One of the early assumptions about green buildings was that by improving environmental quality, they would offer occupants a healthier workplace, which would result in a more satisfied and productive workforce.

While the verdict is still out on green building performance, recent assessments of green workspaces suggest some issues need to be resolved before they achieve their full potential.

Individual studies have demonstrated the benefits of some elements of green design. Increased daylighting and nature views, as well as better control of thermal comfort, have been shown to enhance employee satisfaction, performance and productivity.

Improved indoor air quality can reduce the effects of sick building syndrome, thereby lowering health risks and absenteeism due to illness. Better ambient lighting and individual task-lighting controls help to reduce eyestrain, headache and fatigue, and to improve concentration.

Yet, more comprehensive studies tell a somewhat different story. Employees who move from more traditional workspaces to green buildings tend to give the new buildings a more favorable rating overall. However, certain problems tend to crop up regularly. Employees frequently complain of thermal discomfort, excessive noise levels and poor ventilation or stale air.

A 2011 U.S. General Services Administration report based on post-occupancy evaluations of 22 green government buildings determined that overall occupant satisfaction was 27 percent higher than the national average. But those satisfaction levels were undermined by problems with lighting and acoustics (in this case, the issue was privacy more than noise level).

Similarly, in a 2012 study of two LEED Platinum buildings, conducted at Cornell University, the researchers found significant associations between occupants' fatigue and their ratings of air temperature, as well as between their ratings of eye strain and perceived air freshness. More than half the occupants in one of the buildings indicated that air ventilation, temperature and noise detracted from their comfort — and, presumably, their productivity.

And productivity is only one measure of organizational performance.

In her seminal paper "Green Buildings, Organizational Success, and Occupant Productivity" published in 2000, environmental psychologist Dr. Judith Heerwagen asked the question, "Can green buildings affect high-level organizational outcomes, such as profitability, customer satisfaction, and innovation?" She proceeded to set forth a number of measures which could help answer it.

Another recent study, involving pre- and post-occupancy assessments of three four- and five-star-rated GreenStar buildings in South Africa, and applying Heerwagen's approach, found no statistically significant difference in any of the high-level organizational measures as a result of the move to the new buildings.

As the authors of a Jones Lang LaSalle white paper on green buildings and employee productivity point out, it is difficult to determine to what extent the perceived negative impacts of green buildings result from green design practices alone or from other design or mechanical issues as well, such as those commonly related to open-plan spaces.

Organizational and individual performance result from a highly complex combination of factors, none of which by itself operates in isolation from the others. Findings to date are encouraging, if inconclusive.

More research would help to inform design practice and point the way to even healthier and more supportive green buildings.