In the debate on climate change, what we consume, how we get around and where we go on holiday have all been featured. To reduce emissions however, we not only need to rethink our consumption, but also the activity that occupies most of our time: employment. Reducing working hours offers the chance for broad political alliances and a better future for everyone.
What does work have to do with the climate?
In its current organization, work is linked to numerous environmentally harmful processes. As a production factor, it includes many activities and processes associated with high energy and resource consumption. This is particularly true for the goods-producing sector. However, services are not necessarily environmentally friendly either, such as the transport industry, or when a service is based on the upstream production of goods.
At the same time, employment is a significant driver of economic growth. As labour productivity increases, fewer working hours are needed to produce the same amount of goods and services. Companies therefore need fewer employees, leading to potential job losses. This consequence is balanced out by economic growth, i.e. by increasing production. In the current system, continuous growth is necessary to prevent job losses due to increasing productivity. At the same time, economic growth is closely linked to increasing environmental damage.
At an individual level, employment is also linked to unsustainable lifestyles. Most people have no choice but to work in order to earn an income and benefit from social security. At the same time, employment structures daily life outside of work and limits opportunities for climate-friendly activities. Many workers are caught up in a cycle of long working hours, high incomes, and increased consumption, a phenomenon which the scientific literature describes as the “work-and-spend cycle”. Climate-friendly activities often require more time, such as travelling by train instead of flying. Excessive working hours are thus linked to time-saving yet resource-intensive practices. Mental and physical stresses at the workplace also increase the likelihood for employees to seek compensation by consuming more.
A reduction in working hours is therefore a key factor in allowing for climate-friendly practices outside of employment. Less employment also means fewer CO2 emissions in production.
Effects on production
The debate around the environmental impact of reducing working hours often revolves around the question of what employees will do with their additional free time. This question however is too reductive. More time for leisure does not necessarily lead to higher consumption, in particular when it comes from shorter daily working hours. More importantly, it once again places responsibility for sustainability onto the individual consumer. As is often the case, the responsibility of companies and of political regulation is overlooked.
Reducing working hours is a key lever for reducing emissions and resources on the production side. Some industries are so environmentally harmful that decommissioning or downsizing is necessary, such as in the coal, aviation, steel, or automotive industries. At the same time, some sectors have questionable social benefits, such as advertising and marketing, the gambling industry, or certain financial services. In these sectors, reducing working hours without replacing personnel could help mitigate job losses.
Environmental benefits can also be achieved, e.g., by implementing a four-day workweek, which would reduce operating or opening hours and decrease energy consumption for heating and lighting.
Additionally, reducing working hours could remove some pressure for further growth. More and more studies show that so-called “green growth” is not a realistic option. The way to attain our climate targets is through downsizing. Unemployment could be counteracted by distributing the lower amount of work among more people.
Why a reduction in working hours is particularly important in times of “skills shortages”
The potential benefits of reducing working hours are often overlooked in the public debate on the so-called “skills shortages”. The reasons for such shortages often lie in unattractive working conditions and poor pay. Reducing working hours could increase the appeal of certain industries, especially those currently experiencing a shortage of skilled workers due to high workloads. A large-scale pilot study in the United Kingdom showed that resignations decreased in businesses that adopted a four-day work week. Additionally, shorter working hours could reduce health risks and thus counteract labour shortages.
Workers’ representatives should view the skills shortage as an opportunity: on the one hand, it facilitates the downsizing of unsustainable sectors or areas that only partially satisfy societal needs. An extensive retraining and upskilling program will be necessary to transition workers from environmentally harmful sectors to sustainable and socially valuable fields. At the same time, a labour shortage always implies a shift in power dynamics in favour of workers. This power should be harnessed, not only to advocate for better working conditions and fair wages but also for a collective reduction of working hours.
This article was first published by A&W Blog
Photo: dylan nolte / Unsplash