Discussion & Conclusions

The effects of various WTR initiatives are manifold and many differences exist between the type of WTR policy evaluated, the methods of analysis, the scope of the project, and location of implementation. However, the review shows that virtually all WTR policies across a wide range of contexts in the global north have resulted in positive outcomes related to either social,

economic, or environmental sustainability. In various settings WTR initiatives have resulted in positive effects on health outcomes, work-life balance, work-family balance, life satisfaction, employment, and productivity, as well as being shown to frequently be associated with reduced energy consumption, lower levels of carbon emissions, and a lower environmental footprint. And while not all instances of WTR resulted in the entire gamut of benefits - in some cases WTR’s failed to generate employment or environmental benefits, or resulted in unforeseen

consequences, such as reinforcing gendered patterns of work – it can reliably be said that WTR consistently produces benefits for sustainability. This review generates three broader

conclusions.

First, it appears that the economic benefits of WTR are the most uncertain from an orthodox economic perspective. While in many cases WTR increases employment and per hour productivity, there is a lack of data that suggests that working time reduction is the most

profitable course of action for private businesses, or that working less leads to higher levels of other macroeconomic indicators like GDP or industrial production. There does exist a strong correlation between shorter working hours and increased per hour productivity (Haraldsson and

Kellam, 2021:16) but generalizing that relationship onto overall levels of profit and production is difficult.

This is not to say that WTR is economically unviable or undesirable. Instead, it appears that economic benefits of WTR initiatives deserve evaluation from outside the traditional socio-developmental paradigm which places a primacy on the overall growth of the economy. Many arguments have been made in favour of using alternative metrics to measure future sustainable economies (Hayden and Wilson, 2017). These include ‘green GDP’, the Human Development Index, the Social Progress Index, and others. (Ibid:171). Given that some reduction in overall levels of production and consumption appears unavoidable for future sustainable economies, it seems that the benefits of WTR are better evaluated using metrics which attach value to a diverse range of sustainable outcomes rather than just increased profit and production.

This view aligns with the positions of degrowth and agrowth scholars (Van Den Bergh, 2017; Asara et al., 2015). From this perspective, policies such as WTR are evaluated for their capacity to increase dimensions of social welfare or environmental sustainability rather than its contribution to traditional economic metrics like GDP.

A second conclusion draws attention to the contextual component of WTR. As

demonstrated in the review, WTR consistently resulted in greater levels of sustainability, but this is not an automatic process. Results differed and, in many cases, outcomes were dependent on other factors such as how individuals spent their free time or whether individuals preferred leisure or income. Therefore, the ability of WTR to promote sustainability is dependent on processes of design and implementation. Yet this conclusion alone is nothing novel. Scholars understand that the effects of WTR are context dependent and vary depending on a wide range of factors. However, since this is the case, it appears past time that the issue of WTR be treated from a governance perspective.

Adding a governance approach to the issue of WTR may stimulate the literature to move beyond continuing to demonstrate the well-known conclusion that WTR can result in

sustainability advantages and on to researching how to design and implement WTR for

sustainability. There is consensus around WTR’s benefits for sustainability and consensus that WTR cannot be implemented in a blanket fashion, but rather requires a tailored approach. Yet very little of the literature discusses policy pathways or governance processes that may lead to a greater uptake of WTR. Perhaps this is because traditionally, shorter working hours have been

won through political struggle and less often as the result of goal-oriented development. Yet, governance processes like transition management appear ideally suited to design WTR for sustainability due to transition management’s long timescale, reflexive approach to design, and great understanding of the dynamics of sustainability transitions. For these reasons, this research hopes to contribute a governance perspective to the issue of WTR.

The final conclusion relates to the type of sustainable development achieved by WTR.

This chapter set out to answer the question of how and to what extent WTR contributes to achieving sustainable development. The systematized review has demonstrated that reducing working hours can contribute to sustainability by improving health outcomes, reducing environmental pressures through scale and compositional effects, as well as increasing

productivity and employment. Taken collectively, these effects seem to suggest that WTR is best suited to contribute towards a more radical conception of sustainable development that

deprioritizes economic growth in favour of enhancing social and environmental sustainability.

As such, the model of sustainable development which WTR achieves is closer to degrowth or agrowth conceptions of sustainable development. It is worth noting here that degrowth and agrowth call for more than just a reduction or agnosticism towards growth, but also include a vision for societal progress which stresses democracy, simplicity, and conviviality, as well as focusing on human health and well-being. (Asara et al, 2015:377; D’Alisa, Demaria and Kallis, 2014:82-4; Van Den Bergh, 2017). As such, sustainable development in the context of WTR can be said to focus on improving social sustainability by improving work-life balance, health outcomes, and enabling the sharing of traditionally gendered labour, improving economic sustainability by increasing productivity per hour and contributing to high employment levels, and contributing to environmental sustainability by reducing emission through scale and compositional effects.

5. Assessing the Scope for Advancing WTR Initiatives in the