The 4-day work week as trigger for more sustainability?

by Manuel Suter

Our society is facing rising ecological, social and economic challenges: Global resource consumption exceeds the capacities of our planet (McLellan, Iyengar, Jeffries, & Oerlemans, 2014), government debts have increased to the highest level since World War II (Yared, 2019) and in the social sphere prevail problems such as a rising inequality (Piketty, 2015) and the increasingly observable crossing of psycholOur society is facing rising ecological, social and economic challenges: Global resource consumption exceeds the capacities of our planet (McLellan, Iyengar, Jeffries, & Oerlemans, 2014), government debts have increased to the highest level since World War II (Yared, 2019) and in the social sphere prevail problems such as a rising inequality (Piketty, 2015) and the increasingly observable crossing of psychological boundaries, e.g. through the acceleration of the individual living environment (Rosa et al., 2016). ogical boundaries, e.g. through the acceleration of the individual living environment (Rosa et al., 2016).

The reduction of working time, such as in the form of a four-day work week, has been identified as a mean to help solving current and upcoming arising global challenges. In Germany, the largest trade union IG Metall is currently proposing a four-day week to its members to limit job losses due to the Covid19 pandemic (Edmond, C., 2020). Even before the pandemic, Finland’s Prime Minister Sanna Marin called for reducing working time in order to give people the opportunity to spend more time with their families, loved ones, hobbies and other aspects of life, such as culture (Gilchrist, K., 2020). Besides the pandemic and the desire for a more balanced life, increasing digitalisation is another driver for this new work model. Given the potential of new technologies to increase productivity, the famous British economist John Maynard Keynes was even more visionary in 1930 as he predicted that people would only have to work 15 hours a week in 2030.

Apart from the above-mentioned drivers for the reduction of working time, this approach offers huge potential to address other issues such as dynamics of modern societies (Rosa et al., 2016), climate change or social inequalities. This article aims to highlight the various possibilities of the four-day work week to successfully tackle current problems. Moreover, I will propose a feasible solution on how to implement a four-day work week in modern societies by addressing ecological, social and economic concerns and issues.

Environmental Impact

On average, people who work less put less strain on the climate. And it is quite simple to say why: People who work less have less income available for consumption and therefore cause significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions. This is mainly due to the fact that they drive and fly less because of their lower income (Bader, Hanbury, Neubert, & Moser, 2020). Hence, a reduction in working hours would have positive effects when associated with a lower income. In our current capitalist system, however, such a solution is unlikely to gain majority support of society.

Various international studies make use of comparisons between different economies and point to possible relieving environmental effects through a reduction in working hours. An analysis of macroeconomic data from OECD countries has shown, that a 25% reduction in working hours of employees would reduce the individual CO2 footprint by 36.6% on average (Knight, Rosa, & Schor, 2013). However, as a similar analysis for the EU-15 countries between 1970 and 2010 shows, this correlation is not the same for all countries, but rather depends on the interplay of working time and income levels as well as the manner in which the newly gained spare time is used (Shao & Shen, 2017).

More leisure time could lead to more time for environmentally friendly activities that require more time. These include, for example, mobility (bicycle instead of car, train instead of plane), greater self-sufficiency or repair work (Paech, 2010). Therefore, it may be that a reduction in working time leads to a deceleration and a more conscious and ecological consumption. This view is also supported by the degrowth movement which is convinced that if less time is spent on formal work and consumption, more time can be dedicated to activities that are less environmentally harmful such as physical exercise, social relationships or spirituality (Demaria et al., 2013). In contrast, people who work long hours might have a higher incentive for non-environmentally friendly consumption: They might tend to be more tired in their free time. Instead of going out into nature or playing a musical instrument, they might feel tempted to satisfy themselves by fast consumption, such as online shopping. However, research indicates that materialistic individuals experience lower well-being (Bauer et al., 2012) and that consumption itself leads to negative environmental consequences (McLellan et al., 2014). Consequently, it is immensely important to look which activities individuals engage in the free time gained to draw conclusions about the ecological sustainability of the four-day week working model.

What people are doing with more leisure time highly depends on their personal motives. Chai et al. (2015) have shown that ecological awareness leads to free time being used in a resource-light way. Hanbury et al. (2019) were able to demonstrate that the use of time after a self-chosen reduction in working hours is very strongly related to the trigger for the reduction decision. People who have reduced their working time due to further education, voluntary work or parenthood use less resource-intensive consumption than people who have reduced their working time due to stress and overwork.

Social Impact

A four-day work week has the potential to increase personal health and general well-being. Various studies have shown that a reduction in working hours leads to positive health effects such as better sleep quality, less mental exhaustion and fewer heart/breathing problems (Akerstedt et al., 2001; Lorentzon, 2017; Von Thiele et al., 2011). Findings from happiness research have shown that about 40% of personal well-being can be explained by consciously chosen activities of a person (Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2015). In order to understand the effects of a reduction in working hours on personal well-being, it is therefore necessary to take into account which activities are undertaken instead of paid employment. The possibility of autonomous self-determination of the amount and form of work by workers and the alignment of goals and needs between work and private life, i.e. a good work-life balance, seem to be more important for subjective well-being than the absolute working time (Haar et al., 2014; Matilla-Santander et al., 2019). Especially for young people, studies have revealed that leisure time is very important and working long office hours is not one of their ideals of working life (Sass, 2019). Thus, the four-day work week addresses the prevailing problems of work overload and the growing need for a better work-life balance.

In order for the reduction in working time to lead to greater well-being, it is essential that individual needs are taken into account. If working time is only reduced with regard to the needs of the employer, accompanied by a higher work intensity, this has negative effects on work and life satisfaction of the individual (Lott, 2015; Lott, 2018). Employees will be under pressure if they have to do the same work within four instead of five days. New Zealand’s financial services provider Perpetual Guardian addresses individual needs in terms of working hours by leaving it up to all employees to decide whether they want to adopt a four-day work week. During its two-month test run in spring 2018, among other things, positive developments were seen in terms of stress levels and work-life balance (Barnes, 2020). Therefore, responding to the individual needs of employees appears to be a decisive factor for the success of the working model.

As companies strive for higher or the same level of productivity, there is a risk that many areas of work will not be included in the discourse on the four-day work week. It will not be possible to achieve consistent productivity in service industries and the public service, e.g. for teaching and nursing. In order to avoid social inequalities, solutions for a four-day work week should also be offered for these occupations.

Finally, the four-day work week is also an opportunity to promote a fairer division of labour between women and men. According to Jutta Allmendinger, President of the Social Science Research Centre Berlin, the four-day work week could lead to a fairer division of care work at home between women and men, since today it is still mainly women who take unpaid care of children or sick relatives in Germany (Mayer, V., & von Bullion C., 2015).

Economic Impact

At first glance, one might think that a reduction in working time would be detrimental to the economy because fewer hours are worked in total. However, I see great potential for the economy with this new approach. With the increasing digitisation, fewer people will be needed in certain industries and some occupational areas will even disappear completely. Nevertheless, the past work upheavals have shown, that digitisation can also lead to the creation of many new jobs. However, due to the cumulative social, technological and cultural acceleration (Rosa, 2010, 2013), more and more people may not be able to keep up with the increasing work demands. Consequently, structural unemployment could become a problem: A mismatch between the skills of workers in the economy and the skills required of workers by employers. A four-day work week could alleviate this problem: The additional day off allows to educate oneself in state of the art practices in a specific field of work and thus keep pace with the new demands and opportunities in the labour market. Through a reduction in working hours, the remaining work in professions affected by digitisation is also distributed more fairly in society (Zwickl et al., 2016).

The introduction of the four-day week can have positive effects at both the macroeconomic and microeconomic level. Jackson and Victor (2011; 2020) were able to show through simulation models at the macroeconomic level that an economy can function even with low economic growth while simultaneously remaining within planetary boundaries. This would be possible if measures to reduce greenhouse gases are combined with a reduction in working hours. Additionally, at company level, the adoption of a four-day work week seems worthwhile, as the case study by Perpetual Guardian and Microsoft shows. At Perpetual Guardian, the eight-week trial of the working model increased staff productivity by 20%. Microsoft Japan benefited from a nearly 40% boost in sales and a significant reduction in operating expenses during the test month (Kleinman, Z., 2019). The reasons for these productivity gains are likely to be many and varied, including healthier workers, a better focus on work priorities, a motivational boost and the fact that it is not possible to work 40 hours a week productively.

How the four-day work week can be implemented to re-shaping capitalism

Referring back to the problem statement, it seems to me the four-day work week is a valuable tool to re-imagine capitalism. It might be a step – as Karl Polanyi would say – in the direction of embedding economy into social relations instead of embedding social relations in the economic system (Block, 2003) due to individuals with an accurate implementation of the four-day week having more freedom and time for themselves. Even Friedrich Hayek – a defender of classical liberalism – might find the idea of more personal freedom (Hayek, 1945) interesting. Various case studies have been carried out showing that this model can work from an ecological, social as well as economical perspective. To fully unfold the benefits of this model, state support for the four-day work week would be most desirable. However, political processes are very slow and convincing arguments in the form of successful implementation projects are needed to make this acceptable. This is why I am advocating, that more companies take the step towards a four-day work week. Companies with a large proportion of knowledge work should take the first step, because of the great economic potential which can ultimately convince politicians. As soon as politicians are convinced of the concept and digitisation gains even more momentum, it will be possible, thanks to subsidies, to switch to a four-day work week for service professions as well. As a result, the model will have greater capability to improve itself in terms of social and environmental sustainability, leading to change people's values and their behaviour. Consequently, this change might lead to further iterative system modifications in order to contribute to a re-shaping of the capitalist system.

Bibliography

Åkerstedt, T., Olsson, B., Ingre, M., Holmgren, M., & Kecklund, G. (2001). A 6-hour working day-effects on health and well-being. Journal of human ergology, 30(1-2), 197-202.

Bader, C., Hanbury, H. A., Neubert, S. F., & Moser, S. (2020). Weniger ist Mehr–Der dreifache Gewinn einer Reduktion der Erwerbsarbeitszeit. Weniger arbeiten als Transformationsstrategie für eine ökologischere, gerechtere und zufriedenere Gesellschaft–Implikationen für die Schweiz.

Barnes, A. (2020). The 4 Day Week: How the Flexible Work Revolution Can Increase Productivity, Profitability and Well-being, and Create a Sustainable Future. Piatkus.

Bauer, M. A., Wilkie, J. E. B., Kim, J. K., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2012). Cuing Consumerism: Situational Materialism Undermines Personal and Social Well-Being. Psychological Science, 23(5), 517–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611429579

Block, F. (2003). Karl Polanyi and the writing of the Great Transformation. Theory and society, 32(3), 275-306.

Chai, A., Bradley, G., Lo, A., & Reser, J. (2015). What time to adapt? The role of discretionary time in sustaining the climate change value–action gap. Ecological Economics, 116, 95-107.

Demaria, F., Schneider, F., Sekulova, F., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2013). What is degrowth? From an activist slogan to a social movement. Environmental Values, 22(2), 191-215.

Edmond, C. (25 August 2020). Germany Eyes a Four-Day Week to Help Prevent Mass Layoffs. World Economic Forum. Retrieved on 22.10.2020, from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/08/germany-four-day-week-industry-covid-19/?fbclid=IwAR3nw99Tj70vybWuNKOi_aAuU6l0JXf7zZKXhOsCWlr_7mDEk-ttNkrfntw.

Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st‐century business. Environmental quality management, 8(1), 37-51.

Gilchrist, K. (7 Januar 2020). Finland's New 34-Year-Old Prime Minister Wants Her Citizens on a Four-Day Workweek. CNBC, CNBC. Retrieved on 22.10.2020, from https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/07/flexible-work-finlands-pm-sanna-marin-wants-citizens-on-a-four-day-workweek.html.

Haar, J. M., Russo, M., Suñe, A., & Ollier-Malaterre, A. (2014). Outcomes of work–life balance on job satisfaction, life satisfaction and mental health: A study across seven cultures. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(3), 361-373.

Hanbury, H., Bader, C., & Moser, S. (2019). Reducing working hours as a means to foster low (er)-Carbon lifestyles? an exploratory study on Swiss employees. Sustainability, 11(7), 2024.

Hayek, F. A. (1945). The road to serfdom.

Isham, A., Gatersleben, B., & Jackson, T. (2019). Flow activities as a route to living well with less. Environment and Behavior, 51(4), 431-461.

Jackson, T., & Senker, P. (2011). Prosperity without growth: Economics for a finite planet. Energy & Environment, 22(7), 1013-1016.

Jackson, T., & Victor, P. A. (2020). The Transition to a Sustainable Prosperity-A Stock-Flow-Consistent Ecological Macroeconomic Model for Canada. Ecological Economics, 177, 106787.

King, L. C., & van den Bergh, J. C. (2017). Worktime reduction as a solution to climate change: five scenarios compared for the UK. Ecological Economics, 132, 124-134.

Kleinman, Z. (4 November 2019). Microsoft Four-Day Work Week 'Boosts Productivity'. BBC News, BBC. Retrieved on 22.10.2020, from https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50287391.

Knight, K. W., Rosa, E. A., & Schor, J. B. (2013). Could working less reduce pressures on the environment? A cross-national panel analysis of OECD countries, 1970–2007. Global Environmental Change, 23(4), 691-700.

Lorentzon, B. (2019). Longitudinal, experimental evaluation of reduced weekly working hours for assistant nurses. Retrieved on 22.10.2020, from https://www.pactaguideline.se/2019%2012%2008%20Longitudinal,%20experimental%20evaluation%20of%20reduced%20weekly%20working%20hours%20for%20assistant%20nurses.pdf

Lott, Y. (2015). Working-time flexibility and autonomy: A European perspective on time adequacy. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 21(3), 259-274.

Lott, Y. (2018). Does flexibility help employees switch off from work? Flexible working-time arrangements and cognitive work-to-home spillover for women and men in Germany. Social Indicators Research, 1-24.

Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of general psychology, 9(2), 111-131.

Matilla-Santander, N., Lidón-Moyano, C., González-Marrón, A., Bunch, K., Martín-Sánchez, J. C., & Martínez-Sánchez, J. M. (2019). Attitudes toward working conditions: are European Union workers satisfied with their working hours and work-life balance?. Gaceta sanitaria, 33, 162-168.

Mayer, V., & von Bullion C. (29 December 2015). Jutta Allmendinger: ‘Teilzeit Wird Normal Werden.’ Süddeutsche.de, Süddeutsche Zeitung. Retrieved on 22.10.2020, from https://www.sueddeutsche.de/karriere/soziologin-jutta-allmendinger-man-arbeitet-jede-woche-etwas-weniger-dann-bleibt-auch-platz-fuer-andere-dinge-im-leben-1.2785976-2.

McLellan, R., Iyengar, L., Jeffries, B., & Oerlemans, N. (2014). Living planet report 2014: species and spaces, people and places. WWF International.

Paech, N. (2010). Nach dem Wachstumsrausch: Eine zeitökonomische Theorie der Suffizienz. Zeitschrift für Sozialökonomie, 47(166/167), 33-40.

Piketty, T. (2015). About capital in the twenty-first century. American Economic Review, 105(5), 48-53.

Rosa, H. (2010). Alienation and acceleration: Towards a critical theory of late-modern temporality (Vol. 3). Aarhus Universitetsforlag.

Rosa, H. (2013). Social acceleration: A new theory of modernity. Columbia University Press.

Rosa, H., Dörre, K., & Lessenich, S. (2016). Appropriation, activation and acceleration: The escalatory logics of capitalist modernity and the crises of dynamic stabilization. Theory, Culture & Society, 34(1), 53-73.

Sass, E. (2019). Arbeitszeit. In Mitarbeitermotivation, Mitarbeiterbindung (pp. 75-87). Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden.

Senff, M. (2019, December 29). Motivation bei der Arbeit: Was wirkt mehr, Geld- oder Freizeitausgleich?. https://www.spiegel.de/start/motivation-bei-der-arbeit-was-wirkt-mehr-geld-oder-freizeitausgleich-a-d4737a0a-98b6-4bbb-abac-74f83fe8da73.

Shao, Q., & Shen, S. (2017). When reduced working time harms the environment: a panel threshold analysis for EU-15, 1970–2010. Journal of cleaner production, 147, 319-329.

Stern, N., & Stern, N. H. (2007). The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge University Press.

von Thiele Schwarz, U., & Hasson, H. (2011). Employee self-rated productivity and objective organizational production levels: effects of worksite health interventions involving reduced work hours and physical exercise. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 53(8), 838-844.

Yared, P. (2019). Rising government debt: Causes and solutions for a decades-old trend. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(2), 115-40.

Zwickl, K., Disslbacher, F., & Stagl, S. (2016). Work-sharing for a sustainable economy. Ecological Economics, 121, 246-253.