How this estimate works
We show two alternative values for the same productivity scenario. Salary-weighted capacity is a planning proxy, not a payroll saving. Revenue-based profit uses average net margin as a proxy for incremental profit; it is not guaranteed cash income. These values are not added together.
Capacity value = employees × salary × (office days ÷ 5) × work coverage × task uplift × environment multiplier.
Profit scenario = employees × revenue per employee × (office days ÷ 5) × work coverage × task uplift × environment multiplier × net profit margin.
Percentages become fractions. Defaults use Canada’s annualized 2025 full-time average weekly wage ($78,532/year), plus 2024 corporate totals: $6,320,512 million revenue, $537,026 million net income and 14,224,425 paid jobs. Revenue per paid job rounds to $444,342; the aggregate net margin rounds to 8.5%. These are broad benchmarks, not averages for a typical office or full-time-equivalent revenue. Wage source; corporate source. Override all three with your business figures.
The selector uses fixed productivity references: Exeter 15%, Washington State 12%, an illustrative 8%, or None at 0%. Visitors cannot enter their own uplift. Calculation approach sets work coverage: Optimistic 100%, Realist 35% (illustrative 70% relevant work × 50% task impact), Sceptic 10%, or your own share. Office attendance is applied separately.
Existing greenery reduces the assumed incremental uplift relatively: no greenery 0%, some greenery 5%, enriched space 15%. For example, 1% uplift with a 15% reduction becomes 0.85%. These reductions and approach weights are illustrative modelling choices, not measured study effects or probabilities.
First-year plant cost is setup plus 12 months of care. Each return compares its scenario value less first-year cost with first-year cost. Profit setup payback divides setup cost by monthly profit value less monthly care; it is unavailable when ongoing care equals or exceeds that value. Optional capacity-to-financial conversion remains a separate user assumption. No sick-leave, stress, retention or air-quality savings are added.
What the research can tell us
Research can inform a scenario, but it does not establish a guaranteed financial return for every workplace.
Nieuwenhuis and colleagues reported a 15% improvement in specific office tasks in one small experiment. A separate call-centre experiment in that paper found no productivity effect. Applying 15% to annual work is a modelling choice, not a measured annual gain.
Lohr and colleagues at Washington State University reported 12% quicker reaction time on a short computer task among mostly student participants in a windowless lab. Reaction time is not the same as annual worker output. The 12% option uses that reference rate as an illustrative annual task assumption.
The 8% option is an illustrative scenario. We could not verify the reference calculator’s attribution of 8% productivity to a Norwegian hospital study; that research concerned discomfort symptoms rather than measured productivity.
A Dutch field study found improvements in workspace attractiveness, satisfaction and some comfort measures, but did not demonstrate reduced sick leave. That evidence is shown separately without assigning monetary savings.
The calculator starts with the Exeter task reference, Realist work coverage of 35%, and a 5% relative reduction for some existing greenery. Applying a task result to annual work, the work coverage and the environment adjustment are modelling assumptions, not forecasts. Choose None for a no-improvement comparison.