4-5/!4-)'*/!677'2/$!!!!!!!!

"#$&'(&)'*'+,-#(.&)*/01(23 4-5/4-)'*/677'2/$ 8&9/$:3;-+*/08< "/=/(43;+*/504;>0?@@<>A B&55+436$5&(./504;>04CA0?@@<>A

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

$?@ABCDE@"*BFFGHI" Members of the Sustainable Corporate Real Estate Roundtable (SCRER) are interested in the trends occurring in the move to more mobile offices. The workplace is undergoing pronounced change. Economic, technological, generational and cultural change is manifest in a changing contemporary workplace. Two underlying trends of the current move to mobility are increased, individual local mobility moving about within a workplace and greater geographic distribution of teams. 1 The influences shaping these two trends are many. Figure 1 identifies some of these influences. Technology has been developed, and continues to be developed, to make the worker more productive while moving about within the workplace. And, as technology continues to reduce the time and economic costs of effectively connecting people across time and space barriers, teams are being distributed geographically in order to match the best talent with the project. Combine these underlying influences with the demands of the modern workforce for work flexibility that accommodates changing perceptions of work/life balance and it is easy to understand why the face of corporate real estate is changing. The Report of SCRER Guidebook I defined a Sustainable Savings Strategy which entailed corporate users developing a formal mobility policy and raising the minimum headcount threshold for regional offices. <)=>&'?'<3-5$.'@7,*>&7-)7='5A&'#$B&'5$'#$()*)5C' <391E;*:\+6( ` 5,6;3*(32239*,2 >1;b3c+-+.+)/ H.1-*.+d*^1, ` e1-(91=3)1 a\3;3)*.3,)+(.16*)32 &'()*+,*-+.+)/ ` 032'632M*;-1, G11):;+,)1>);*=3. *,20J3,3;E/,332( N36\,1.1E/ ` L-+.+)/)1a1;_ *,/^934 *,/a\3;3 1$>-&?'1>.53)73()*)5C'D$>7E53(*&F'@7-"'?1-+.+)/] L.)3;,*^=3 Z1;_ &);*)3E+3( M1..*-1;*^1,D Z1;_O332( ` 5,6;3*(+,E,332 >1;E;1':(:*63 8 [3=+,[*9:(6\;13;43)7*.74"#$#&$'#(#)*+$,-)./+*0#1$2$)#/-)3$-4$3"#$/#)5-)6*40#$-5$789$&-)./+*0#$:;$<$:;$ /)-=#0374H&LU'-.+6S'+.2+,E(&3;=+634"##$7 "##$&'()*+,*-+.+)/01',2)*-.345,67 2

This Report will focus on the latest trends in Mobile Officing and examine SCRER Member Gensler s findings on the major trends influencing mobile officing. Some of Gensler s findings that relate to mobility are that mobile strategies often are motivated by a need to reduce real estate, a need to retain or attract target employees, a need to increase worker satisfaction or a need to increase productivity. This Report also focuses on complimentary studies from the International Facility Management Association (IFMA) and the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and other sources. It also notes SCRER Members concerns regarding needed in-office collaboration and confidentiality-related compliance issues while acknowledging SCRER Member companies actions towards moving a greater percentage of their workforce to a distributed stance. Graphs reflecting results from multiple case studies including HP, Sun Microsystems and UK law firm Bracknell are provided as are Gensler s graphs reflecting how reductions in leased square feet which are attributable to mobility programs have, in certain instances, reduced net cost, energy and carbon impacts. Key questions that this Report answers include: What are the most important trends in mobile or distributed work? What accounts for office utilizations rates as low as 55? What are the drivers and obstacles in the move to more mobile offices? Sustainability Roundtable, Inc. (SR Inc.) iteratively interviewed top relevant executives at more than 36 leading national companies questioning them and their relevant team members on their move to mobile offices. The companies interviewed include top corporate users, top institutional owners and top relevant experts. This Report builds on this original research by synthesizing management practices that have proven to be successful. In addition, this Report explicates key findings including: Key drivers for alternative work strategies in organizations today are the employee demand for increased work/life balance, corporate demand for increased space utilization and the desire of the workforce to be able to work from anywhere. Companies are adopting an alternative work strategy to help attract and retain employees Technology smart phones, video-enabled web conferencing, cloud computing, laptops and wireless access have substantially enabled greater mobility. Some surveys report an increase in the productivity and a decrease in absenteeism of employees enrolled in a formal flexible work arrangement (FWA). Moving toward mobility can lead to a decrease in the carbon footprint of a real estate portfolio. Gensler s scenario-planning example yields compelling numbers that support the move to mobility in order to mitigate carbon risk and to reduce operating expenses. "##$&'()*+,*-+.+)/01',2)*-.345,67 3

3GAJKHLBMN" The move to more mobile offices has been a topic of conversation for years, but noted changes in technology, demands from the workforce and workplace needs combined with the current economy and the focus on sustainability from the C-suite is expected to increase the overall adoption of mobility. One Roundtable participant commented that, Mobile offices are the office of the future and they always will be [the office of the future]. As this Member and others have noted, there are significant barriers to increasing the mobile workforce, especially within certain types of businesses and business units. Multiple SCRER Members, however, assert that a substantially increased percentage of workers will, in the coming years, participate in mobile workplace solutions that will take them out of the traditional office setting. Obviously, with billions of square feet of space under lease in the U.S., there will be enormous need for dedicated office space for the foreseeable future. However, corporate users are changing their footprint as well as the layout of their owned and leased space and SCRER Members, both Directors of Corporate Real Estate (DREs) and the Portfolio Managers (PMs) 2, can benefit from understanding the relevant trends. A survey of nearly 200 corporate real estate practitioners from CoreNet Global 3 found that two-thirds of corporate real estate departments (64) expect their real estate footprint to shrink in the coming years and cited costs as the driving factor. Numerous Member organizations have taken actions to increase the number of employees with a mobile stance. As reported in the SCRER 2009 Management Best Practices Guidebook I (Guidebook I), the Sustainable Savings Strategy (SSS) identified within the Membership of the SCRER is that companies should adopt a formal mobility policy and should raise the headcount threshold for regional offices. Guidebook I identified how Members had adopted mobility policies and increased the minimum number of employees which were require at a location to maintain an office at that location. The SSS includes retaining the workers from these offices, but transitioning them to the mobile workforce. At the third quarter Conference of the SCRER, Doug Gensler of Gensler reported on relevant trends. Doug provided a cogent presentation built around People, Profit and Planet the triple bottom line model to explain how trends in mobility are affecting the way offices are designed and what impact that has on the environment and operating costs. This Report examines the dynamics of changing workplace environments and what appears to be an important inflection point. Corporate real estate is filled with underutilized real estate, employees that want more work/life balance and a growing organizational desire to reduce green house gas emissions. All of these " L(2+(6'((32+,)\3+,);12'6)+1,)1)\3H'+23-11_4&M0J0?39-3;3c36')+=3(*;3-1)\.3*2+,E61;:1;*)3;3*. 3()*)3 3c36')+=3( *,2 +,()+)')+1,*. +,=3()1;( *,2 *2=+(1;(7 N\+( 03:1;)6.*((+>+3(*,3c36')+=3>;19M1;:1;*)3 03*. J()*)3 *( * G)&-5$' $,' H$2$35&' D&3*' I.535&' JGDIKa\11=3;(33(-1)\1a,32*,2.3*(32;3*.3()*)3 :1;)>1.+1( *,2 '(3( )\3 )3;9 :$5,$*)$' #373=&' J:#K+,;3>3;3,63)1*,3c36')+=3;3(:1,(+-.3>1;9*,*E+,E :1;)>1.+1(>1;+,()+)')+1,*.+,=3()1;(*,2*2=+(1;(7 CC >#(?084@$3"#$A-)35-+8-$B$C*9868D84@$3"#$?7#$-5$E987384@$F/*0#4M1;3O3)H.1-*.4?*/"##$7 "##$&'()*+,*-+.+)/01',2)*-.345,67 4

drivers, are reasons that there has been an increase in the number of remote workers in this country. The increase was particularly marked during the oil price spike of 2008 as many organizations received an increase in employee requests to work from home to cut down on their fuel costs. Whether or not this trend continues remains to be seen. A deep recession has created a surfeit of un-used space that reduces the demand for more distributed workplaces. However, well after the recent spike in fuel cost, SCRER Members report that technology continues to reduce cost and quality barriers to robust mobility programs and a generation of web-savvy professionals comfortable with more mobile workplaces continues to gain influence. ;GC@OC"'H@MNO"DM"7LPDQ@"&RRDA@O" 1. There are numerous ways in which companies are addressing the increasing need of workers for mobility both within the existing real estate of the organization and off-site. Companies are offering workers flexible work arrangements (FWAs) which include mobility options as well as flexible work hours and flexible scheduling. Another umbrella term is alternative work strategy (AWS) which can describe various mobility strategies such as the virtual office, telecommuting, hotelling and remote offices. For the reader s convenience, a glossary of terms has been compiled and appears at the end of this Report. An International Facilities Management Association (IFMA) report categorizes three main options companies are offering for greater mobility as: (a) telecommuting; (b) the virtual office; and (c) a remote tele-center. 4 Telecommuting is most often associated with working from the home whereas the virtual office communicates that the workplace can be wherever the employee happens to be working at any point in time the idea of working from the Third Place (a.k.a. the coffee shop or the airport). Remote tele-centers are simply regional offices that allow workers a physical place to go to work that is outside of the regional headquarters for the organization. In a survey of its members, IFMA found that 56 were offering telecommuting to employees, 37 were offering virtual office arrangements and 15 were offering a remote tele-center. This aligns fairly well with the results of the CoreNet Global study which found that 72 of companies are implementing an AWS and that, in those companies, telecommuting as the most common followed by hotelling and virtual office. The IFMA survey found that off-site alternative work options had only changed marginally over the last couple of years with 41 of the respondents indicating an increase and 42 saying it remained the same. As expected, the report also found that IT, Sales and other categories were the job functions most affected by alternative work strategies. In regards to demographics, it is not surprising that the survey found that younger employees are more willing to work remotely. Of the W 5G?L4G873)8H?3#($,-).I$>#7#*)0"$>#/-)3$JKL4"##F7 "##$&'()*+,*-+.+)/01',2)*-.345,67 5

respondents under 30 years of age, alternative work options strongly appealed to 71. This decreased to 15 for employees over 50 years of age. 5 1.1. Important Drivers for Mobility The CoreNet Global study 6 found that, among corporate real estate departments, the major driver is cost reduction. CoreNet identified the second most important driver as the productivity and effectiveness of employees and the third as the desire to attract and retain employees. In a November 2008 survey, the Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) reported some important statistics of the drivers to the mobility of workers. According to a separate survey 7, real estate departments are the most common business unit responsible for running the alternative work program within an organization (59) followed by HR departments (22). The crossover of these two departments is exceptionally visible when considering alternative work strategies and their implementation within an organization. Therefore, when developing or continuing an alternative work strategy (AWE), it is important for real estate executives to be familiar with and share information with the organization s HR department. The following summarize the top five drivers of mobility as identified by the SHRM survey. The First driver for mobility is employee requests. Employees have submitted requests to the HR departments in 7 out of 10 of companies surveyed. The major reason behind the requests is child care since the majority of households do not have a stay at home caregiver. Another finding the survey revealed was an increase in the need for elder care as workers are working longer because of desire and economic climate. This is affecting their parents elder care needs. Therefore flexibility is needed not only for workers children but also for their parents. The second reason is related to the first in that 55 of the survey respondents indicated that their employees have found difficulty balancing work and life and needed AWE to help solve this challenge. The third motivation concerns employee retention. Worker retention and attraction was cited as a motivation by 50 of the survey respondents. The fourth most popular motivation cited, at 45, was that changing business needs required greater collaboration. And the fifth most popular reason cited for moving to mobility, at 37, was that technology advances (laptop, cell phone, PDA, video and web conferencing) are an important factor in the move to mobility for organization employees. (Figure 4 provides a graph of all the primary drivers.) The IFMA survey findings are consistent with the SHRM survey. The IFMA survey revealed that the top reasons for considering this type of workplace strategy was flexibility of increasing and decreasing headcount, work/life balance and cost savings. Thirty-two percent of the facility V 5-+27 @ >#(?084@$3"#$A-)35-+8-$B$C*9868D84@$3"#$?7#$-5$E987384@$F/*0#4M1;3O3)H.1-*.4?*/"##$7 B O3aZ*/(1>Z1;_+,E42+3#)4*38M#$,-)./+*0#7$N#40"6*).$F3?(O4L'E'()"##F7 "##$&'()*+,*-+.+)/01',2)*-.345,67 6

managers in the IFMA survey reported that these off-site options reduced net overall operating costs and these were reflected in decreases in costs or cost avoidance, current rent/lease/property costs and technology. Technology has been a driver in this move to alternative work strategies. In 2008, 92 of employees were using laptops, 70 had some form of wireless access, 53 had PDAs and 45 had access to videoconferencing. 8 Each of these technologies has played a role in alternative work strategies by facilitating the needs of workers. One technology that is still underutilized according to the Aberdeen group is videoconferencing. 9 Though it has been around for decades and made significant strides in quality and affordability, there continues to be a reliance on face-to-face meetings instead of using videoconferencing. However, anecdotal evidence from SCRER Members and other industry leaders interviewed by SR Inc. indicate that the current economic environment has pushed the use of videoconferencing and web meeting technologies forward since travel budgets are being restricted. 1.2. Obstacles to Several significant obstacles exist for organizations. Most commonly cited obstacles are not related to technology or infrastructure but rather most are related to organizational or management culture or compliance with controlling of confidential information. Figure 2 presents data from a survey of Fortune 500 companies and illustrates that none of their top barriers are related to technology. In parallel to this, the IFMA survey reported that some of the reasons for not embracing this type of change stemmed from management resistance to change followed by cultural resistance. <)=>&'0?'L3)&.'D&2$5&E')7'5A&'#$B&'5$'#$()*)5C',$M'<$5>7&'/NN'-$M237)&."' Barriers Reported in Moving to Mobility #)EE*&'#373=&M&75'H$7-&7.' +="'H>*5>&' IX&-"'L>CY)7' 1&->)5C' IM2*$C&&'H$7-&7.'$,'Z$.)7='123-&' <>7E)7=' NU' NU' 0NU' 9NU' ;NU' /NU' VNU' WNU' TNU' 8NU' 1$>-&?'O&P'Q3C.'$,'Q$R)7=F'"#$&'#()$*+,-."'/$0*1$&/23'-*4#567F'S>=>.5'0NNT"' F 5G?L4G873)8H?3#($,-).I$>#7#*)0"$>#/-)3$JKL4"##F7 $ N#84@$84$&-$A+*0#7$*3$P40#1$#+#/)#7#40#$M#)7?7$Q8(#-0-45#)#4084@4L-3;233,H;1':4"##F "##$&'()*+,*-+.+)/01',2)*-.345,67 7

Obstacles to alternative work strategies which were reported to SR Inc. from SCRER Member organizations include management hesitation to employees working remotely, the need to comply with information security rules and concerns of productivity. The concern about confidentiality of data parallels the primary reason identified by the CoreNet survey that companies do not support employees working in a virtual office setting the concern of leaking confidential information. The IFMA survey also identified facilities professionals were concerned with the following: 10 Ensuring that tele-working does not come to be seen as an employee entitlement. Health and safety issues. HR, legal, security and regulatory considerations. Liability concerns. Logistics of what the organization would or would not provide for the off-site work. Tax implications in states where we don t currently have offices. 1.3. Metrics & Reporting The metrics being used by companies to measure the effectiveness of their alternative work programs are not well-established. A report which surveyed Fortune 500 companies identified that almost a fifth (19) had no metrics developed to measure the effectiveness of their alternative work program. 11 Figure 3 identifies the top three metrics used by the Fortune 500 companies surveyed in this report. The top metric was employee satisfaction followed by cost reductions and employee productivity. <)=>&'9?'#&5)-.'>.&E'(C'<$5>7&'/NN'-$M237)&.'5$'#&3.>&'#$()*)5C':$=3M'I,,&-5)B&7&.."' Metrics Used to Measure Effectiveness of Workplace Programs NU' NU' 0NU' 9NU' ;NU' /NU' VNU' WNU' TNU' IM2*$C&&'13[.,3-[$7' H$.5\Q$R.23-&\<$$52)75'D&E>-[$7' IM2*$C&&':$E>-[B)5C' O$'#&5)-.')7':*3-&' 1$>-&?'O&P'Q3C.'$,'Q$R)7=F'"#$&'#()$*+,-."'/$0*1$&/23'-*4#567F'S>=>.5'0NNT"' 8# 5G?L4G873)8H?3#($,-).I$>#7#*)0"$>#/-)3$JKL4"##F7 88 O3aZ*/(1>Z1;_+,E42+3#)4*38M#$,-)./+*0#7$N#40"6*).$F3?(O4L'E'()"##F7 "##$&'()*+,*-+.+)/01',2)*-.345,67 8

2. Space Utilization SCRER Member Gensler, has been advising on workplace strategies globally for many years. During Doug Gensler s presentation at the SCRER Q3 2009 Conference, he made the connection between what is happening in the economy with workforce and real estate needs of companies. Gensler identified the drivers that are impacting the move to mobility that are identified in Figure 1: Factors Influencing the Move to Mobility and also added regionalization, business partnerships and competitive cost pressures to the list of influences driving mobility. On the other hand, in 2008-2009 there has been decreasing headcounts leading to a lower percentage of fully-utilized real estate. Gensler asserts that the increase in mobility occurring at the same time as the decrease in headcount has led to a 55 under utilization rate for real estate around the United States. 12 Gensler s research has found that real estate utilization rates impact how technology and policy improvements happen in an office environment. Increasing utilization, by definition, reduces the amount of office space per employee and therefore decreases energy consumption and carbon per square foot which can lead to improved metrics. If the increased utilization is combined with a decrease in overall space, significant cost savings can be achieved. Anecdotally, Gensler and other SCRER Members report a growing number of offices that have few workers because of the move to mobility as well as the decreased head counts of organizations. This leaves underutilized space without a pulse and with less certainty that the face-to-face collaboration will occur. This can lead to decreased productivity, places where employees are not satisfied and therefore harder to retain. Therefore some organizations are now making an effort to reduce their footprint as they create work spaces that foster collaboration, are energy efficient and are more highly utilized. Gensler based his presentation around the triple bottom line of people, profits & planet, providing examples of successes from companies in each category. 13 These are discussed below. 3. People The SHRM study, as mentioned, provided information about why human resource departments are developing flexible work arrangements for organization employees. The full results of the survey about these reasons are detailed in Figure 4. 8" <1'EH3,(.3;4U;3(3,)*)+1,*)&M0J0fC"##$M1,>3;3,63gS1()1,h4H3,(.3;4&3:)39-3;48F4"##$7 8C 5-+27 "##$&'()*+,*-+.+)/01',2)*-.345,67 9

' <)=>&';?'#$5)B35)$7.'$,'+=37)635)$7.')7'SE$25)7='<*&X)(*&'Q$R'S37=&M&75." ' ' D&3.$7.'+=37)63[$7.'3&'+^&)7='<$M3*' <*&X)(*&'Q$R'S37=&M&75.' J9:.1/3303j'3()( Z1;_]P+>3S*.*,63 Lk;*6)D03)*+,J9:.1/33( M\*,E+,ES'(+,3((O332( N36\,1.1E+6*.L2=*,63( &16+*.03(:1,(+-+.+)/ 5,6;3*(+,E61()1>H*( N1-36193lH;33,3;l &'663((1>1)\3;619:*,/m(GZL( A)\3; Fi 8#i 8Ci "Wi ""i CBi WVi V#i VVi @Fi ' 1$>-&?'1]D#F'Q$R2*3-&'<*&X)()*)5C')7'5A&'0.5'H&75>CF'1>B&C'D&.>*5.F'0NN8"' Doug Gensler detailed the experience of technology titans, Hewlett Packard (HP) and Sun Microsystems (Sun) in his presentation at the SCRER Q3 2009 Conference. Both HP and Sun have successfully implemented mobile office programs over the past decade with and results that impressed the management of the organizations. When the programs were first implemented during the dot com boom around the turn of the century, management of these organizations were concerned about what effect implementing a mobility strategy would have on productivity, face time and interactivity among employees. After implementing the strategies, both firms have been surprised that the reported interaction among employees has increased. Indeed, interaction has reportedly been done at a higher level and resulted in greater rates of productivity. A Future of Work Survey 14 conducted in June 2007 found that, on average, HP employees were highly engaged even with mobility in place and higher density office environments. This is an example of fully utilizing technology that is available to interact remotely. 15 Sun has also seen an increase in the number of mobile workers and an increase in the work task effectiveness percentage as well. Figure 5 shows that the increase in the number of flexible employees at Sun (blue line) has, over time, been paralleled with an increase in the percentage of work task effectiveness (yellow bars). 8W "#$Q-80#$-5$C-H8+#$,-).#)74[,1..Z1;_>1;6303(3*;6\03:1;)4"##B7 8V <1'EH3,(.3;4U;3(3,)*)+1,*)&M0J0fC"##$M1,>3;3,63gS1()1,h4H3,(.3;4&3:)39-3;48F4"##$7 "##$&'()*+,*-+.+)/01',2)*-.345,67 10

Mobility has often been seen as an activity that would decrease worker engagement and productivity. However, the HP and Sun cases highlight that mobility can capture both worker engagement and productivity benefits just as it can capture the cost-reduction benefits of smaller footprints. <)=>&'/?'#$()*)5C'1535&=C'37E'Q$R'_3.R'I,,&-5)B&7&..'H$&*35)$7'1>7'#)-$.C.5&M."' 1$>-&?'G$>='`&7.*&F':&.&7535)$7'35'1HDID'a9'0NN8'H$7,&&7-&'JL$.5$7KF'`&7.*&F'1&25&M(&F'TF'0NN8"' 4. Profit Not only are people requesting mobility and performing better when given the opportunity to work remotely, but cost efficiencies can also be realized by adopting a mobility strategy. A Knoll Workforce Research survey 16 investigated the productivity of employees who were working off-site as well as employees who were working in redesigned offices. The report revealed that 62 of workers found that home was the most productive workplace. Of those working remotely, 48 claim that they work harder now that they are mobile and only 24 felt that the main office was the most productive work location. The workers surveyed who were working in space that had been designed to enable collaboration and ease of transitioning from one workplace to another also reported an increase in productivity. This is further validated by the SHRM survey which found that 32 of the HR managers reported an increase in worker productivity and a decrease in absenteeism associated with the move to flexible work arrangements. This is reflected in Figure 6. It is important to note that flexible work arrangements is an umbrella term which captures flexible hours and scheduling as well as flexible work place. (See Glossary of Terms at end of Report.) Gensler asserts that by employing a mobility strategy, organizations can save in excess of $5,000 per employee per year. As Figure 7[A] shows, Gensler expects that when an organization embraces a mobility strategy, there will be an initial decrease in costs per employee due to the efficiencies that are created. Thereafter, the costs will rise with organization growth, but the rise in costs will not be as steep as in a status quo case. ' 8@ "#$Q-80#$-5$C-H8+#$,-).#)74[,1..Z1;_>1;6303(3*;6\03:1;)4"##B7 "##$&'()*+,*-+.+)/01',2)*-.345,67 11

' <)=>&'V?'_&*&-$MM>5&.'A3B&'@7-&3.&')7':$E>-5)B)5C'37E'G&-&3.&')7'S(.&75&&).M"' 1$>-&?'1]D#'1>B&C'D&.>*5.'$,'#$5)B35)$7.'+=37)635)$7.'A3B&',$'M$B)7='5$'<*&X)(*&'Q$R'S37=&M&75.' ' <)=>&'W?'H$.5'D&E>-5)$7.'S..$-)35&E'P)5A'5A&'#$B&'5$'#$()*)5C"' bsc'?'#$()*)5c'1535&=c'd&e>-&.'h$.5.'2&':&.$7' blc's&3'd&e>-5)$7'35'l3-r7&**'e>&'5$'#$()*)5c' 1$>-&?'G$>='`&7.*&F':&.&7535)$7'35'1HDID'a9'0NN8'H$7,&&7-&'JL$.5$7KF'`&7.*&F'1&25&M(&F'TF'0NN8"' Gensler related that in a Bracknell UK office space retrofit project, employing a mobile worker strategy led to a 63 area reduction and a 49 energy savings. These savings are largely due to the dramatic decrease in the square feet of space that the law firm was occupying. The firm decreased its footprint of dedicated office space from ~266,000 square feet to 57,000 square feet. The decrease in dedicated space is indicated by the yellow portion of the bar graph in Figure 8[B]. All of the space reductions together led the firm to calculate that the office redesign and mobility strategy led to a reduction in cost per person of $3,500 from $8900 to $5400. "##$&'()*+,*-+.+)/01',2)*-.345,67 12

5. Planet Lastly, in addition to the productivity, recruitment and other benefits that mobility delivers via people and the cost advantages delivered by mobility, companies can also use mobility to reduce their carbon footprint. Through this research, Gensler has come to believe that the real estate industry has the ability to dramatically reduce the carbon footprint of the built environment. Gensler also believes that the decreased need to pay for unused space can fund the greening of buildings. Both the decreased space and the improved, green building can then enhance organizational capability. After all of this, Gensler believes that the organization can still come out ahead on the balance sheet. While these statistics are compelling there is still evidence that organizations have a long way to go before these trends become the norm. Currently only 35 of U.S. companies have a mobility program of some sort. Twenty six percent are developing a mobility strategy, but only 15 have some sort of mobility budget. 17 A few SCRER Members have a mobility program in place. These and others are seeking to expand their mobility strategy because of the compelling cost savings. Some Members are motivated to increase utilization of space and drive down operating expenses while others are motivated by the desire to reduce their carbon footprint. As Figure 9 illustrates, the difference in carbon emissions between operating a status quo workforce versus mobile workforce is dramatic to the tune of 120,000 metric tons of carbon. The carbon savings are significant and should be considered by organizations that are seeking ways to reduce their carbon output per square foot. <)=>&'T?'#$()*)5C'1535&=C'13B&.'H3($7'IM)..)$7."' 1$>-&?'G$>='`&7.*&F':&.&7535)$7'35'1HDID'a9'0NN8'H$7,&&7-&'JL$.5$7KF'`&7.*&F'1&25&M(&F'TF'0NN8"' 8B <1'EH3,(.3;4U;3(3,)*)+1,*)&M0J0fC"##$M1,>3;3,63gS1()1,h4H3,(.3;4&3:)39-3;48F4"##$7 "##$&'()*+,*-+.+)/01',2)*-.345,67 13

+LMAQBODLM" While evidence has shown that mobility is taking on a more pronounced role in the workplace, it is still fully embraced by a minority of corporate employers. Nonetheless, accelerating technological change is enabling the move to mobility just as corporate leaders are increasingly interest in strategies that advance social, environmental, and commercial objectives. Since the move to more mobile workplaces is perceived by many to advance this triple bottom-line agenda, it is likely that the move to mobility will accelerate despite a pronounced recession and a surfeit of available space. Concern for people and in particular there need for better work/life balance and reduced commuting encourages the embrace of greater mobility. A concern for profits is advancing the move to more mobile workplaces because of the operational efficiencies achievable via improved utilization, improved productivity and decreased real estate costs. Finally, a concern for the planet is moving mobility forward due to a growing corporate focus on reducing carbon footprints. Finally, Not all business units are able to move toward mobility. However, for those that are able to effectively engage and manage employees remotely, it does present a significant opportunity and will very likely impact real estate investment and ownership strategies. Not only are current costs reduced, but risks associated with energy and carbon cost variability are mitigated with a successful mobility strategy. For discussion purposes, consider the scenario planning that Gensler has done as illustrated with the following assumptions and the graphic in Figure 10. 18 Assumptions for the Gensler scenario of an organization implementing a mobility strategy: An organization has a 100,000 square foot building. The organization begins by moving 30 of the employees to a mobile stance. Then the organization consolidates down to 25,000 square feet. Assuming the energy demands decline in proportion to the Bracknell case. Assume that commuting declines in proportion to Sun case. Assume that mobility increasing 5 per year. Using this model Gensler found the following: 8F <1'EH3,(.3;4U;3(3,)*)+1,*)&M0J0fC"##$M1,>3;3,63gS1()1,h4H3,(.3;4&3:)39-3;48F4"##$7 "##$&'()*+,*-+.+)/01',2)*-.345,67 14

' <)=>&'8?'`&7.*&'1-&73)$'(3.&E'$7'1>7'37E'L3-R7&**'-3.&'.5>E)&."' 1$>-&?'G$>='`&7.*&F':&.&7535)$7'35'1HDID'a9'0NN8'H$7,&&7-&'JL$.5$7KF'`&7.*&F'1&25&M(&F'TF'0NN8"' "##$&'()*+,*-+.+)/01',2)*-.345,67 15

" /QLOOGHI"LR"'@HFO" Alternative Work Strategies (AWS): An umbrella term for different ways of working outside traditional office planning, including satellite offices, virtual work, telework, etc. Distributed WorkKThe geographic distribution of work. Distributed workers may be separated by space, time or configuration (number of different, isolated sites). They may be based in one city or multiple cities, meet in person infrequently and communicate frequently via technology. Flexible Work Arrangement (FWA)KAn umbrella term for a work structure that allows for alterations in the time and/or place that work gets done on a regular basis. The term includes flexibility of scheduling of hours worked, amount of hours worked and place of work. HotellingH Temporary work spaces assigned through a reservation system; typically used by mobile workers but also used by any worker not near his/her assigned workstation. Mobile Work: A work style in which a person consistently uses multiple spaces to accomplish their work TelecommutingH An arrangement in which an employee regularly works from home, substituting telecommunications for the commute. Virtual OfficeKThe concept of the workplace being wherever an employee happens to be working at any point in time. *E/59$ 7-5 I/ J*-$$&5+ K/5/ 2-9L'*/. 75-9 '(.#$5+M(-K*/.J/-7",1(23>.='$-5$NI/ "//*2&$/ OPQ <//L <'=/0 8#(/ RQQSN &(. T-5ML*&2/ :*/U')'*'+ RQVQ0 G/-5J/-K( C('=/5$'+?&KD/(/50 "##$&'()*+,*-+.+)/01',2)*-.345,67 16