After all kinds of piecemeal, half-way measures to tackle persistent smog seem to have been exhausted, the government has come up with something of a shock therapy.

The Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) on November 4 announced key measures to fight smoggy and hazy weather during the coming winter.

The most notable initiative is to introduce a flexible work timetable for companies and state-affiliated institutions, such as hospitals, schools and media organizations.

Similarly drastic measures were announced recently in a few northern Chinese cities. They mandated the suspension of or halt to industrial production and closure of schools when haze and air pollution are severe. The MEP’s measures are in step with the trend. And current circumstances may have necessitated the action.

It is reported that Beijing and Zhangjiakou, a Hebei Province city 200 kilometers northwest of the Chinese capital, plan to jointly hold the 2022 Winter Olympics. The smog is a big liability to their bid. Shanghai, a relatively cleaner place, witnessed the worst haze in months yesterday.

A flexible work schedule, featuring staggered hours at its core, has obvious benefits. The haze culprit is widely known to be PM2.5, the airborne particulates less than 250 microns across.

Researchers have found that a significant amount of PM2.5 comes from car exhaust. So it’s easy to see a positive link between fewer cars and a smaller magnitude of haze.

Just think about the road congestion that repeats itself day after day in Beijing and Shanghai, and imagine how many tons of carbon emissions could have been avoided if cars didn’t flood onto the roads en masse and motorists didn’t make life hard for each other. That’s where staggered work hours should come in, as a way to ease the congestion and reduce the emissions.

Bolder initiative

However, compared with a flexible work timetable, a bolder initiative worthy of promotion is to work from home (WFH).

The WFH alternative promises to greatly cut individual carbon footprints. The reductions in carbon intensity stem from both less commuting and energy consumption at the workplace.

The office buildings where many people work are, in face, a big source of greenhouse gas emissions. According to “Buildings and Climate Change,” a 2009 UNEP report, “buildings are responsible for more than 40 percent of global energy used, and as much as one third of global greenhouse gas emissions, both in developed and developing countries.”

Considering that every winter heralds a peak in electricity consumption, a sizeable portion of pollutants and emissions will be produced by burning coal, which is still the fuel of choice for heating in northern China.

The fact that the design of many Chinese high-rises doesn’t meet leading insulation and energy-saving standards means a lot of electricity will go to waste.

Of course, not all kinds of work can be “homesourced,” to borrow the word of Thomas Friedman. But it certainly won’t hurt for employers to at least explore the benefits of WFH solutions and — if they do work — to give them a chance.

Reducing costs

The most evident merit of WFH is that electricity, water and air-conditioning costs incurred by employers could drop dramatically. More than 50 computers being worked on or left on during non-working time result in a utility bill of hundreds of thousands of yuan a year. And that factor has to figure into a company’s cost and benefit equation.

If we count in the time and money spent on commuting, in the form of employees’ traffic allowances, the amount of money saved by working from home could be huge.

For certain occupations, such as journalists, IT engineers and call center operators, it doesn’t make much sense to insist on their appearance in the office every day, if the WFH alternative doesn’t affect staff performance and output.

In fact, companies sometimes can gain from allowing employees to choose between working from home and working in the office.

A group of Stanford University researchers recently surveyed employees at Ctrip, a Chinese travel agency, and found that home working led to a 13 percent performance increase among those surveyed.

Fewer breaks, sick leaves and a quieter working environment are cited for the increase. Home workers also reported improved work satisfaction and experienced less turnover, according to the study released in late October.

And I would include myself among those in favor of the WFH option. Because of an ankle fracture, I have been working from home for two weeks, and found the experience much more desirable than sitting in a poorly ventilated, stuffy newsroom and fighting drowsiness.

As my own experience attests, as long as deadlines are met, a little freedom on where the work is done doesn’t hurt performance.

As a matter of fact, the flexible timetable or staggered hours plan has been in vogue in the West for a while now, especially in Germany. Some may think German companies are highly disciplined places, with a strict emphasis on attendance and arrival on time. But actually that’s not the case. Take my work placement with GEO International, a German magazine.

The editorial staff usually meet only once a week for the regular brainstorming session. For the rest of the week, some may come to work only a day or two.

To my amazement, the editors are mostly content with a 25 percent or 50 percent contract and some spare time, during which they may pursue their individual interests.

The parent company, Gruner+Jahr, is happy with the arrangement as well, for full employment means a lot more labor costs and burden at a time of slimmer profit margins. The only complaint comes from the editor in chief, who has to coordinate staff attendance.

One extra benefit of WFH is that amid deteriorating air quality, employees who stay indoors will inhale fewer pernicious particles, hence, the lower health costs over the long term.

To be sure, it will be hard to change habits in China, where people are used to sticking to the schedule of a nine-to-five job. A major shift threatens to cause initial discomfort and hike management costs. However, employers may need to realize that a flexible work scheme is not just an environmentally sound practice, but also economically valid.

Moreover, as air quality worsens in the near future, they might one day be forced to pilot the WFH option. The MEP’s circular is a timely nudge for such experiments.

The only caveat is that the ministry’s notice seems to leave government agencies out.

This glaring omission undercuts the measure’s effectiveness, given that the large government car fleets contribute mightily to haze.