SUSTAINABILITY

Benefits of a six-hour day

Does reducing working hours lead to a higher quality of life, lower CO2 emissions and less inequality? According to the interim results of a research project at the Centre for Development and Environment CDE, this can definitely hold true under certain conditions.

What does it take for reduced working hours to translate to a more sustainable lifestyle? If people voluntarily reduce their hours of gainful employment, what specifically happens to them in terms of their wellbeing and environmental footprint? The “Time is Wealth” project at the Centre for Development and Environment CDE is exploring these questions. For the project, the same 800 people were surveyed about their working hours, their wellbeing and their environmental footprint at three different points in time over a nearly two-year period. Comparisons were made between people working part-time and full-time as well as people who reduced their working hours during the period. The research team under the leadership of economic scientist Christoph Bader and environmental psychologist Stephanie Moser presented their initial results in late 2020.

The outcome was clear: A comparison between full-time and part-time employees revealed that people who work fewer hours are more satisfied in general and also report fewer behaviors that are harmful to the climate. Well-being increased slightly for those who reduced their number of working hours during the period of the study. Climate-friendly behaviors also tended to increase in that group, in part because they were commuting less.

Puzzle piece for a more sustainable system

Based on this individual data and an evaluation of existing macroeconomic studies at the country level, the research team proposed in a working paper that Switzerland should reduce working hours and introduce six-hour days or four-day weeks, for example. “The climate crisis isn’t an individual problem that can be tackled through sustainable consumption alone; instead, it’s a systemic problem and this message from the climate movement has reached broad parts of the population,” says Christoph Bader. “Our suggestion that working hours be reduced follows a similar logic: It’s one potential piece of the puzzle that will produce a more sustainable system overall,” adds Stephanie Moser.

Four funding models

But who should fund the reduction in working hours? The research team sketched out four possible approaches. The first would be by simply reducing earnings, meaning that employees would receive less money for less work. Cushioning the social impact is one of the central issues of this model. “We propose adopting a model that combines reduced working hours with incremental wage compensation,” says Bader. Under this model, people currently working 42 hours but earning less than the median wage would be able to work 30 hours in the future, for example, but without any loss of pay. They would still be earning the same amount but have more time available. Conversely, high-income individuals would be compensated at most for just a portion of their reduced earnings. That means they would earn slightly less, but likewise have more time. “Since a higher income has statistically been proven to have a greater environmental impact, this would also make sense from an environmental perspective,” explains Bader and stresses that “It’s important to see that quality of life isn’t just measured by the amount of money somebody has – time is also a type of wealth.”

The second variant outlined by the CDE research team: Keeping wages and salaries the same despite the reduction in hours. “In this case, employers could or would increase the prices of their products and services. Indirectly, this approach would also be supported by the employees, at least in part,” Bader says. A third option would be to finance the reduction in hours of gainful employment through taxes, namely by taxing work to a lesser degree and raising both capital and environmental taxes. The researchers consider the fourth option particularly interesting: “It’s entirely conceivable that a general reduction in working hours in Switzerland could reduce costs for both healthcare and unemployment insurance,” says Bader. Studies show that people who have reduced their hours of work are less likely to experience burnouts. According to the Job Stress Index, around a third of Switzerland’s five million workers are currently emotionally exhausted. “With that in mind, a reduction in hours might even be cost neutral from a macroeconomic perspective,” says Bader. That would have to be examined in greater detail, however.