Cyprus’ remote working offers flexibility but exposes home costs and workplace inequalities

Cyprus has introduced legislation for remote working, extended the option to civil servants and recognised the benefits of greater flexibility. However, despite these developments, most employees are still doing something rather less revolutionary. Driving to the office.

There are few pleasures quite like beginning a working day without having to negotiate a roundabout, search for parking or spend half an hour wondering why everybody in Limassol appears to have decided to leave home at precisely the same time.

For those fortunate enough to work from home, the morning commute can be reduced to the distance between the bedroom and the kitchen. The coffee is usually better, the dress code considerably more forgiving and nobody needs to explain why another meeting could have been an email.

Unfortunately, Cyprus remains some distance behind much of Europe when it comes to working from home.

According to the latest Eurostat figures, just 14.3 per cent of employed people aged 15 to 64 worked from home at least occasionally in 2025, compared with 23 per cent across the EU.

Of those in Cyprus, only 4.2 per cent usually worked from home, while another 10.1 per cent did so occasionally.

That leaves 85.7 per cent who did not work from home at all.

The figures represent an improvement on 2023, when roughly 11 per cent worked remotely at least some of the time. Nevertheless, the difference with countries such as the Netherlands, where more than half of employed people worked from home at least occasionally in 2025, remains striking.

Of course, the figures reflect the nature of the Cypriot economy.

A software developer, accountant, financial analyst or marketing executive can often work effectively with a laptop and an internet connection. A hotel receptionist, nurse, construction worker or restaurant employee has rather fewer opportunities to announce that Friday will be spent working from the sofa.

However, for those whose responsibilities allow it, the reluctance to embrace hybrid working raises a rather obvious question.

If the work can be done elsewhere, why must everybody be in the same building?

The issue is particularly relevant now that the public service has joined the experiment.

Under legislation introduced in April 2026, eligible civil servants can work remotely for up to 20 days during 2026, with the annual limit due to increase to 50 days from 2027.

There is, however, an interesting development.

In a parliamentary response dated October 19, Finance Minister Makis Keravnos confirmed that the government had not yet requested or collected detailed figures showing how extensively the new arrangements had been used.

The department of public administration and personnel intends to collect the relevant information after the end of the first year of implementation.

For now, therefore, Cyprus has introduced the system but does not yet have a comprehensive picture of its take-up across the public service.

That matters because the success of hybrid working should ultimately be judged by what employees accomplish, rather than how frequently they are seen sitting behind a desk.

Indeed, the minister explained that the performance of remote-working civil servants is assessed through the quality and timely completion of their assignments, just as it is when they work in the office.

It is a principle that deserves consideration beyond the public sector.

And there is evidence that allowing employees to spend part of the week at home can produce tangible benefits for businesses.

A major study published in Nature, involving 1,612 employees at travel technology company Trip.com, examined the difference between a traditional five-day office week and a hybrid arrangement.

Employees working from home on Wednesdays and Fridays reported greater job satisfaction and were one-third less likely to leave their employer.

Crucially, researchers found no evidence that the arrangement damaged performance or promotion prospects over the subsequent two years.

The benefits were particularly pronounced among women, non-managerial staff and employees facing longer commutes.

The experiment took place in China, rather than Cyprus, and its findings cannot automatically be applied to every business. Nevertheless, it challenges the assumption that productivity depends on employees being physically visible throughout the working week.

For employers, the commercial implications are difficult to ignore.

Recruiting and training replacements costs money. So does losing experienced employees who decide that another company offers a more manageable working life.

Allowing somebody to work from home twice a week may prove considerably cheaper than replacing them because they have grown tired of spending hours in traffic.

It could also help Cypriot businesses recruit beyond their immediate surroundings.

A Limassol company, for example, might find it easier to attract somebody living in Larnaca if the arrangement does not involve five return journeys every week.

Similarly, employees could consider opportunities in another city without having to calculate whether the additional salary would disappear into fuel costs.

There is another benefit that rarely appears on a company’s balance sheet.

Time.

Removing even a couple of weekly commutes gives employees more of it.

School runs become easier to organise. Family responsibilities can be managed with less travelling. And the working day need not begin with the irritation of arriving late because an apparently short journey has become an extended encounter with roadworks.

For some employees, particularly those with mobility difficulties, the removal of a daily commute can also make employment more accessible.

All of which makes remote working sound rather appealing.

Until the electricity bill arrives.

Now that October is drawing to a close, it is easy to forget what working from home meant during August, when air conditioning was less a luxury than a condition of continued professional existence.

The employee may have saved money on petrol, parking and lunches bought near the office.

The employer, meanwhile, may have reduced electricity consumption at its premises.

But somebody still had to keep the employee’s home sufficiently cool to concentrate on a spreadsheet rather than contemplate moving permanently into the refrigerator.

Remote working does not eliminate every business expense. In some cases, it simply changes who pays it.

Cyprus has sought to address that problem through Law 120(I)/2023, which regulates teleworking arrangements in the private sector and establishes employers’ obligations regarding equipment, communications, maintenance and associated costs.

The legislation also requires clear arrangements between employer and employee, protects the right to disconnect and prohibits intrusive monitoring practices.

In September 2025, the Labour Ministry proposed a schedule of teleworking expenses amounting to as much as €41 a month for fully remote employees, depending on which services and equipment were provided by the employer.

The proposed breakdown included €26 for the use of the home workspace, €7 for communications and €8 for equipment maintenance.

The principle behind such arrangements is important, even if their financial value deserves closer examination.

Anyone who has run an air conditioner throughout a Cyprus summer will appreciate that the cost of a comfortable working environment is not necessarily modest.

And electricity is only part of the picture.

A suitable desk, an ergonomic chair, a reliable connection and somewhere reasonably quiet to take calls all contribute to an effective working day.

There is a considerable difference between an employee with a dedicated home office and somebody sharing a small apartment, balancing a laptop beside the kitchen sink while another member of the household conducts a video conference two metres away.

In that sense, working from home can expose inequalities that are less visible in the office.

The employee with more space and better equipment enjoys an advantage that has little to do with professional ability.

Nor is home working automatically good for health.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) and International Labour Organisation (ILO) have warned that poorly organised teleworking can contribute to isolation, burnout, eye strain and musculoskeletal problems.

The dining chair may be perfectly satisfactory for a family meal. Eight hours later, it can begin to feel like an instrument of punishment.

There is also the difficulty of knowing when the working day has ended.

At the office, leaving the building creates at least some separation between employment and personal life.

At home, the laptop is always nearby.

So is the email that apparently requires only two minutes, the late-afternoon request that becomes an evening assignment and the message sent at 9pm because someone else happens to be working.

That distinction matters in Cyprus, where employees already spend considerable time at work.

According to Eurostat, employees in Cyprus and Romania recorded the longest average usual working weeks in the EU in 2025, at 40.1 hours, compared with an EU average of 36.6 hours.

Saving time on the commute becomes considerably less attractive if those minutes are quietly returned to the employer through emails after dinner.

The right to disconnect, therefore, is not merely another provision in employment legislation.

It is an essential part of ensuring that flexibility benefits employees rather than extending the working day into every corner of their homes.

Nevertheless, there is another uncomfortable reality.

The office is not entirely redundant.

For younger employees, particularly those starting their careers, working alongside experienced colleagues can provide something that online meetings rarely reproduce.

They learn through conversations, observation and the occasional question that would never justify scheduling a formal meeting.

They discover who understands the systems, who can resolve a problem and which colleague knows the answer before anybody has finished explaining the question.

An experienced employee may already possess those relationships and that knowledge.

Someone three weeks into a new position probably does not.

And while remote working may improve concentration, it can also reduce the casual interactions through which professional relationships develop.

There is a career consideration too.

An employee working from home may be producing excellent results, but the colleague regularly seen by senior management can enjoy an advantage simply through being present.

Opportunities are sometimes discussed in corridors, after meetings or over coffee.

If employers want hybrid arrangements to succeed, they must ensure that visibility is not confused with performance.

This is particularly relevant for businesses seeking to attract younger professionals while retaining experienced staff.

Flexibility may encourage people to join an organisation, but mentoring, career development and a sense of belonging are among the factors that encourage them to stay.

The answer, however, is not necessarily to insist that everybody returns to the office five days a week.

After all, there is something faintly ridiculous about driving through rush-hour traffic, finding somewhere to park, sitting at a desk and then spending the entire morning on video calls with colleagues who are sitting in other offices.

Commuting to an office simply to work remotely from there is a rather expensive way of using the internet.

A more sensible arrangement would make better use of both environments.

Office days could be organised around teamwork, training, client meetings and activities that genuinely benefit from face-to-face contact.

Home-working days, meanwhile, could accommodate tasks requiring sustained concentration, fewer interruptions and more individual responsibility.

This would also require managers to judge work by its results rather than by the reassuring sight of employees sitting at their desks.

There is little economic value in somebody remaining in the office until 6pm simply because leaving at 5pm might create the wrong impression.

But neither should flexibility become an exclusive privilege for employees whose jobs happen to involve laptops.

For businesses employing receptionists, shop assistants, hospitality staff, warehouse workers and others whose physical presence is essential, the question is how to provide comparable flexibility through different arrangements.

More predictable rosters, flexible starting times, easier shift exchanges and other practical measures may be more useful than promises of home working that can never realistically be delivered.

Otherwise, flexibility risks becoming another employment benefit divided along occupational lines.

Ultimately, the argument is not about whether homes are better workplaces than offices.

Both have advantages, and both have an impressive capacity to become irritating.

The office offers colleagues, structure and opportunities to learn. Home offers peace, fewer journeys and, provided the working day has clear boundaries, greater control over personal time.

The business case for hybrid work lies in using each environment where it adds the most value.

For Cyprus, the challenge is now to turn legal frameworks and policy announcements into arrangements that work for employers and employees alike.

That means measuring the results, distributing costs fairly, protecting personal time and recognising that physical presence is not, by itself, proof of productivity.

It also means accepting that a meeting does not become more useful simply because everybody has travelled across town to attend it.

Working from home does not have to replace the office. It only has to spare employees the journey when there is no particularly good reason to make it. And after another morning on the Limassol roads, that may be a benefit worth rather more than the petrol saved.