on recycling compact fluorescent