Tobacco Documents Online

TETOBACCO II~~STTTUTE I871I' STREET. NORTHWEST W:-tSHI^1GTON; DC 20006 202'457-4800 9 800r 424-9876'. June 28', 1985'. Mr~. Edson Spencer C'~h~ie~f' Executive Officer Honeywell Co~rpora~te~~ H~~e~~adqua~rt~e~rs P. 0. Box 426 Honeywell Plaza Minneapolis, MN 55402 Lti'I'I;iLIAM KI:O EPFER'. TR. Senior Vice, President~ Public Relations 202'' 46'i.--1$61 Dear Mr. Spencer : Hugh Culiman„ Vice Chairman, Phiiip hi'orris Inc., told me of his conversationwith you at the recent Business Round'- table Washington meeting about the February 19'85 Honeywell Technalysis report, "'Indoor Air Quality: A National Survey of Office Worker Attitude.s ."' As you well kr_ow,, indoor air quality is a topic of increasing interest tQ many people. The Tobacco Institute is interested because tobacco smoke is frequently mentioned as a contributor too indoor air quality. Hugh told me that you"welcomed further comments about the survey. We were gratified to read that the survey results con- cluded that office workers' are highly satisfied with air quality in their workplaces. An overwhelming majority of respondents (76 percent) said air quality in their work environment is excellent or good. Only six percent said air quality was poor; 18 pescent said it was fair. Despite this overwhelmiing approval, we are concerned that the survey seemed to magnify an air quality problem,by directing a series of questions only to respondents who characterized indoor air quality as fair or poor or to respondents who reported difficulty doing work because of air quality. (As noted, only 24 percent of the sample saidlair quality was fair or poor; 20 percent of the total sample oftenior sometimes had difficulty working because of air quality.) We assume that most if not all of the 200 percent were among the 24 percent. As a, result of this means of' questioning,, tobacco smoke seems'overemphasized!as an indoor air quality problem, ~. although relatively few persons among the 600' workers ~ surveyed consider it to be one. •~ ~ ~~ ~

Mr. Edson Spencer June 2'8 , 19'85 Page 2 In fact, only eight percent of'all respondents believed cig;arettte smoke contributed to f-air or poor air quality. Only 10'percenit of all respondents consid'ered' tobacco smoke as a serious problem that interferes with job productivity. We were only able to discern these facts by making computations based' ontheta~bular material in the survey report. By using as a basis for computation the small segment of the sample -- those respondents who said air quality was only fair or poor -- the repo'rt finds 34 percent holding cigarette smoke responsible. Another 34 percent attri- buted theproblemtopoorcirculation/ventiTation (S'eeHoneywell Table 7)'. In addition, the survey reports 27 percent of respondents who' said~ they had' difficulty working, because of air quality said' cigarette smoke was a very seri-ous problem. Another 27 percent saidt it was "'somewhat serious."" Most respondents designated lack of air movement as the most serious problem (S'ee Honeywell Table 10). In appears„ to be quite candidiabout it, that these distortions have l'ed' to several new articles on the Honeywell study„ enclosed, which have reported that poor ventilation and cigarette smoke are the top air quality problems that interfere with worker prod'uctivity.. Although an overwhelming majority of survey respondents express high satisfacion with indoor air, these articles erroneously portray indoor air quality as a significant problem that seriously affects worker productivity. Indoor air quality no doubt will continue to be an issue of concerniin the 1980's. Responsible efforts to assess tthe true nature and impact will contribute to the interestt of employers and employees alike. Cordially, r ~ ~ ~ William Kloepfe`f-, Jr. r WKj r':rIIS3 Enclosure bcc: Hugh Cullman i^