The trend of working remotely has been slowly increasing globally since 2015, with a *** to ***** percent annual increase rate. However, the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 upended the world economy and global markets. Employment trends were no exception to this, with the share of employees working remotely increasing to some ** percent in 2022 from just ** percent two years prior. The industry with the highest share of remote workers globally in 2023 was by far the technology sector, with over ** percent of tech employees worldwide working fully or mostly remotely. How are employers dealing with remote work? Many employers around the world have already adopted some remote work policies. According to IT industry leaders, reasons for remote work adoption ranged from a desire to broaden a company’s talent pool, increase productivity, and reduce costs from office equipment or real estate investments. Nonetheless, employers worldwide grappled with various concerns related to hybrid work. Among tech leaders, leading concerns included enabling effective collaboration and preserving organizational culture in hybrid work environments. Consequently, it’s unsurprising that maintaining organizational culture, fostering collaboration, and real estate investments emerged as key drivers for return-to-office mandates globally. However, these efforts were not without challenges. Notably, ** percent of employers faced employee resistance to returning to the office, prompting a review of their remote work policies.

Before the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 17 percent of U.S. employees worked from home 5 days or more per week, a share that increased to 44 percent during the pandemic. The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the remote working trend, as quarantines and lockdowns made commuting and working in an office close to impossible for millions around the world. Remote work, also called telework or working from home (WFH), provided a solution, with employees performing their roles away from the office supported by specialized technology, eliminating the commute to an office to remain connected with colleagues and clients. What enables working from home?

To enable remote work, employees rely on a remote work arrangements that enable hybrid work and make it safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Technology supporting remote work including laptops saw a surge in demand, video conferencing companies such as Zoom jumped in value, and employers had to consider new communication techniques and resources. Is remote work the future of work?

The response to COVID-19 has demonstrated that hybrid work models are not necessarily an impediment to productivity. For this reason, there is a general consensus that different remote work models will persist post-COVID-19. Many employers see benefits to flexible working arrangements, including positive results on employee wellness surveys, and potentially reducing office space. Many employees also plan on working from home more often, with 25 percent of respondents to a recent survey expecting remote work as a benefit of employment. As a result, it is of utmost importance to acknowledge any issues that may arise in this context to empower a hybrid workforce and ensure a smooth transition to more flexible work models.

Employed persons working from home as a percentage of the total employment, by sex, age and professional status (%)

Percentage of workforce teleworking or working remotely prior to February 1, 2020, on March 31, 2020, and percentage of workforce able to carry out a majority of their duties during the COVID-19 pandemic, by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code, business employment size, type of business and majority ownership.

Introduction

Work From Home Statistics: Since the COVID-19 pandemic, a major shift in work culture has taken place globally. Remote work, often referred to as work from home, has become a permanent option for many employees. According to data from Owl Labs and Global Workplace Analytics, about 30 percent of employees in the United States now work remotely full-time as of 2024. Meanwhile, 65 percent of employees prefer remote work over traditional office roles. In Europe, approximately 22 percent of workers were working from home regularly by the end of 2023. Remote work opportunities have also expanded, with LinkedIn reporting a 20 percent rise in remote job postings compared to pre-pandemic levels.

In terms of cost savings, employees who work from home can save an average of USD 6,000 annually on commuting and daily expenses. Additionally, businesses are seeing benefits, as employers can save around USD 11,000 per year for every remote employee. However, not all regions have fully embraced this trend; for instance, in countries like Japan, less than 10 percent of employees work remotely as companies encourage a return to traditional office environments.

As stated in Work from Home Statistics 2025, employees are resigning from their positions to get a remote job if they are called back to the office. Remote work is peace of mind, with which work-life balance is handled.

Hybrid models of working are on the rise in the United States according to survey data covering worker habits between 2019 and 2024. In the second quarter of 2024, ** percent of U.S. workers reported working in a hybrid manner. The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic saw a record number of people working remotely to help curb the spread of the virus. Since then, many workers have found a new shape to their home and working lives, finding that a hybrid model of working is more flexible than always being required to work on-site.

In 2021, ** percent of respondents currently working at least partially outside the office indicated that their company has a 100 percent remote policy. This is a slight increase from the previous year. Only ** percent of respondents stated that remote work in their company is allowed but not the norm, down from ** percent in 2020. Global shift to new work in 2020 In 2020, the outbreak of the global COVID-19 pandemic led to a shift from work in the office to work from home, to keep the workforce and the community safe. While this created some struggles in the beginning, many organizations and employees have since adapted and are thriving. Many employees appreciate the benefits of working remotely. Accordingly, one in two individuals indicate that the ability to work remotely is an important decision factor for future employment. Companies experiment with hybrid work models As a result, many companies worldwide are updating their policies to accommodate this new way of working. These include a combination of both flexibility on work location and productive in-person and digital collaboration opportunities. For this reason, organizations are not only actively monitoring both employee well-being and productivity but are also evolving operations to support a hybrid workforce.

As of 2023, 8.9 percent of employed people in the European Union usually worked from home. This share of home-office workers varied widely between European countries, with a 21 percent of finish workers usually working from home, compared to only one percent of Romanian workers. It was in general more common for women to work from home usually than men, however, this was notably reversed in some countries, such as Ireland where almost 23 percent of men regularly worked from home.

Percentage and average percentage of workforce anticipated to work on-site or remotely over the next three months, by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), business employment size, type of business, business activity and majority ownership, first quarter of 2025.

A survey of 1,500 NSW workers during August and September 2020 (2020 Remote Working Survey) and March and April 2021 (2021 Remote Working Survey), commissioned to understand workers' experiences of and attitudes to remote and hybrid working. To be eligible, respondents had to be employed NSW residents with experience of remote working in their current job. After accounting for unemployed people and those whose jobs cannot be done remotely—for example, dentists, cashiers and cleaners—the sample represents around 59 per cent of NSW workers. Workers answered questions on: • their attitudes to remote working • the amount of time they spent working remotely • their employers’ policies, practices, and attitudes • how they spent their time when working remotely • how barriers to remote working have changed • the barriers they faced to hybrid working • their expectations for future remote working

In 2022, around ** percent of respondents stated that their biggest struggle when working remotely was staying at home too often because there they don't have reason to leave. Moreover many people who work from home do not necessarily have a designated workspace, they experience a conflation between their living area and workplace. Most notably, around ** percent of respondents reported loneliness as their biggest struggle with working remotely. As a result, remotely working employees emphasize the importance of finding strategies to balance their private lives with their professional routines. On the other hand, employees also state having less difficulties with collaboration and communication in 2021. This is likely due to the quick cultivation of skills during the 2020 pandemic that allow them to effectively communicate and collaborate with others when working from different locations. Challenges inherent in new work set-ups As employees work from different locations, companies are confronted with the urgency to ease some of the challenges inherent in novel hybrid work solutions. Strategies developed to support remote work include training for employees or expanding information technology infrastructure to ensure that employees can collaborate efficiently from different locations. The future of work Certainly, it is important to take the challenges experienced by employees seriously as the current telework trend is likely to continue and become a common way of working in the future. Addressing challenges head-on in the present will ensure better working conditions in the future.

This table contains data on the percent of residents aged 16 years and older mode of transportation to work for California, its regions, counties, cities/towns, and census tracts. Data is from the U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census and American Community Survey. The table is part of a series of indicators in the Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project of the Office of Health Equity. Commute trips to work represent 19% of travel miles in the United States. The predominant mode – the automobile - offers extraordinary personal mobility and independence, but it is also associated with health hazards, such as air pollution, motor vehicle crashes, pedestrian injuries and fatalities, and sedentary lifestyles. Automobile commuting has been linked to stress-related health problems. Active modes of transport – bicycling and walking alone and in combination with public transit – offer opportunities for physical activity, which is associated with lowering rates of heart disease and stroke, diabetes, colon and breast cancer, dementia and depression. Risk of injury and death in collisions are higher in urban areas with more concentrated vehicle and pedestrian activity. Bus and rail passengers have a lower risk of injury in collisions than motorcyclists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Minority communities bear a disproportionate share of pedestrian-car fatalities; Native American male pedestrians experience four times the death rate Whites or Asian pedestrians, and African-Americans and Latinos experience twice the rate as Whites or Asians. More information about the data table and a data dictionary can be found in the About/Attachments section.

Dataset shows an individual’s statistical area 3 (SA3) of usual residence and the SA3 of their workplace address, for the employed census usually resident population count aged 15 years and over, by main means of travel to work from the 2018 and 2023 Censuses.

​

The main means of travel to work categories are:

• Work at home
• Drive a private car, truck, or van
• Drive a company car, truck, or van
• Passenger in a car, truck, van, or company bus
• Public bus
• Train
• Bicycle
• Walk or jog
• Ferry
• Other.

​

Main means of travel to work is the usual method which an employed person aged 15 years and over used to travel the longest distance to their place of work.

​

Workplace address refers to where someone usually works in their main job, that is the job in which they worked the most hours. For people who work at home, this is the same address as their usual residence address. For people who do not work at home, this could be the address of the business they work for or another address, such as a building site.

​

Workplace address is coded to the most detailed geography possible from the available information. This dataset only includes travel to work information for individuals whose workplace address is available at SA3 level. The sum of the counts for each region in this dataset may not equal the total employed census usually resident population count aged 15 years and over for that region. Workplace address – 2023 Census: Information by concept has more information.

​

This dataset can be used in conjunction with the following spatial files by joining on the SA3 code values:

• Statistical area 3 2023 (generalised)

​

Download data table using the instructions in the Koordinates help guide.

​

Footnotes

​

Geographical boundaries

Statistical standard for geographic areas 2023 (updated December 2023) has information about geographic boundaries as of 1 January 2023. Address data from 2013 and 2018 Censuses was updated to be consistent with the 2023 areas. Due to the changes in area boundaries and coding methodologies, 2013 and 2018 counts published in 2023 may be slightly different to those published in 2013 or 2018.

​

Subnational census usually resident population

The census usually resident population count of an area (subnational count) is a count of all people who usually live in that area and were present in New Zealand on census night. It excludes visitors from overseas, visitors from elsewhere in New Zealand, and residents temporarily overseas on census night. For example, a person who usually lives in Christchurch city and is visiting Wellington city on census night will be included in the census usually resident population count of Christchurch city. 

​

Population counts

Stats NZ publishes a number of different population counts, each using a different definition and methodology. Population statistics – user guide has more information about different counts. 

​

Caution using time series

Time series data should be interpreted with care due to changes in census methodology and differences in response rates between censuses. The 2023 and 2018 Censuses used a combined census methodology (using census responses and administrative data).

​

Workplace address time series

Workplace address time series data should be interpreted with care at lower geographic levels, such as statistical area 2 (SA2). Methodological improvements in 2023 Census resulted in greater data accuracy, including a greater proportion of people being counted at lower geographic areas compared to the 2018 Census. Workplace address – 2023 Census: Information by concept has more information.

​

Working at home

In the census, working at home captures both remote work, and people whose business is at their home address (e.g. farmers or small business owners operating from their home). The census asks respondents whether they ‘mostly’ work at home or away from home. It does not capture whether someone does both, or how frequently they do one or the other.

​

Rows excluded from the dataset

Rows show SA3 of usual residence by SA3 of workplace address. Rows with a total population count of less than six have been removed to reduce the size of the dataset, given only a small proportion of SA3-SA3 combinations have commuter flows.

​

About the 2023 Census dataset

For information on the 2023 dataset see Using a combined census model for the 2023 Census. We combined data from the census forms with administrative data to create the 2023 Census dataset, which meets Stats NZ's quality criteria for population structure information. We added real data about real people to the dataset where we were confident the people who hadn’t completed a census form (which is known as admin enumeration) will be counted. We also used data from the 2018 and 2013 Censuses, administrative data sources, and statistical imputation methods to fill in some missing characteristics of people and dwellings.

​

Data quality

The quality of data in the 2023 Census is assessed using the quality rating scale and the quality assurance framework to determine whether data is fit for purpose and suitable for release. Data quality assurance in the 2023 Census has more information.

​

Quality rating of a variable

The quality rating of a variable provides an overall evaluation of data quality for that variable, usually at the highest levels of classification. The quality ratings shown are for the 2023 Census unless stated. There is variability in the quality of data at smaller geographies. Data quality may also vary between censuses, for subpopulations, or when cross tabulated with other variables or at lower levels of the classification. Data quality ratings for 2023 Census variables has more information on quality ratings by variable.

​

Main means of travel to work quality rating

Main means of travel to work is rated as moderate quality.

Main means of travel to work – 2023 Census: Information by concept has more information, for example, definitions and data quality.

​

Workplace address quality rating

Workplace address is rated as moderate quality.

Workplace address – 2023 Census: Information by concept has more information, for example, definitions and data quality.

​

Using data for good

Stats NZ expects that, when working with census data, it is done so with a positive purpose, as outlined in the Māori Data Governance Model (Data Iwi Leaders Group, 2023). This model states that "data should support transformative outcomes and should uplift and strengthen our relationships with each other and with our environments. The avoidance of harm is the minimum expectation for data use. Māori data should also contribute to iwi and hapū tino rangatiratanga”.

​

Confidentiality

The 2023 Census confidentiality rules have been applied to 2013, 2018, and 2023 data. These rules protect the confidentiality of individuals, families, households, dwellings, and undertakings in 2023 Census data. Counts are calculated using fixed random rounding to base 3 (FRR3) and suppression of ‘sensitive’ counts less than six, where tables report multiple geographic variables and/or small populations. Individual figures may not always sum to stated totals. Applying confidentiality rules to 2023 Census data and summary of changes since 2018 and 2013 Censuses has more information about 2023 Census confidentiality rules.

​

Percentages

To calculate percentages, divide the figure for the category of interest by the figure for ‘Total stated’ where this applies.

​

Symbol

-999 Confidential

​

Inconsistencies in definitions

Please note that there may be differences in definitions between census classifications and those used for other data collections.

Analysis of ‘Employees by frequency with which they work at private home, sex and Autonomous Community. Percentages with respect to the total of each Autonomous Community. EPA (API identifier: 37025)’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from http://data.europa.eu/88u/dataset/urn-ine-es-tabla-t3-347-37025 on 07 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

Table of INEBase Employees by frequency with which they work at private home, sex and Autonomous Community. Percentages with respect to the total of each Autonomous Community. Annual. Autonomous Communities and Cities. Economically Active Population Survey

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

Percentage and average percentage of workforce anticipated to work on-site or remotely over the next three months, by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), business employment size, type of business, business activity and majority ownership, fourth quarter of 2024.

This dataset reflects the volume and percentage of MCG employees by home and work location. Data is determined by information currently in employee personnel file (Data includes full-time and part-time regular employees only). Update Frequency : Annually

This commuter mode share data shows the estimated percentages of commuters in Champaign County who traveled to work using each of the following modes: drove alone in an automobile; carpooled; took public transportation; walked; biked; went by motorcycle, taxi, or other means; and worked at home. Commuter mode share data can illustrate the use of and demand for transit services and active transportation facilities, as well as for automobile-focused transportation projects.

Driving alone in an automobile is by far the most prevalent means of getting to work in Champaign County, accounting for over 69 percent of all work trips in 2023. This is the same rate as 2019, and the first increase since 2017, both years being before the COVID-19 pandemic began.

The percentage of workers who commuted by all other means to a workplace outside the home also decreased from 2019 to 2021, most of these modes reaching a record low since this data first started being tracked in 2005. The percentage of people carpooling to work in 2023 was lower than every year except 2016 since this data first started being tracked in 2005. The percentage of people walking to work increased from 2022 to 2023, but this increase is not statistically significant.

Meanwhile, the percentage of people in Champaign County who worked at home more than quadrupled from 2019 to 2021, reaching a record high over 18 percent. It is a safe assumption that this can be attributed to the increase of employers allowing employees to work at home when the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020.

The work from home figure decreased to 11.2 percent in 2023, but which is the first statistically significant decrease since the pandemic began. However, this figure is still about 2.5 times higher than 2019, even with the COVID-19 emergency ending in 2023.

Commuter mode share data was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 1-Year Estimates, which are released annually.

As with any datasets that are estimates rather than exact counts, it is important to take into account the margins of error (listed in the column beside each figure) when drawing conclusions from the data.

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, instead of providing the standard 1-year data products, the Census Bureau released experimental estimates from the 1-year data in 2020. This includes a limited number of data tables for the nation, states, and the District of Columbia. The Census Bureau states that the 2020 ACS 1-year experimental tables use an experimental estimation methodology and should not be compared with other ACS data. For these reasons, and because data is not available for Champaign County, no data for 2020 is included in this Indicator.

For interested data users, the 2020 ACS 1-Year Experimental data release includes a dataset on Means of Transportation to Work.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (18 September 2024).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (10 October 2023).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (14 October 2022).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (26 March 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (26 March 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 September 2018).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (14 September 2017).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (19 September 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2006 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2005 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties..Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the .Technical Documentation.. section......Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the .Methodology.. section..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see .ACS Technical Documentation..). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables..Tables for Workplace Geography are only available for States; Counties; Places; County Subdivisions in selected states (CT, ME, MA, MI, MN, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, WI); Combined Statistical Areas; Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and their associated Metropolitan Divisions and Principal Cities; Combined New England City and Town Areas; New England City and Town Areas, and their associated Divisions and Principal Cities. Tables B08601, B08602, B08603, and B08604 are also available for Place parts and County Subdivision parts for the 5-year ACS datasets..These tabulations are produced to provide estimates of workers at the location of their workplace. Estimates of counts of workers at the workplace may differ from those of other programs because of variations in definitions, coverage, methods of collection, reference periods, and estimation procedures. The ACS is a household survey which provides data that pertains to individuals, families, and households..Workers include members of the Armed Forces and civilians who were at work last week..While the 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the July 2015 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delineations of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas, in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB delineations due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities..Estimates of urban and rural populations, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..Explanation of Symbols:..An "**" entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate..An "-" entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution, or the margin of error associated with a median was larger than the median itself..An "-" following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution..An "+" following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution..An "***" entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate..An "*****" entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate. .An "N" entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small..An "(X)" means that the estimate is not applicable or not available....

Due to technological advances and rapidly changing trends in the work environment, working from home is coming to the fore. Although the possibility of working from home has existed for a long time, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has brought the topic into sharp focus in recent years. At the same time, employees' needs for psychological safety at work and meaningful work are increasing. The aim of this paper is to analyze what influence working from home has on the work-related factors meaningful work and psychological safety. The role of the quality of interpersonal relationships is also investigated. To answer these questions, a survey was conducted in a large company in Switzerland. The survey participants were 808 employees from different departments. The results show that the percentage of time spent working from home has no effect on the meaningfulness of work or on psychological safety. Furthermore, the quality of interpersonal relationships does not affect these relationships. Based on these results, it is concluded that how often someone works on site or from home does not impact negatively on these factors. It is significant to discover what online and on site measures and frameworks can ensure that the quality of interpersonal relationships remains at a sufficient level and is not detrimental to the meaningfulness of work or employees’ psychological safety.