Reducing work hours creates valuable environmental and social benefits

As British Columbia and other parts of the world continue to tackle the social and economic challenges from a global pandemic, many are still wondering what the world will look like post-pandemic — especially when it comes to work.

With millions of people clocking in from home, previously unquestioned ways of doing things are now being more heavily criticized and examined, including how many hours employees should be expected to work each week. Governments and companies committed to reducing carbon emissions should seriously consider shortening the workweek.

In a recent report commissioned by Platform London, a U.K.-based environmental and social justice collective, researchers concluded that reducing employees’ working hours by one day a week, without loss of pay, would lead to significant environmental and social benefits, including notable reduction in CO2 emissions.

The report draws on findings from several studies examining the impact that changes in working hours could have on the carbon footprint in different countries.

For example, a large-scale experiment conducted by the State of Utah from 2008 to 2009 saw a significant reduction in energy use after shifting public sector employees to a four-day workweek.

The study found that by giving employees an extra day off, they could achieve significant savings in energy costs from the reduced use of lighting, elevators, heaters, and air conditioning in that time.

Another study conducted in the U.K. noted how reducing weekly hours could lead to 558 million fewer miles driven by employees, equating to nine per cent of the U.K.’s weekly mileage.

Researchers conducted interviews with over two thousand employees and business owners who had a four-day workweek and determined two-thirds of them made fewer journeys by car.

The same study found that individuals want to spend more time with their family and friends, making home-cooked meals and engaging in local volunteering, if given a chance to do so, in contrast to more carbon-intensive activities, outside of their home.

This was also found when reviewing the impact a 35-hour workweek had on the way employees spent their leisure time in France.

A review found that employees spend more time at home connecting with their family and resting since the country implemented a 35-hour workweek in 1998.

A study from 2012 from the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst also identified working time as a prime variable when it came to differences in consumption patterns.

Using a cross-national panel of 29 OECD countries between 1970 to 2007, a clear relationship between fewer working hours and a lower ecological and carbon footprint was observed.

The study predicted a 4.9 per cent reduction in the ecological footprint and 8.6 per cent in the carbon footprint from a 10 per cent reduction in working hours, given GDP remains constant.

In the U.K., the report concludes, a shift to a four-day workweek would result in a 21.3 per cent reduction of CO2 emissions by 2025, equivalent to taking the entire county’s private car fleet off the road by then.

This is in addition to the multiple physical, mental and social benefits that would accrue from people having the opportunity to spend more time connecting with their families, communities and friends at home, rather than commuting or having to spend an extra day at work.