Tobacco Documents Online

THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE 1875 L STREET. , NORTHWEST W aSHINGTON. DC 20006 202'457-4800 • 8001A2+,9876 June 28, 1985 Mr. Edson Spencer Chief Executive Officer Honeywe 1 ]l Corporate Headquarters P. 0. Box 426 Honeywell Plaza Minneapolis, MN 55402 WILLLLM KLO EP FER. TR. Senior Vice President- Public Relations 202,'457 -4881 Dear Mr. Spencer: Hugh Cullman, Vice Chairman, Philip Morris Inc., told me of his conversation with you at the recent Business Round- table Washington meeting about the February 1985 Honeywell Technalysis report, "Indoor Air Quality: A National Survey of Office Worker Attitudes."' As you well know, 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 to 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; 1!8 pescent said it was fair. Despite this overwhelming 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 said air quality was fair or poor; 20 percent of the total sample often or sometimes had difficulty working because of air quality.) We assume that most if not all of the 20 percent were among the 24 percent. As a result of this means of questioning, tobacco smoke Nseems overemphasized as an indoor air quality problem, N although relatively few persons among the 600 workers w surveyed consider it to be one. ~ co W

Mr. Edson 'Spencer June 28, 1985 Page 2 In fact, only eight percent of all respondents believed cigarette smoke contributed to Tair or poor air quality. Only 10 percent of all respondents considered tobacco smoke as a serious problem that interferes with job productivity. We were only able to discern these facts by making computations based on the tabular 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 report finds 34 percent holding cigarette smoke responsible. Another 34 percent attri- buted the problem to poor circulation/ventilation (See Honeywell 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 said it was "somewhat serious." Most respondents designated lack of air movement as the most serious problem (See Honeywell Table 10). In appears, to be quite candid about it, that these distortions have led 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 productivity. 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 concern in the 1980's. Responsible efforts to assess the true nature and impact will contribute to the interest of employers and employees alike. Cordially, 0 William Kloepfe'r, Jr. W W 0 WKjr:mss ~ ~ ~ Enclosure n.~ 0 ~ ow bcc: Hugh Cullman