Green Plants in the Office: Biophilic Design for Workplaces
This proposal examines the case for integrating green plants into a corporate headquarters office space in Boston. Drawing on research into indoor air quality, employee wellbeing, and biophilic design principles, the paper reviews three alternative solutions — potted plants, living walls, and ScandiMoss signage — and evaluates each against cost, maintenance, and LEED certification constraints. The paper ultimately recommends a combination of large potted trees and moss wall hangings, paired with employee survey metrics and updated biophilic signage, as the most practical and cost-effective path to improving employee health, job satisfaction, and overall productivity.
- Executive Summary: Overview of green plant proposal and key findings
- Background: Green Design in Corporate Office Spaces: Research on plants, air quality, and job satisfaction
- Problem Statement: Costs, Complexity, and Competing Interests: Challenges of incorporating green design in offices
- Perspectives on Green Workplace Design: Competing views on costs versus health and productivity benefits
- Alternative Solutions: Three green design options evaluated for feasibility
- Recommendations: Potted trees and moss wall art as optimal solution
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The proposal follows a clear professional structure — executive summary, background, problem articulation, perspectives, alternatives, and recommendations — making it easy to navigate and suitable for a business audience.
- It grounds recommendations in cited academic research (e.g., Dravigne et al., 2008; Lohr, 2010) and quantifies the economic stakes with real healthcare cost figures, giving the argument credibility beyond anecdote.
- The author directly engages with counterarguments — LEED constraints, maintenance costs, mold and pest concerns — before ruling out one alternative and combining the remaining two, demonstrating balanced analytical thinking.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates evidence-based problem solving in a professional context: the writer systematically surveys literature, conducts primary research (interviews and cost estimates), and applies findings to a specific organizational decision. This is a strong example of translating academic evidence into a practical workplace recommendation.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an executive summary that previews the conclusion, then provides background and problem context, followed by a dual-perspective analysis of costs versus benefits. A methods-informed section then introduces three alternatives before the final recommendations section selects and justifies the preferred solution. The references follow APA format throughout.
Executive Summary
In 2016, a Boston corporate headquarters was developed as a world-class office space featuring natural light, sweeping urban views, reclaimed timber, rooftop photovoltaic solar panels, and green roof plantings. The building's design reflects the company's commitments to sustainability and environmental responsibility. However, it is essential to consider innovative approaches that continue to improve the space for all employees.
Studies document that green plants improve indoor air quality, decrease levels of particulate matter, manage acoustics, and increase general wellbeing (Lohr, 2010). According to Terrapin (2012), natural design elements — including plants — have measurable effects on employee health and productivity. The costs of employee absenteeism, staff retention challenges, and reduced productivity due to mental stress and fatigue should be carefully considered by corporations when designing green office spaces (Terrapin, 2012). This proposal presents research to support why the company should invest in green plants, as well as a feasible plan to add what the research identified as the best option: potted trees and living moss wall art.
Background: Green Design in Corporate Office Spaces
The Boston headquarters features a world-class interior office space with natural light, sweeping urban views, reclaimed timber, and energy efficiency, all while following through on the company's commitments to sustainability and the environment. Given these qualities, this proposal explores the option of adding green plants to the space — specifically in the form of interior living walls. Living walls are panels of plants grown vertically on structures, either in free-standing form or as attachments to existing walls. They have emerged as important components of sustainability in the construction industry.
Interior green plants provide many benefits. Research has documented their impact on levels of indoor air quality, particulate matter, acoustics, and general wellbeing (Lohr, 2010). A study conducted in 2008 compared the overall job satisfaction of four groups of office workers differentiated by the presence or absence of plants and window views. Based on this study, 82% of participants in the plants-and-windows group and 69% in the plants-and-no-windows group stated that they felt content or very happy, compared with only 60% in the no-plants-or-windows group and 58% in the no-plants-and-no-windows group (Dravigne et al., 2008).
While live plants and window views of green spaces have been found to have positive impacts on employee job satisfaction, the adoption of this concept in the workplace can be a complex process. It requires consideration of ecological and aesthetic factors during building design, which can be relatively expensive and time-consuming. Moreover, incorporating green plants into interior office spaces is associated with additional costs that may generate extra financial burdens for an organization.
Problem Statement: Costs, Complexity, and Competing Interests
As the background information demonstrates, live plants and window views of green spaces have significant impacts on employee perceptions of job satisfaction. Existing literature shows that incorporating green design in the workplace is vital for enhancing employee job satisfaction and outcomes. However, there are legitimate concerns regarding the costs and complexities involved in doing so.
For employees, green design would help improve overall job satisfaction and outcomes. While employers are also likely to benefit from the productivity gains associated with green design, the costs and complexities of implementation can create operational challenges. In essence, integrating green design into office spaces could increase operational costs, which can in turn affect an organization's broader operations and financial performance.
Perspectives on Green Workplace Design
On one hand, integrating green design in the workplace has proven beneficial for enhancing employee outcomes, job satisfaction, and overall wellbeing. Employee health carries significant economic value for organizations focused on profitability. Healthcare costs are a major expense for both businesses and employees: the national average cost for a 2016 family health insurance premium was $18,142, and $6,435 for individual plans (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2016). On a national scale, this represents 8% of employee compensation in the private sector (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016). Research indicates that the health outcomes associated with indoor green plants include improved air quality and reduced particulate matter (Lohr, 2010). While health benefits may be intuitive, it is also possible to quantify their economic value: existing research has demonstrated that green plants contribute to lower stress levels and higher self-reported job satisfaction (Dravigne et al., 2008), which in turn supports higher productivity through engaged and satisfied employees.
On the other hand, the specifics of building design — including aesthetic requirements and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification requirements — can pose significant challenges for management. There are also issues relating to energy and water efficiency when incorporating green plants into interior office spaces. Exterior roof gardens have become more common precisely because interior green spaces involve greater design complexity and associated concerns. In light of these complexities, any changes to interior office space design must be evaluated in relation to employee health outcomes, and the costs of such changes must be weighed against overall profitability.
References
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016). Employer costs for employee compensation. U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm
Dravigne, A., Waliczek, T. M., Lineberger, R., & Zajicek, J. (2008, February). The effect of live plants and window views of green spaces on employee perceptions of job satisfaction. HortScience, 43(1), 183–187.
Kaiser Family Foundation. (2016, September). Employer health benefits 2016: Summary of findings. https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/employer-health-benefits-2016-summary-of-findings.pdf
Lohr, V. I. (2010). What are the benefits of plants indoors and why do we respond positively to them? Acta Horticulturae, 881(2), 675–682.
Terrapin. (2012). The economics of biophilia: Why designing with nature in mind makes financial sense. https://www.terrapinbrightgreen.com/reports/the-economics-of-biophilia/
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.