Real Utopias for a Social Europe : working time reduction and the 4-day week : summary report : DIGCLASS, social classes in the digital age.
Date: 2023-03-20
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: arrangement of working time, digital technology, innovation, reduction of working time, report, social inequality, social situation, working conditions

REAL UTOPIAS FOR A SOCIAL EUROPE: 

WORKING TIME REDUCTION 
AND THE 4-DAY WEEK 

Summary Report 
DIGCLASS 
Social Classes 
in the Digital Age 

1 

This publication is a Conferences and Workshops report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. 
It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy 
position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the 
use that might be made of this publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the 
source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact the referenced source. The designations employed and the presentation 
of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any 
country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. 

Contact information: 
Name: Salazar, Leire 
Address: Joint Research Centre, European Commission (Seville, Spain) 
Email: leyre.salazar-velez@ec.europa.eu 
Tel.: +34 9544-89005 

EU Science Hub 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research/centre-advanced-studies/digclass 

JRC132852 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-68-00410-4 

doi:10.2760/865286  KJ-04-23-197-EN-N 

Luxemburg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2023 

© European Union, 2023 

The reuse policy of the European Commission documents is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the 
reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Unless otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under the Creative 
Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided 
appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated.  

For  any  use  or  reproduction  of  photos  or  other  material  that  is  not  owned  by  the  European  Union/European  Atomic 
Energy Community, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. 

How to cite this report: Salazar, L.; Vidal Lorda, G.; Noguera, J.A.; Villani, D. (Editors), Real Utopias for a Social Europe: Working Time Reduction and 
the 4-Day Week, Summary Report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2023, doi:10.2760/865286, JRC132852 

AGENDA 

October 27th 2022 
Impacts of Worktime Reduction 

October 28th 2022 
Understanding and assessing 4-day week 
experiences 

14:00 Welcome address 

10:00-10:30 Keynote speech: Lina Gálvez (MEP) 

14:05-15:45 Session I: Employment, productivity, 
gender, and wellbeing 

10:30-12:30 Session I: The design and evaluation of 
4-day week pilots and experiences

Chair: Davide Villani (Joint Research Centre, European 
Commission) 

Chair: Lucía Alonso (Red2Red) 

Speakers: 

 

Joan Sanchís (Generalitat Valenciana, Universitat 
de València) 

  Pedro Gomes (Birkbeck, University of London) 
 
Francisca Mullens (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) 
  Pierre Larrouturou (MEP) 

Discussant: Hugo Cuello (Innovation Growth Lab, 
Nesta) 

12:30 Leire Salazar (Joint Research Centre, European 
Commission) Closing Remarks and Presentation of 
Workshop 3 

Speakers: 

  Paloma Vilanueva (Universidad Autónoma de 

Madrid) 
Till Van Treeck (Universität Duisburg-Essen) 

 
  Ozlem Onaran (University of Greenwich) 
  Anthony Lepinteur (University of Luxemburg) 
  Maria Rosaria Gualano (UniCamillus-Saint 
Camillus International University of Health 
Sciences, Rome) 

Break (15 minutes) 

16:00-16:30 Keynote speech: Juliet Schor (Boston 
College) 

16:30-17:30 Session II: Environment 

Chair: Cristina Monge (Universidad de Zaragoza, 
Journalist) 

  Andrew Watt (Macroeconomic Policy Institute) 
  Héctor Tejero (Más País, MP at Madrid’s 

Parliament, Bioinformatician) 

  Simone D’Alessandro (Università di Pisa) 
 

Edlira Narazani (Joint Research Centre, European 
Commission) 

3 

INTRODUCTION 

The DIGCLASS Project 

Acknowledgements 

The CAS team would like to thank the speakers, chairs 
and discussants for their collaboration and contributions, 
as well as the Scientific Development Programmes unit 
for the support provided for the organization of the 
workshop.  

The DIGCLASS project was born out of the increasing 
concern in Europe about the implications of the digital 
revolution for social inequalities and democratic 
processes. The objective is to understand better how 
digital technologies alter the mechanisms that generate 
inequalities in the distribution of resources and life 
chances, which is crucial for social policies to respond to 
the challenges of the digital revolution. 

DIGCLASS is hosted in the Centre for Advanced Studies 
(CAS) of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) at the European 
Commission. The JRC is the Commission’s Directorate-
General for science and knowledge production. It informs 
and supports EU policies with independent research 
throughout the policy cycle. The CAS aims to enhance the 
JRC’s capabilities to better understand and address the 
complex and long-term scientific and societal challenges 
currently facing the EU. The CAS is a strategic JRC 
programme under the Scientific Development unit and 
collaborates closely with other units within the JRC. 

Real Utopias for a Social Europe 

Real Utopias for a Social Europe consists of technical 
debate-type workshops on various bold and innovative 
social policy proposals. Leading policy experts will come 
together to assess and discuss these policy proposals’ 
feasibility, distributional impact, costs, and scalability 
through evidence based on pilots and field experiments, 
microsimulation studies, actual policy experiences and 
other empirical research designs. The objective is to 
bolster a hive mind that can provide rigorous and creative 
tools to tackle growing socio-economic inequalities in the 
context of major social and economic transformations 
ahead.  

Workshop 2: Working time reduction 
and the 4-day week 

The second workshop in the series addresses Working 
Time Reduction and the 4-Day Week, brought together 
selected experts on these policies to discuss on the pros 
and cons of these measures, their potential social, 
environmental and economic impacts from a policy-
oriented and evidence-based point of view. This workshop 
closely fits the European Commission’s priority of dealing 
with an economy that works for people and a European 
Green Deal. 

4 

DAY 1: 
IMPACTS OF 
WORK TIME 
REDUCTION  

Working time reduction and its relation 
to employment, productivity, gender, 
and wellbeing 

The first session of the workshop was dedicated to 
discussing the relationship between working time 
reduction and employment, productivity, gender, and 
wellbeing. Five experts contributed to the discussion: Till 
van Treeck (Universität Duisburg-Essen), Paloma 
Villanueva (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid), Ozlem 
Onaran (University of Greenwich), Anthony Lepinteur 
(University of Luxembourg) and Maria Rosaria Gualano 
(UniCamillus-Saint Camillus International University of 
Health Sciences, Rome). 

Professor van Treeck explored why working hours in 
Western economies have not declined in the last 
decades, despite a steady increase in productivity. One 
reason relates to the Veblen effect, which is the desire to 
emulate the consumption norms of the rich. This desire is 
closely related to status comparisons. As the gap 
between low-paid and well-off workers increases, low-
paid workers may be willing to increase their number of 
working hours to reduce the purchasing power gap.  

The lack of working time reduction is also due to other 
institutional factors, such as limited government 
provision of education and decentralised labour relations. 
The decline in union density in many Western countries 
may also play a role in perpetuating long working hours. 
Furthermore, high income inequality contributes to 
extend the hours of work, pushing workers at the bottom 
of the distribution of income to engage with longer 
working hours. Overall, the Veblen effect and institutional 
characteristics play a crucial role in explaining cross-
country differences in the length of the workweek.  

Paloma Villanueva analysed the effects of the reduction 
in working time on various indicators. She presented a 
paper that simulated a 5-hour reduction (from 40 to 35 
hours per week) of the workweek in Spain. The 
immediate impact of this policy would be the creation of 
560,000 jobs, equivalent to a 2.6 percentage points 
reduction in the unemployment rate.  

Reducing working time could also help to mitigate 
inequality. The labour share of income is expected to 
increase, countering the recent decline. This is a 
remarkable finding as it suggests that this policy could 
also counteract some of the structural trends of our 
economies, such as the reduction in the labour share of 
income, which is believed to be linked to the emergence 
of new technologies. Additionally, the distributional 
effects of reducing working time would have a positive 
impact on GDP due to the increased demand. 

The potential impacts of reducing working time go 
beyond the economic sphere. One important aspect is 
the impact on gender relations. Professor Onaran 
explored this issue and pointed out that having more 
time at home could be effective in reducing gender 
disparities outside the workplace. Women tend to carry a 
higher burden of non-paid household work, while men’s 
unpaid care and routine household work decreases with 
the number of paid work hours. In this regard, a shorter 
workweek could help to rebalance gender relations within 
households. 

Gender relations are influenced by various factors and 
reducing working hours alone may not necessarily result 
in an increased gender balance. Hence, it is important to 
accompany the reduction in working hours with reforms 
in parental leave policies to promote a fairer distribution 
of unpaid care responsibilities and encourage gender 
equality. 

The relationship between a shorter workweek and 
wellbeing was also discussed in the first session. Anthony 
Lepinteur made a noteworthy contribution by studying 
the impact of working hours reduction on workers’ 
wellbeing in France and Portugal. Both countries reduced 
the workweek from 39 hours to 35 in France and 44 to 
40 in Portugal, which led to an improvement in workers’ 
job and leisure satisfaction. Notably, this improvement 
was not offset by a drop in job quality, so that the net 
effect was positive and significant. The improvement 
was more pronounced for women compared to men. At 
the same time, the benefits can be heterogenous across 
industries. Workers in agriculture and manufacturing 
record the more pronounced improvements in wellbeing. 
This indicates that working time reduction can be 
especially beneficial to those workers involved in more 
physical demanding occupations. Professor Lepinteur 
also noted that labour representation plays a crucial role 
in workers’ satisfaction. The presence of unions and staff 
representation positively affects workers’ welfare gains. 

Professor Gualano expanded the discussion by examining 
the impact of reducing working hours on workers' health. 
An extensive review of the literature showed that 
reduced working hours have a positive effect on various 
health indicators, such as improved sleep quality, lower 
pain levels, and reduced stress and burnout. However, 
Professor Gualano also warned of potential negative 
effects, such as the development of unhealthy habits 
due to increased leisure time. Therefore, she emphasized 
the importance of raising awareness about the 

5 

 
 
importance of healthy lifestyles, through the 
implementation of health policies, when reducing 
working hours. She also mentioned the risks associated 
to certain configurations of worktime reductions, for 
instance if they intensify the use of shifts. 

A central issue discussed throughout the session was the 
relationship between productivity and reducing working 
hours. There is evidence to suggest that a shorter 
workweek could positively impact hourly productivity of 
labour via the reduction of unproductive meetings and 
higher motivation. This, in turn, could positively impact 
the wage bill paid by the employers, balancing the higher 
cost per hour worked. However, the speakers warned that 
reducing working hours should not be seen as a panacea 
for productivity, as the positive effects may not be 
equally distributed all across sectors of the economy and 
might be short-term. It is crucial for public institutions to 
consider these intricate challenges that may arise after 
the introduction of a shorter workweek. 

In sum, the session emphasized the benefits of reducing 
working hours, but also noted the potential challenges 
associated with it. Policymakers must implement 
additional measures, such as promoting staff 
representation and gender equality, and promoting a 
healthy lifestyle, in order to realize the full benefits of 
reducing working hours. 

A triple dividend reform? 

Juliet Schor, economist and professor of Sociology at 
Boston College, is a leading scholar in the study of work, 
consumption and climate change. In her keynote address, 
Professor Schor covered different pieces of research 
showcased in her celebrated book The overworked 
American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure (1992) and 
her most recent unpublished academic work using trials 
in firms promoted by the non-profit 4 Day Week Global.  

According to various opinion surveys, negative emotions, 
including stress, have increased substantially, also in the 
workplace environment. Citizen’s concerns about burnout 
from work have been on the rise too. Workers’ 
engagement in Europe is located below the global 
average –only 14% of employees express engagement, 
compared to 21% globally. These developments are 
driving some companies to start considering the adoption 
of the 4-day week. 

There were important and similar-sized decreases in 
working hours in selected high-income countries from 
1870 and until 1930. Since then, diverging patterns took 
place until 1973, although decreases still tended to be 
the norm. A sustained reduction in average annual hours 
per worker took place in many countries since 1973, with 
remarkable exceptions such as the United States, China 
or India. Productivity growth is the factor that fuels hours’ 
reductions. 

Furthermore, there is an output bias in capitalism, 
according to Ms Schor. Without intentional policies to 

reduce hours of work and/or increase workers’ 
compensation, there are structural factors in market 
economies that lead productivity growth to be channelled 
into more output rather than into shorter hours. This has 
to do with the incentives’ structure that firms face and 
their preference, ceteris paribus, for workers to make 
longer hours.  

Professor Schor considers the 4-day week as a triple 
dividend reform that could simultaneously show 
economic, social and climate benefits. There is still 
scarce research on the implications of the 4-day week (a 
bit more on worktime reduction more generally), and 
most has been conducted on just a handful of countries 
and selected workers (e.g. public employees). These few 
studies have shown, in the social dimension, 
improvements in wellbeing, working life quality, 
increased time for family and the community, and more 
and better-quality sleep. In the economic realm, studies 
have pointed to a rise in hourly productivity, improved 
organizational performance, and easier recruitment and 
retention. As regards the environmental aspect, reduced 
carbon emissions due to less commuting have been 
found to be significant. 

There is a remarkable and growing interest on the 4-day 
week by companies, media and the general public alike. 
Pilots on selected countries across the world (for instance 
the UK, Iceland or New Zealand) have been considered 
successful, and companies undergoing the pilots tend to 
be very satisfied with the results –further research 
should try to determine whether the benefits identified 
are transitory or lasting. The pan-European trial –
companies and NGOs piloting the 4-day week– starting 
in February 2023 offers, according to Professor Schor, 
very valuable opportunities to deepen our scientific 
understanding of the potential effects of this initiative, 
which in Ms Schor’s opinion is affordable in the long run 
in the European context. The key to success is 
experimentation, since there might not be a one-fits-all 
model for all companies and workers. For instance, while 
100:80:100 option (100% pay, 80% time, 100% 
productivity) can succeed in low-intensity workplaces, a 
100:80:80 alternative could be more appropriate in high 
work-intensity settings.  

Working time reduction and the 
environment 

In the second session of the workshop the effect of 
reducing working time on the environment was 
discussed. Four experts contributed to the discussion: 
Andrew Watt (Macroeconomic Policy Institute), Héctor 
Tejero (MP at Madrid’s Parliament), Simone D’Alessandro 
(Università di Pisa) and Edlira Narazani (Joint Research 
Center, European Commission), moderated by Cristina 
Monge (Universidad de Zaragoza). 

In the first intervention, Andrew Watt focused on how 
work-time reduction can reduce emissions. Specifically, 
he showed evidence on the relationship between 

6 

 
 
emissions, output and growth, productivity, jobs, and 
working time.  

According to Watt, it is important to stress that the past 
three decades have displayed some encouraging trends. 
Emissions have reduced substantially in the EU27: 
almost one-third from 1990 to 2010. At the same time, 
real GDP substantially increased by around 40%. As a 
result, the proportion of emissions to GDP declined quite 
strongly (by more than 55%), decoupling emissions from 
output. Productivity (GDP/hour) also increased 
substantially during this period, along with an increase in 
total working hours due to a rise in employment, while 
average working time was reduced. 

The European Commission’s Green New Deal objective to 
reduce greenhouse gas by at least 55% from 1990 to 
2030, however, will not be met according to a simple 
extrapolation of the trend in the reduction of emissions 
since 1990. In fact, in a no-policy change type scenario, 
even by 2050, we will not have reached the target we 
are supposed to achieve by 2030. So what can we do 
about it? 

One way forward is to increase the pace of 
decarbonisation of our economies. Imagine two 
scenarios. In the first scenario, the decarbonisation rate 
increases by 50%. Even then, we would still miss the 
2030 target (reached in 2037). In the second scenario, 
the rate of decarbonisation doubles. Only then would the 
target be reached in time. Therefore, we must become 
twice as fast in taking carbon out of our economy (all 
else equal) to meet the official European target. 

What changes if we reduce the working time? Assuming 
that everyone cut their working time by 20% (from 5 to 4 
days a week), and all else equal, we would get close to 
the target at the current rate without accounting for any 
improvement in success in decarbonisation. In fact, by 
combining a 50% improvement in decarbonisation with a 
20% working time reduction, the target could be reached 
before 2030. 

In conclusion, we are improving, but not nearly fast 
enough. The rate will have to double if the targets are to 
be reached only by decarbonising. However, the target 
becomes feasible if we combine a 50% faster rate with 
a 20% reduction in working time. However, the reduction 
in working time assumed is substantial. It is hard to 
believe that it can be entirely offset by productivity, 
which means incurring some losses in living standards. 
These losses, especially for the lower and middle classes, 
should be compensated with redistributive policies. 

In the second address, Héctor Tejero presented ongoing 
work with Jaime Nieto on the effect of the 4-day week 
on CO2 emissions. 

First, he distinguished two channels through which the 
working time reduction is associated with environmental 
benefits: 1) compositional effects (behavioural changes) 
and 2) scale effects (changes in economic activity). In the 
previous literature, the combination of these effects is 

estimated to reduce CO2 emissions from 1.4% to 2.5% 
for a 20% reduction in working time (equivalent to a 4-
day week). 

Using the Carbon Monitor database, which measures 
daily CO2 emissions, Tejero and Nieto employ a novel 
strategy to estimate the effect of a 4-day week on 
emissions. During weekends, daily emissions are reduced 
when compared to the average weekday, about 5% on 
Saturday and about 10% on Sunday relative to the 
average weekday. Assuming that “Friday is the new 
Saturday” and that there is a coordinated one day off, 
rendering a 3-day weekend, the authors estimate the 
effect of a 4-day week on emissions. This would be a 
best-case scenario for emissions reduction. 

The main result is that, for the EU-27 (and the UK) in 
2019, a 4-day week would reduce emissions, on 
average, by 2.62% (about 85.8 Mt of CO2). To put it in 
context, this is more than 70% of the reduction of 
emissions between 2018 and 2019, which was 3.7%. 
Furthermore, the decline due to less working time would 
be mainly concentrated in the power/energy, ground 
transport and industry sectors. It ranges from 3.32% in 
Spain (highest) to 0.36% in China (lowest), with a world 
average of 1.06%. 

In conclusion, according to Tejero, although the 
environmental effect of a working time reduction of 20% 
would be limited (less than 5%) it could still be an 
essential policy in the ecological transition, not only due 
to the decrease in emissions but also due to employment 
creation, the transition to low-energy sectors, or the 
cultural change towards living better. 

Simone D’Alessandro began the third presentation by 
referring to the EUROGREEN ecological macroeconomic 
model simulating policies and scenarios for low-carbon 
transition that also consider the social impact. The key 
questions motivating these models are whether green 
policies can foster within-country inequalities and, if so, 
whether there is room for social policy and innovation to 
offset those. Unfortunately, there are no win-win 
solutions, but mostly trade-offs. 

One of these trade-offs is the so-called Green Growth 
Paradox, which means that policies aimed at reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions may come at the expense of 
economic growth. Therefore, choosing which policies to 
implement is important as similar reductions in emissions 
can produce radically different social consequences in 
terms of the income distribution, employment, or fiscal 
stability. 

The job guarantee or working time reduction are 
examples of policies that can combine the promotion of 
social prosperity and low-carbon emissions. Reducing the 
working time acts as a redistributive policy that can 
increase the labour share amongst other advantages, 
making workers more resilient to the green transition. 

The reduction of inequality thanks to working time 
reduction is especially important to counteract other 

7 

 
 
climate policies such as green efficiency, expansion of 
renewals or electrification that have an inequality-
increasing effect. Without a fair distribution of the costs, 
the social barriers to the transition increase and delay the 
process. Moreover, a working-time reduction would 
provide more time to adapt to the transition. 

Yet, actions in addition to reducing the working time are 
needed, as the increased leisure time might be used for 
other carbon-intensive activities. It is therefore important 
to simultaneously promote low-carbon intensive leisure 
activities (i.e. relational goods as opposed to private 
goods). Improving the social and public infrastructure is a 
way forward as it can reduce welfare dependence on 
income and increase the value of free time, producing 
positive network externalities. 

Finally, Edlira Narazani presented her work simulating the 
effect of working time reduction on labour supply, social 
welfare, and inequality in Portugal using EUROLAB, a 
multidimensional discrete choice labour supply model.  

Three hypothetical scenarios were introduced. In two of 
them, working time was reduced to 32 hours a week. In 
one of those, the week was compressed into four days 
(scenario I), thus reducing transportation costs, while in 
the other one five days with shorter working hours were 
adopted (scenario II). The third scenario did not reduce 
working time but compressed 40 work hours in four days 
instead of five (scenario III). 

The combination of these scenarios allows testing the 
effects of higher leisure time and lower commuting 
costs. Commuting costs are relevant because of their 
impact on emissions and because higher/lower costs can 
decrease/increase labour supply.  

Regarding labour supply, the first and second simulated 
scenarios suggest an apparent increase in the 
participation rate – labour force divided by the total 
working-age population – which was most marked in 
lower income quintiles (15% increase for men, 11% for 
women). Moreover, this increase was also more 
pronounced for single men (11% for those with children 
and 17% for those without) and for women in a couple 
(11% for those with children and 13% for those without). 

The first two scenarios also provided benefits for welfare 
and inequality. The social welfare function, which is a 
measure of both efficiency and equality, increased by 
30%. Moreover, as a measure of inequality, the Gini 
coefficient decreased by between 0.012 and 0.0124, a 
substantial amount compared to other policies. 

In sum, reducing the working time, whether distributed in 
four or five working days, significantly increased 
participation rates across all income levels, especially for 
low-income earners, partnered women, and single men, 
while reducing inequality and increasing the social 
welfare function. On the other hand, reducing the 
commuting costs without increasing leisure time 
(scenario III) provided much more limited results, 
suggesting that the main driver for higher participations 

rates and welfare is reducing working time and not so 
much commuting costs. 

The session ended with a discussion amongst all the 
speakers that Cristina Monge kick-started by asking 
which actor will be most difficult to convince 
(governments, unions, etc.) and what should be done 
about it. Some key points discussed were the trade-offs 
faced by unions, the incentives associated to budgetary 
effects, or the need to think more about consumption 
during leisure time and its impact on emissions. 

DAY 2: 4-DAY 
WEEK 
EXPERIENCES  

Many expected benefits, some shades 

Lina Gálvez, Member of the European Parliament (EP) 
and an academic specialised in the distribution of work 
and care time, kicked off the second day of the workshop 
with a comprehensive and detailed data-driven 
perspective of existing pilots on the 4-day week. In her 
view, this is an appealing proposal for improving working 
conditions, creating new jobs, increasing workers’ 
sovereignty over their time, and potentially entailing 
productivity gains, as suggested by existing experiences.  

The COVID-19 shock enhanced –but also gave visibility 
to– the high levels of psychosocial risks and endangered 
physical and mental health that, even before the 
pandemic, a large share of workers experienced. Work-
related stress is common in many occupations and has 
increased substantially in the last years. Average work 
hours have risen too; large proportions of teleworkers 
report working outside normal hours, with a blurring of 
boundaries between working and personal life, which is 
reflected in higher levels of stress. Mental health issues 
have affected women during the pandemic more harshly 
than men. Part of these problems are due to overwork or 
other forms of excessive burden entailed by paid work 
that would, in principle, be alleviated by working time 
reduction options. The EP has established a dedicated 
committee to analyse these issues. 

On a less optimistic note, Ms Gálvez emphasized the 
need to consider the potential heterogeneous effects of 
working time reduction by gender. The COVID-19 crisis 
brought about very clearly the persistent unequal/unfair 
distribution of unpaid work. When formalized care 
options became unavailable for most people, women 
were in charge of a disproportionate share of it, 
according to all existing empirical evidence. Career 

8 

 
 
interruptions were also markedly more common among 
women. 

The risk that initiatives such as the 4-day week might 
have similar influence on women’s attachment to paid 
work is not negligible. There has been certain backlash in 
gender equality in certain domains, according to existing 
compared indexes. In the “right to disconnect”i resolution, 
for instance, gender issues were not very well addressed, 
Ms Gálvez argued. In order to advance in a fair manner 
when exploring the implementation of the 4-day week, 
we would need to consider, according to Ms Gálvez, the 
whole distribution of paid and unpaid work, not just the 
former. The design needs to have gender lenses. 

Similarly, she depicted a context in which globalization 
has changed its nature substantially and the 
digitalization race makes some sectors lose global 
competitiveness. Concerns were expressed about the 
possibility that, in such context, the European Union 
might worsen its relative position in some sectors and 
about the extent to which this might ultimately influence 
negatively labour conditions.  

Overall, we do not have enough evidence for a full, 
nuanced evaluation of impacts. Undoubtedly, the 
European Union ought to rethink its model in the context 
of digitalization and growing productivity; we require a 
new framework that allows maintaining autonomy, our 
democratic values, and social conquests within this new 
international, often challenging, context. It is important to 
shape this context in a way that is fairer than what has 
been done so far. 

Finally, Ms Gálvez announced that the EP is trying to 
move forward with the 4-day week and has presented a 
pilot proposal to the European Commission on this 
matter. 

4-day week pilots: prospects for an
evidence-based implementation

After the second day’s keynote speech, a monographic 
session on 4-day week pilots and experiences chaired by 
Lucía Alonso (Red2Red) addressed the prospects and 
problems of the design and evaluation of different projects 
and pilots as perceived by experts and policymakers 
directly involved with them. The session included Joan 
Sanchís (Generalitat Valenciana, Universitat de València), 
Pedro Gomes (Birkbeck, University of London), Francisca 
Mullens (TOR, Vrije Universiteit Brussel), and Pierre 
Larrouturou (Member of the European Parliament, EP) as 
speakers, followed by a discussion and comment by Hugo 
Cuello (Innovation Growth Lab, Nesta). 

Lucía Alonso introduced the topics and background of the 
session: How to best design and evaluate 4-day pilots and 
experiments, what the available evidence they have 
provided so far is, and how to identify benefits and 

i https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-
0021_EN.html 

limitations of the proposal in order to decide about 
scalable next steps in its development. She then introduced 
the first speaker, Pedro Gomes, who has been appointed by 
the Portuguese government to coordinate an ambitious 4-
day week pilot in this country. The pilot will support 
different companies to make the transition to this new 
organization of the work week, and to evaluate the effects 
on both the firms’ productivity and workers’ wellbeing. 
Since the pilot project is at an early stage, Gomes focused 
on presenting three possible routes towards a 4-day week. 
In the first one, the decentralized route, firms and workers 
would have the leading role. The incentives to do so would 
be different, though: Firms may seek to increase 
productivity, as well as to reduce intermediate costs such 
as accidents, errors in production, absenteeism, energy 
expenses, or workers’ rotation. Workers may in turn improve 
their wellbeing, reduce stress and burn-out, diminish 
transportation costs, or stimulate gender equality. In both 
cases they may be supported by governments with tax 
incentives and/or ad-hoc legislation. 

A second route, according to Gomes, is the national one. In 
this case the rationale would refer to the wider benefits of 
a 4-day week for economy and society; these could include 
more opportunities for economic sectors such as tourism, 
entertainment, and culture because of the increase in free 
time for citizens, more entrepreneurship, raise of birth 
rates, and important environmental benefits. This might be 
accomplished with national legislation, starting with the 
private sector, and offering a long enough period in order 
for firms to adapt and facilitate coordination between 
different economic sectors and agents. 

Finally, Gomes’ third route is the international one. The 4-
day week would be driven at the international or the 
European Union level. Besides adopting different measures 
to push states into it, international organisations and 
agents might also foster the discussion of the idea and 
facilitate bilateral or multilateral agreements to implement 
it. Gomes finished his address by suggesting that the 
promotion of this proposal might generate consensus 
across different ideologies, and that progressive small 
steps towards its implementation are needed, since it 
cannot be adopted in a rapid fashion. 

The second speaker, Joan Sanchís, who is currently 
participating in the design and implementation of a 4-day 
week pilot run by the regional government of Valencia 
(Spain), provided three arguments for reducing working 
time. The first one is economic: Long working days have a 
negative impact on productivity, and Spain has one of the 
longest working times with one of the lower productivities 
in the EU. The second reason is social: Spain also fares 
badly in terms of stress and anxiety at the workplace, 
absenteeism, and sick leaves. Scarcity of time in personal 
lives also makes it hard to balance work and family and it 
has been proved detrimental for physical and mental 
health. The third reason is ecological: A reduction in work 

9 

time could have important benefits to mitigate the effects 
of climate change. 

Two publicly promoted projects on the 4-day week are 
currently in progress in Spain, one at the national level, and 
a second at the regional level, in Valencia. Sanchís focused 
on the latter, which is more developed. It consists in 
providing financial support to companies who voluntarily 
apply worktime reductions, on the condition of preserving 
wage levels and reaching agreements with their workers on 
how to implement the reductions. The Valencian pilot will 
be running for three years and has already received 
applications from 50 companies. The Spanish national-
wide pilot, in turn, probably will fund only specific costs 
associated with the reform (such as innovation 
expenditures) and just for industrial companies which 
introduce a worktime reduction of at least 10%. 

The conditions for the success of such pilots are, according 
to Sanchís, diverse: empowering agents who are involved is 
of the essence, but also getting transversal support by civil 
society organisations, civil society, political parties, and so 
forth. Real experiences may help as illustrations of what 
works in this field and raising public awareness on these 
experiences may trigger boldness on the part of politicians 
and firm owners. 

Other real experiences beyond pilots may be useful in order 
to assess the effects of worktime reduction. Francisca 
Mullens presented research on one of such experiences in 
Belgium, where a women’s organization with 60 female 
employees implemented a 30-hour week during one year 
in 2019. In this case, the work week was reduced from 36 
to 30 hours, and the employees were able to choose 
whether they shortened days, had a full day off, or any 
combination of both options. The rationale of the 
experience was to improve work-life balance and have 
more time available for unpaid work, family, and oneself. 

Mullens’ used different techniques, such as analysis of 
diaries, surveys in different waves, focus groups, and in-
depth interviews. Her results showed that more than 60% 
of workers chose a 4-day week instead of shortening days 
(Wednesday and Friday were the most popular days-off). 
The reasons for this choice included that it was better for 
family, rest, and recovery, it made easier to block the 
agenda for other activities, and it freed up the weekend for 
leisure since the day-off was mainly used for practical 
matters and arrangements of daily life. School schedules 
and family life determined many of the choices, but time 
availability by others or gendered norms had also some 
influence: for example, most of the participants used their 
day-off for childcare. The option for the 4-day week 
reached 80% of the participants after the experience was 
running for some time. However, Mullens notes the 
limitations of the case in order to extrapolate conclusions: 
it was a small-scale experience, it lasted just for one year, 
and only women were involved. 

Pierre Larrouturou started by stressing the productivity 
revolution in the last 30 years in Western countries and 
how it should make possible a reduction of working time. 

Larrouturou worked for years with former French prime 
minister Michel Rocard in promoting a proposal that aimed 
at respecting two principles: no wage cuts, and no increase 
in costs for employers and customers. This win-win 
scenario was only possible if funded through savings in 
unemployment protection coming from the creation of new 
stable jobs. These were the basic principles of the ‘loi 
Robien’ (1996) for stimulating the adoption of a 4-day 
week in France, which preceded the ‘loi Aubry’ (1998) 
which implemented the 35 hours work week in companies 
with more than 20 employees in France.  

The ‘loi Robien’ designed with Larrouturou and Rocard 
included a reduction in employers’ social security 
contributions of 8% if they created 10% more jobs and 
switched to the 4-day week at 32 hours per week, with no 
pay reductions under 2,500€/month, and negotiation of 
salaries on a case-by-case basis. The ‘loi Robien’ allowed 
to implement the 4-day week in 400 companies 
benefitting 17,000 workers. The jobs created allowed for 
additional contributions to fuel social security. 

Larrouturou called attention to some details: it is important 
to consider that such reforms have costs in the short-run, 
but these might be compensated in the long-run. The 
reform needs to be modulated and adapted to different 
sectors, since some jobs are not suitable for a 4-day week 
timetable. There are also different modalities of a 4-day 
week, and companies and workers should be allowed to 
choose.  

Larrouturou claimed that, based on the number of jobs 
created by the 400 companies, the generalization of the 
policy could create 1.6 million jobs in France. He also 
stressed that different surveys show strong social support 
to reduce working time, in particular the 4-day week more 
so than other forms, and that this policy could also help 
solve the debate between growth and post-growth 
supporters, since growth cannot be expected to be the 
main source of job creation in the future. 

Finally, Hugo Cuello acted as discussant and addressed the 
issue of how to design and evaluate 4-day pilots in order 
to best assess the effectiveness of the policy. Cuello relied 
on the lessons learned from many randomized controlled 
trials (RCTs) testing the effects of unconditional cash 
benefits on work, child development, consumer behaviour, 
poverty, and so on. These trials have proved no negative 
influence on work incentives, contrary to mainstream 
theoretical expectations. RCTs, according to Cuello, allow 
learning whether a program has its expected impacts, by 
measuring precisely how the situation was transformed 
and identifying whether the change can be attributed to 
the policy or not. In order to do that, a counterfactual 
informing about what would have happened if the policy 
had not been implemented must be built. This is a 
necessary strategy, since not all changes experienced by 
the people affected may be attributable to the policy; we 
need a robust comparison group and random assignment 
of participants to treatment and control groups. Simple 
pre/post or enrolled/-not-enrolled comparisons do not grant 

10 

 
 
that and therefore cannot ensure that the differences 
observed are due to the program. 

Cuello applied this reasoning to the 4-day week pilots and 
experiences and made several recommendations. It is 
important to work on such causal inference methodological 
strategies, since previous research suggests we should 
expect both positive and negative results from worktime 
reductions. Cases where the reform did not seem to 
produce benefits should not be overlooked. Small samples 
and self-enrolled companies will hardly be representative. 
The pilots should also be able to answer questions on 
whether the 4-day week is a cost-effective policy when 
compared with alternatives, and whether it is scalable. 
However, most of the existing evidence is based on 
pre/post comparisons that do not allow answering all those 
questions properly. Besides, many of the data are self-
reported and based solely on workers’ perceptions. A useful 
next step would be then a more ambitious design of pilots 
and data analysis strategies, so that they can better 
capture the causal effect of the interventions. This will 
require continuous experimentation, comparison of 
alternative treatments, and the use of objective and 
administrative data beyond subjective perceptions and 
attitudes. 

The speakers of the session replied to the challenges 
posed by Cuello by emphasizing the specific difficulties of 
running RCTs on the 4-day week because of legal, political, 
and budgetary limitations. For example, it is hard to legally 
mandate private companies to participate in a pilot, and 
the economic incentives needed to have representative 
samples would be too costly. It was also argued that RCTs 
are not necessarily the only rigorous way of evaluating 
public policies, since other methods such as synthetic 
controls or propensity score-matching are available. 
Therefore, a simpler pilot, even with methodological 
shortcomings, may be a second-best strategy, and perhaps 
a way to raise more interest and funds for the 
implementation of a proper RCT. 

Closing remarks: A promising avenue 
that requires further empirical 
evidence 

Leire Salazar, Lead Scientist of the DIGCLASS CAS 
project, closed the workshop with some summary 
remarks. Over this workshop, various arguments about 
whether it would be desirable and feasible to move 
towards working fewer hours were made. Existing 
evidence so far has done a lot of progress identifying 
potential benefits. The 4-day week seems like a 
promising avenue to continue the path of historical 
trends in strengthening workers’ rights and improving 
work conditions in EU countries and a potential means to 
create employment. Nevertheless, further empirical 
research should still be produced in at least four areas in 
order to support stronger or more determined transitions 
towards this path.  

First, the evidence discussed on the first day suggests 
that working time reduction might not be the silver bullet 
that solves every important challenge (the digital, green 
and fair transitions). Its role in alleviating some problems, 
for instance reducing carbon emissions, is limited, while it 
appears to be unequivocally strong to improve workers’ 
wellbeing, at least in the short term. If this initiative is 
beneficial in some domains but not in others, and 
therefore there are trade-offs, which ones should 
political action prioritize and on what grounds? Is there 
scope for political consensus on this? These questions 
should be subject to scientific scrutiny. 

Second, more research is needed to figure out whether 
the adoption of working time reduction would be 
beneficial across the board or merely for some groups of 
individuals. Heterogeneity is expected across economic 
sectors, genders, countries, regions, etc. and, as in many 
other policy initiatives, there is a real risk of incurring a 
Matthew effect by which those already well positioned 
(whether it is certain firms, already more productive or 
having more satisfied workers, or individuals) benefit 
more from the adoption of these policies. Distributional 
aspects need to be systematically addressed in empirical 
research dealing with work time reduction. 

Third, we need to know more about the possibly 
heterogeneous preferences that individuals hold 
regarding working time, but also about the constraints 
that they face. Other societal arrangements need to be 
considered too. What would happen with school 
schedules, for instance? Would success in work time 
reduction require the adoption of other major policy 
initiatives, for instance to make sure that gaps in care 
work is not broadened, as some of the work presented 
over the workshop might suggest? 

Last, how to put this initiative into practice? We need to 
know what works and what does not and for whom. 
Experiences and pilots need to be scientifically driven, 
and design and evaluation should be carefully 
constructed to minimize the risks of biases (if, for 
instance, only firms with certain characteristics which 
correlate with outcomes participate in the experience). As 
we mentioned in our first Real Utopias for a Social 
Europe workshop, high-quality evidence is a prerequisite 
for a good design and a successful unfolding of social 
protection. But engaging in an often bold political vision 
of fairness and social cohesion is also a crucial aspect in 
all these debates.  

Professor Salazar concluded her address by advancing 
the contents of the third workshop in the Real Utopias for 
a Social Europe series that will take place in 2023. While 
in Workshop 1 we debated around the distribution of 
monetary resources and in Workshop 2 the distribution of 
working time was discussed, in Workshop 3 we will focus 
on the distribution of power in contemporary societies, 
workplace democracy, including algorithmic democracy, 
and the potential new role of unions in a context of 
technological change. 

11 

 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address of the centre 
nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service: 
- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),
- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or
- by electronic mail via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at: 
https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. 
Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en).