Most UK organisations cannot consistently compare the carbon impact of workforce accommodation before making a booking, limiting their ability to reduce emissions while travel decisions are still being considered.
Research from workforce travel platform Roomex found that only 24% of business decision makers could easily compare carbon information across accommodation options before confirming a stay.
A further 33% could see emissions information for only some properties, while 38% received the data after booking or did not receive it at all.
The findings expose a divide between carbon reporting and operational decision making. Companies may calculate accommodation emissions after employees have travelled but lack comparable information when cost, location, and availability are being assessed.
Workforce accommodation was described as essential or important by 71% of organisations surveyed. It allows employees and contractors to reach construction sites, infrastructure projects, customer premises, manufacturing facilities, and temporary assignments where daily travel is impractical.
Carbon impact rarely determines the booking on its own. Cost, proximity, availability, or project urgency took priority in 85% of organisations at least some of the time.
Almost two thirds, 63%, said employees needed approval or were unable to select a lower carbon option where it cost more, was further from the worksite, or combined both disadvantages.
Keith Watson, president at Roomex, said: “Businesses are being asked to reduce the carbon impact of workforce travel without always having the information they need to do it. The research shows that carbon data is often missing, difficult to compare, or only available after accommodation has been booked. By that point, the decision has already been made.
“Businesses need clear, comparable carbon information while they are weighing up cost, location and availability. That allows them to choose a lower-carbon option where it works for the job.”
The report calls for accommodation search, approval, booking, and reporting information to be connected so that emissions can be considered before expenditure is committed.
Roomex provides carbon dioxide equivalent estimates through a partnership with SQUAKE, allowing organisations to view estimated emissions alongside practical booking information.
Accommodation represents one component of business travel, but it is often less visible than flights, rail journeys, or company vehicles. A mobile workforce may spend hundreds or thousands of nights in hotels, serviced apartments, and other temporary accommodation during long projects.
Those stays generally fall within Scope 3 emissions, which arise from activities in a company’s value chain rather than assets it owns directly. Scope 3 information is difficult to manage because it depends on suppliers using different data, assumptions, and measurement methods.
Hotel emissions can vary according to building efficiency, heating systems, electricity sources, occupancy, room size, catering, laundry, and the method used to allocate emissions to each guest night.
A single estimate therefore contains uncertainty. Comparisons become more useful where providers apply a consistent method across available properties and disclose the assumptions behind the figures.
Location can have a greater effect on total emissions than the accommodation itself. A lower carbon hotel further from a worksite may require additional driving, while a higher emission property within walking distance could produce a lower overall journey footprint.
The complete stay needs to be considered rather than one measure being optimised in isolation. Booking systems should ideally combine accommodation emissions with distance, transport method, employee safety, working hours, cost, and project requirements.
Approval rules can then establish when a lower carbon option should be selected and what additional cost or travel distance is acceptable. Without those parameters, employees may see emissions information but remain uncertain about how much weight to give it.
The findings also expose tension between sustainability targets and operational budgets. Procurement departments are often required to reduce travel expenditure, while sustainability teams seek lower emissions and project managers prioritise proximity and workforce availability.
Earlier coordination can prevent carbon targets from becoming a reporting exercise conducted after commercial decisions have been completed. It can also identify cases where a modest increase in room cost produces a meaningful reduction in travel or energy use.
Supplier engagement will be necessary because accommodation providers differ in their ability to produce reliable information. Large hotel groups may have established measurement systems, while independent properties may lack the resources to calculate emissions at room level.
Demanding detailed evidence without consistent standards could favour larger providers rather than those with the lowest actual footprint. Buyers may need to accept estimated figures initially while encouraging suppliers to improve metering and disclosure.
False precision presents a separate risk. Carbon figures displayed to several decimal places can imply certainty that the underlying information does not support. Booking systems should make differences understandable while retaining details about methodology and confidence.
As sustainability reporting develops, companies will face greater pressure to explain how emissions information influences purchasing rather than simply how totals are calculated. Travel policies, approval records, and supplier selection can demonstrate whether carbon considerations affect behaviour.
The Roomex findings show that many organisations have not yet reached that point. Information is often incomplete, delayed, or disconnected from the system through which bookings are approved.
Clearer visibility will not make every lower emission option commercially or operationally suitable. It will, however, allow cost, location, and carbon to be assessed before a journey is fixed rather than leaving sustainability teams to measure an outcome that can no longer be changed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.