The Four Day Week: Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland

Full text

The Four Day Week:
Assessing global trials of reduced work time
with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
better 4 everyone

The Four Day Week: Assessing global trials of reduced work time
with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
Authors Orla Kelly, Juliet Schor, Wen Fan,
Tatiana Bezdenezhnykh, Guolin Gu, Niamh Bridson Hubbard
Kelly, O. M, Juliet Schor, Wen Fan, Tatiana Bezdenezhnykh,
Guolin Gu,Niamh Bridson Hubbard, N. (2022)
“The Four Day Week: Assessing global trials of reduced work time
with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland”
University College Dublin, Press.
2022
ISBN 978-1-910963-65-4
Adapted from
Schor, Juliet B., Wen Fan, Orla Kelly, Guolin Gu,
Tatiana Bezdenezhnykh, Niamh Bridson-Hubbard, 2022,
“ The Four Day Week: Assessing global trials of reduced work time
with no reduction in pay,” Four Day Week Global, Auckland, NZ.

Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
better 4 everyone
Contents
The research team ............................................................4
Executive summary ..........................................................5
1 Introduction ................................................................7
2 Why a four-day week? ..............................................9
2.1 Findings from human previous studies............9
3 Research design........................................................10
3.1 Company sample ............................................11
3.2 Irish employee sample....................................12
4 Company results ......................................................13
5 Employee outcomes ................................................15
5.1 Employee work re-organisation ....................15
5.2 Employee health and wellbeing......................19
5.3 Time use on participants’ day off ..................23
5.4 COVID-19 and time-use ................................24
5.5 Gender differences in
employee outcomes ......................................24
6 Environmental footprint and behaviour ................26
7 Control group and limitations ................................28
8 Conclusion ................................................................30
9 Appendix A –
qualitative interview participants..........................31
10 Bibliography ..............................................................32
LIST OF FIGURES:
Figure 1: Research design ........................................10
Figure 2: Results of monthly organisational
metrics ........................................................14
Figure 3: Irish employees time use on day off ..........23
LIST OF TABLES:
Table 1: Profile of participating
organisations in Ireland ............................11
Table 2: Profile of employee respondents
in Ireland......................................................12
Table 3: Company attitudes and experiences
with the trial ................................................13
Table 4: Work and employment
outcomes for employees ..........................15
Table 5: Employee reports of work time
reduction at trial end ..................................16
Table 6: Workplace experiences:
What changed ............................................17
Table 7: Workplace experiences:
What didn’t change ....................................18
Table 8: Retrospective questions on how
employees experienced the trial ..............18
Table 9: Overall experience with the trial
and desire to continue................................19
Table 10: Changes in employee workplace
wellbeing ....................................................19
Table 11: Changes in employee health
and wellbeing outcomes ............................20
Table 12: Changes in employee sleep
and exercise patterns ................................21
Table 13: Changes in employee
work–family/life balance ............................21
Table 14: Changes in employee sleep and
exercise patterns employee experiences:
Increased satisfaction................................22
Table 15: Changes in couples’ division
of labor, by gender ......................................25
Table 16: Changes in childcare costs ........................25
Table 17: Changes in energy use and
leisure travel ..............................................26
Table 18: Changes in pro-environmental
behaviour ....................................................27

The research team
better 4 everyone
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
4
Dr Orla Kelly Dr Wen Fan Professor Juliet Schor
This research was done through an international collaboration with researchers at Boston
College (USA), University College Dublin (UCD, Ireland), and Cambridge University (UK). The
team consists of faculty, graduate students and undergraduates, all of whom made significant
contributions to the research process, which involved the development of the surveys,
organising the data collection, communicating with the companies and analysing the data.
Professor Kelly and her team at UCD took the lead on the Irish trial, which began in February
2022. Professors Schor and Fan, along with PhD candidate Guolin Gu at Boston College, took
the lead on the US trial. All faculty and graduate students took part in designing the surveys.
Guolin Gu (Boston College) did the bulk of survey logistics, data analysis and communication
with non-Irish companies. Tatiana Bezdenezhnykh (UCD) did the same for the Irish companies.
Niamh Bridson Hubbard (Cambridge) took the lead on the midpoint survey time diary.
Professors Fan, Kelly and Schor, directed the research at all stages.

Executive summary
Research suggests that worktime reduction is a multi-dividend policy that can improve human wellbeing, organisational
performance, and environmental outcomes. Social benefits include reduced stress and burnout for employees and more
time for family, community, and self. Economic benefits depend on the form of worktime reduction. Where it is
accomplished without loss or even gains in productivity, it is beneficial for companies’ bottom lines. Environmental benefits
can accrue reduced energy expended in commuting, especially with four-day work weeks; increases in low carbon but
time-intensive practices for households; and reduced carbon emissions due to trading income for a time.
As the most popular form of worktime reduction, a four-day, 32-hour workweek has been gaining momentum in recent
years. Given this growth in interest, Four Day Week Global (4DWG) began supporting companies and non-profit
organisations that wanted to try a four-day, 32-hour workweek with no reduction in pay. Boston College leads the research
team in partnership with University College Dublin, Cambridge University and other academic partners. We are
constructing a sizeable quantitative database of employee outcomes across different countries and types of companies
and organisations. We collected data on time use, subjective wellbeing, physical and mental health, labour market
behaviour, and energy use with a wide-ranging instrument.
In February 2022, 4DWG launched the first of several coordinated international trials. It involved 614 employees across
Ireland, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. The research involved (i) surveying employees at the beginning,
midpoint and end of the trial, (ii) compiling time-use diaries of employees’ days off, (iii) collecting monthly data on
organisational performance and (iv) interviewing employees and managers at the end of the trial1.
This report presents detailed results of a subset of Irish organisations and their employees participating in the trial. This
group comprised 12 small to medium enterprises, primarily concentrated in the IT and professional services sectors.
The key findings are as follows:
All 12 companies completed a final survey in which we asked about their overall experience and whether they would
continue with the four-day week.
lNine are definitely continuing with the new schedule, and the remaining quarter (three) are planning to
continue but haven’t yet committed to keeping it long-term
lOn a scale of 0-10, from very negative to very positive, the companies’ average rating for their experience
of the trial is 9.2
lAsked about how the trial affected their overall company performance, the average score was 8.2 out of 10
lCompanies rated employee productivity over the course of the trial as 7.6/10.
Several companies also provided records of organisational performance data for the trial period and a comparable previous
year. Based on an analysis of these data, we found:
lSix out of seven companies reported their monthly revenue growth, with one seeing a decline
lSix out of the ten companies who provided data on staff numbers increased their staff numbers, while two
companies maintained and two others decreased
lAmong the companies that provided data on sick and personal days, the number fell in four and increased in
three organisations
lTwo organisations recorded changes in energy use and both found reductions
lFour organisations tracked company industry-specific productivity metrics, and all observed improvements.
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
better 4 everyone
5
1 For full results on the first global trials see Schor, Juliet B., Wen Fan, Orla Kelly, Guolin Gu, Tatiana
Bezdenezhnykh, Niamh Bridson-Hubbard, 2022, “The Four Day Week: Assessing global trials of
reduced work time with no reduction in pay,” Four Day Week Global, Auckland, NZ.

Based on the employee surveys and interviews, we found:
l100% of employees want to continue on a reduced work schedule
lEmployees' self-rated performance, compared to their lifetime best, rose from an average score of 7.16 at
baseline to 7.72 by the end of the trial
lWe found statistically significant improvements across a wide range of wellbeing metrics, including positive
affect, work-family and work-life balance, and several domains of life satisfaction
lConversely, stress, burnout, fatigue, and work-family conflict significantly declined
lAverage sleep time increased from 7.02 hours a night to 7.72 hours. Sleep deprivation (less than 7 hours of
sleep a night) decreased from 34% of respondents to 9%
lEmployees used their day off for hobbies, household work and personal grooming. Time doing hobbies grew
by 36 min a week on average. Length of time spent exercising per week also increased
lWe observed an increase across three forms of pro-environmental behaviour: activities (recycling, buying
eco-friendly, walking and cycling over driving), education (encouraging others and educating oneself about
the environment) and volunteering
lThe trial was particularly successful for women. They reported a significantly greater improvement in life
satisfaction, had larger gains in sleep time, and reported feeling more secure in their employment.
better 4 everyone
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
6

1. Introduction
It is increasingly clear that the pandemic has taken a heavy toll on workers. According to Gallup’s annual State of the Global
Workplace report, psychological stress reached an all-time high in 2021, exacerbating a pre-pandemic trend toward
increased burnout and stress. The report also revealed that 60% of employees felt emotionally detached from their jobs
last year, while almost a fifth described their time at work as miserable. In Ireland, 48% of employees reported feeling “a
lot of stress” daily2.
One response to these developments is worktime reduction (WTR). A growing body of evidence suggests that WTR can
promote human wellbeing3, even across a wide range of socio-economic groups4. Reduced worktime has long been
promoted as a multiple dividend reform – it has the potential to bring social, economic and climate benefits. Social benefits
include reduced employee stress and burnout and more time for family, community, and self. Economic benefits depend
on the form of worktime reduction. Where it is accomplished without loss or even gains in productivity, it is beneficial for
companies’ bottom lines5. When it is accompanied by increased hiring, it can reduce unemployment. It can also reduce
costs in tight labour markets or situations where employees are experiencing high levels of stress and burnout. Over the
last decade, Icelandic and Swedish governments have supported WTR trials, with results suggesting a more rested,
happier and less stressed workforce6. Climate benefits include reduced energy expended in commuting, especially with
four-day work weeks7; increases in low carbon but time-intensive practices for households; and reduced carbon emissions
due to trading income for time8.
As the most popular form of worktime reduction, a four-day, 32-hour workweek has been gaining momentum in recent
years. Given this growth in interest, 4 Day Week Global (4DWG) began supporting companies and non-profit organisations
who wanted to try a four-day, 32-hour workweek with no reduction in pay. In 2022, their efforts led to the world’s first
coordinated trials and the large-scale independent research effort on the impacts of a four-day week.
Beginning in February of 2022, 4DWG began the first of a series of trials with companies instituting a reduced workweek
with no reduction in pay. The trials are six months, plus an additional two-month onramp, during which the companies
prepare for the scheduling change by attending workshops, getting coaching and mentoring, and being part of a peer
support network. By the time they start a trial, the companies are well prepared to institute a significant scheduling
change. While most companies instituted a four-day, 32-hour schedule, with a typical day off – usually Friday – some opted
for different configurations. To join the trial, companies must commit to maintaining the same pay and enacting meaningful
worktime reduction. In the first wave of pilots, 16 private sector organisations adopted a four-day workweek with no
reduction in pay. The trial included a total of 614 employees located across Ireland, the United States, Australia, and New
Zealand.
Using email addresses supplied by the participating organisation, we (the Four Day Week research team) contacted
company employees. We asked them to complete the baseline pretrial survey at the end of January 2022. A follow-up
survey was conducted at the trial's midpoint in April 2022. We administered the endpoint survey in August 2022. To
understand how participants spend their additional days off, we constructed a time-use diary which respondents were
asked to use in the midpoint survey. We also interviewed employees and managers at the end of the trial period to gather
qualitative insights into their experience of reduced work time.
We examined factors related to workplace wellbeing (including job satisfaction, burnout and turnover intention), work-
family balance, life satisfaction, self-rated health and sleep outcomes. Where possible, we used well-established scales
validated in cross-national research, including questions from the European Working Conditions Survey, the European
Union Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) and the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory. For time-use analysis,
activities were allocated into four main groups: paid work, household work and caring, personal maintenance, and leisure.
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
better 4 everyone
7
2 Gallup, Inc, “State of the Global Workplace: 2022.”
3 Coote, Harper, and Stirling, The Case for a Four-Day Week; Lepinteur, “The Shorter Workweek and Worker
Wellbeing”; Parrique, “The Political Economy of Degrowth.”
4 Persson, Larsson, and Nässén, “Working Less by Choice.”
5 Barnes, “Guidelines for an Outcome-Based Trial – Raising Productivity and Engagement.”
6 Alderman, “In Sweden, an Experiment Turns Shorter Workdays Into Bigger Gains.”
7 Office of the Legislative Auditor General, State of Utah, “A Performance Audit of the Working 4 Utah Initiative.”
8 Fremstad, Paul, and Underwood, “Work Hours and CO2 Emissions.”

The trial has been a resounding success in virtually every dimension. The companies are extremely pleased with their
performance, productivity and overall experience. Almost all participating companies have already committed or plan to
continue with the four-day week schedule. Their performance metrics show improvements. Employees are similarly
enthusiastic. Climate impacts, while less well-measured, are also encouraging. Our detailed findings, based on more than
60 outcome variables, show that the results are overwhelmingly positive. They are also substantially large9.
The following pages detail the findings of the companies in Ireland that participated in the first wave of global trials. The
research team has produced them all, and this report is written by its members. The team is fully independent of 4DWG
and received no funding from the organisation. The Irish team received support and funding from the Four Day Week
Ireland campaign. All of the research has been produced by our independent academic team. This report is written by its
members, and the relevant ethics boards have approved our university research protocols.
We begin with a brief overview of the existing literature on worktime reduction. Next is a section on how the trials were
run, and then descriptive information on the companies and employees in our sample – the industries represented, the
size of the companies, and employees’ socio-demographic profiles. We then present our results, starting with findings
from company metrics. Based on the surveys and interviews with employees, we divide the rest of the findings into the
following sections: Work and employment; Health and wellbeing; Time use and care work; and environmental footprint
and behaviour. We conclude by briefly discussing the broader implications of the findings for the future of work.
better 4 everyone
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
8
9 For full results on the global trial see Schor, Juliet B., Wen Fan, Orla Kelly, Guolin Gu, Tatiana Bezdenezhnykh,
Niamh Bridson-Hubbard, 2022, “The Four Day Week: Assessing Global Trials of Reduced Work Time with No
Reduction in Pay,” Four Day Week Global, Auckland, NZ.

2. Why a four-day week?
2.1 Findings from previous studies
Researchers have long been interested in how working hours affect wellbeing and economic performance. Worktime
reduction (WTR), and the four-day week more specifically, is considered a triple-dividend reform with social, economic
and climate benefits. There is abundant evidence that long working hours are bad for human health, with a recent
WHO/ILO review finding associations with higher rates of heart disease and stroke10. Conversely, a growing body of
evidence finds that worktime reduction has positive health impacts on individuals and is economically viable for employers
even when not accompanied by cuts in pay. Over the last few decades, Nordic governments have conducted successful
WTR experiments. At Swedish social work agencies and other Swedish government offices, WTR yielded major impacts
on exhaustion, stress, work-family conflict, and the quantity and quality of sleep11. Finnish experiments had similar
findings12. The largest trial of WTR before ours, with 2500 government employees, was carried out in Iceland from 2015-
2019. Participants reported less stress and work-family conflict, more energy, and higher wellbeing at work, compared
to control sites, which did not show these improvements. This trial received considerable global attention, partly because
results also showed either stable or higher productivity alongside revenue neutrality13. In Japan and Korea, reductions in
the workweek from 48 to 40 and 44 to 40 hours, respectively, improved the life satisfaction of affected workers and their
spouses14. Similarly, after introducing the 35-hour week in France, researchers identified significantly positive effects of
shorter work weeks (without pay reductions) on workers’ subjective health15.
There is also a growing body of literature showing associations between shorter hours of work and lower carbon
emissions16. Analyses based on comparisons across countries and US states find that hours and emissions correlate
positively17. Household studies also show that working hours are positively related to household emissions18. Similarly,
studies of four-day, compressed weeks (four, ten-hour days) find that reduced commuting yields lower energy
expenditures19.
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
better 4 everyone
9
10 Pega et al., “Global, Regional, and National Burdens of Ischemic Heart Disease and Stroke Attributable to Exposure to
Long Working Hours for 194 Countries, 2000–2016.”
11 Barck-Holst et al., “Reduced Working Hours and Stress in the Swedish Social Services.”
12 “Anttila, Timo, and Jouko Nätti. 1999. ‘Experiments of Reduced Working Hours in Finnish Municipalities.’ Journal of
Human Resource Costing & Accounting 4 (2): 45–61.= - Google Search.”
13 Haraldsson and Kellam, “Going Public; Icelands Journey to a Shorter Working Week.”
14 Hamermesh, Kawaguchi, and Lee, “Does Labor Legislation Benefit Workers?”
15 Bakker and Demerouti, “The Job Demands-Resources Model.”
16 Knight, Rosa, and Schor, “Reducing Growth to Achieve Environmental Sustainability.”
17 Fitzgerald, Schor, and Jorgenson, “Working Hours and Carbon Dioxide Emissions in the United States, 2007–2013.”
18 Fremstad, Paul, and Underwood, “Work Hours and CO2 Emissions.”
19 Office of the Legislative Auditor General, State of Utah, “A Performance Audit of the Working 4 Utah Initiative.”

3. Research design
In 2021, 4Day Week Global (hereafter 4DWG) began recruiting companies and non-profit organisations (hereafter referred
to as “companies” or “organisations”) to participate in six-month trials. The first trial, which involved 12 Irish companies
(and four outside of Ireland), was launched by the Four Day Week Ireland campaign and began on February 1, 2022.
Additional trials were organised by 4DWG and launched on April 1 (the US and Canada), June 6 (the UK), August 1
(Australasia), and October 1 (the US and Canada). From 2023 global trials will be launched every quarter. More than 150
companies and approximately 7500 employees are participating in or signing up for trials. The trials are based on the 100-
80-100™ model in which companies allow employees to work 80% of their regularly scheduled time in return for 100% of
their pay and a pledge to deliver 100% of their standard output (Barnes 2019). The model is based on a collective work
reorganisation process in which low and zero-productivity activities are eliminated. Companies are not required to go for
four days. However, they must keep pay constant and offer a meaningful work time reduction, with the smallest allowable
reduction set at four hours. The trial's design involved two months of preparation, with workshops, coaching, mentoring
and peer support, drawing on the expertise of those who had already implemented four-day weeks in their own companies
and individuals who had helped companies with these schedules. Participation in these first two trials was free, although,
in later trials, 4DWG has asked for a small donation to help defray the costs of running the trials.
In addition, the trials offered research conducted by independent academic researchers at Boston College, University
College Dublin and Cambridge University to support this. The research consists of two parts: administrative data from
companies and survey data from employees. For both types of data, we employed pre- and post-methodology. In the
pre-trial phase, companies completed an “onboarding” survey with basic details about themselves. They provided six
months of data to be used as a comparison with corresponding data collected during the six-month trial. Once the trial
began, companies were asked to provide monthly data on a small set of standard metrics (revenue, absenteeism,
resignations, new hires, and energy use) plus two optional individualised metrics. The absence of productivity or other
performance metrics in the standard set was because the organisations in the trial vary considerably in what they typically
collect. We also asked for self-reported productivity from employees.
better 4 everyone
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
10
Figure 1: Research design
EMPLOYER
SURVEY
Monthly
Productivity
Retention
Absenteeism
EMPLOYER
SURVEY
Monthly
Wellbeing
Stress/health
Job satisfaction
Pro envl. behaviour
EMPLOYER
SURVEY
Monthly
Activities
Household/care work
Time affluence
Energy use
EMPLOYER
SURVEY
Monthly
Management
experience
Lessons learned
Employee experience

The employee surveys were done at three points–immediately before the trial began (baseline), mid-way through the
trial (mid-point) and at the close of the trial (endpoint). The survey was administered through Qualtrics, and the research
team contacted employees via email using address lists supplied by the participating organisations. Separating the survey
from the employer is an important part of the research methodology. By assuring employees that their answers are
confidential and will be unavailable to their employers, we can better collect honest and accurate information. Only
companies with enough employees to ensure the confidentiality of answers receive the survey data, and then only in
aggregated form. The employee surveys at baseline and endpoint include questions covering work situation, wellbeing,
family and personal life, and energy use. The mid-point survey is much shorter and consists of a small set of wellbeing
questions and a time diary which asks respondents how they spent their most recent off-day. Where available, we used
existing, well-validated scales to measure wellbeing, work situation and other outcomes. In other cases, we created our
questions. We drew from the 25 harmonised activity codes in the Multinational Time Use Study (MTUS) user guide for the
time diary. We adapted these activities slightly to suit our research needs, for example, splitting the “paid work” activity
into “main paid work” and “other paid work” and adding an activity for “transit” between other activities. In Ireland, we
also conducted post-trial semi-structured interviews with employees. The interviews explored how the new work
schedule affected employees’ lives inside and outside the workplace. For those employees in managerial roles, we asked
how and if the new work schedule affected those responsibilities.
3.1 Company sample
In total, 16 companies participated in the January trial. The companies vary in size, ranging from three to 409 employees.
Of those organisations, 12 were small to medium Irish enterprises. As Table 1 illustrates below, the 12 participating
companies employed 188 people at baseline. The largest group is from the administrative, IT and telecoms sectors. All
the organisations opted to have employees work one less day per week. In four of the organisations, all employees had
Fridays off; in the other organisations, employees did not all have the same day off.
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
better 4 everyone
11
Table 1: Profile of participating organisations in Ireland
Total number of companies 12
Average sizes (no. of employees) 14
Industry Number Percentage
Manufacturing 1 8.3%
Admin, IT and telecom 5 41.7%
Professional services 2 16.7%
Art, entertainment 1 8.3%
Educational services 1 8.3%
Other services 1 8.3%
Other, not specified 1 8.3%

3.2 Irish employee sample
We turn now to the socio-demographic characteristics of the employee sample in Ireland. This is a broadly balanced
sample in terms of gender composition, with 58% self-identifying as women, 42% as men. The ethnic composition of our
sample is as follows; 85% identify as White, 5% as Asian, 1% as Black, 5% as other/mixed ethnicity, and the remaining
participants did not specify.
This is a relatively young sample; more than half of the respondents are below age 35, 25% are between 35 and 44, and
about 24% are 45 or above. Fully 76% of the sample have at least a bachelor’s degree. Correspondingly, 11% of the sample
are managers, and 78% are professionals, with the most commonly held occupations being information and
communications technology professionals (37%), science and engineering professionals (15%) and business and
administration professionals (14%). Two out of three employees in our sample are either married or living with a
cohabitation partner, and 35% have at least one minor child living at home.
better 4 everyone
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
12
Variable All participants Male sample Female sample
(n=91) (n=53) (n=38)
Parent 35.0% 45.3% 29.0%
Relationship status Married or partnered 78.0% 81.1% 73.7%
Education College or above 75.8% 67.9% 86.8%
Age 18-24 9.0% 9.6% 8.1%
25-29 20.2% 17.3% 24.3%
30-34 23.6% 19.2% 29.7%
35-44 24.7% 26.9% 21.6%
45-54 16.9% 21.2% 10.8%
55-64 5.6% 5.8% 5.4%
Occupation Manager 11.0% 7.6% 15.8%
Professional 78.0% 84.9% 84.9%
Other 11.0% 7.6% 15.8%
Table 2: Profile of employee respondents in Ireland

4. Company results
For the companies, the trial has been a success. All 12 companies completed a final survey in which we asked about their
overall experience and whether they would continue with the four-day week. On a scale of 0-10, where zero is very
negative and ten is very positive, they rated the trial a 9.2 on average. Asked about how their overall company performance
was affected by the trial, the average score was 8.1. In response to a question about how their company’s productivity
has been affected by the trial, the average score was 7.6. Overall, 75% are definitely continuing with the four-day week,
and 25% are planning to continue but haven’t made a final decision yet. None are leaning against or not planning on
continuing.
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
better 4 everyone
13
Variable Measure Mean N
Trial impact overall 1-10 (very negative to very positive): 9.2 12
how do you think the 4 Day Week
Trial has affected your company overall
Trial impact on 1-10 (very negative to very positive): 7.6 12
productivity how do you think the 4 Day Week Trial has
affected the productivity of your company
Trial impact on 1-10 (very negative to very positive): 8.1 12
company how do you think the 4 Day Week Trial
performance has affected the performance of your
company
Count Percentage
Plans for the trial Definitely going to continue 9 75%
going forward Planning on continuing but no final decision 3 25%
Table 3: Company attitudes and experiences with the trial
The foregoing are retrospective questions, asked at the end of the trial. We also collected data from the companies before
they began, and all through the six months of the trial. Because the companies are so varied in their size, industry, and
data collection practices, we confined the data collection to a small set of metrics that we thought every company would
be able to provide. These were revenue, the number of employees in the company, total hours worked for all employees,
resignations, new hires, and sick and personal days taken. 11 out of 12 companies reported some for February-July 2021
(pre-trial) and February-July 2022 (trial period). Out of seven companies that reported their monthly revenue, six indicated
their growth, with one company seeing a decline in the metric compared to the previous year. Six companies increased
their staff numbers, while two companies maintained and two others decreased the number of employees. The trial had
a heterogeneous impact on the reported number of sick and personal days that declined for three, increased for four, and
stayed the same for one company. We also asked about energy usage, but this data was compromised due to companies
changing to remote working arrangements. In the end, only two reported their electricity consumption compared to the
corresponding months of 2021. Both of these organisations had a decrease in energy consumption. Some companies
provided company-specific performance measures. Specifically, two reported increased profitability, one increased the
number of calls, and another organisation tracked weekly hours spent on meetings and also observed a decline.

Our qualitative interviews with management confirmed that overall the experience had been positive, albeit not without
some challenges; as Chris outlines below, offering a four-day week as a small enterprise is particularly advantageous for
recruitment purposes.
“As a small company, we can't compete with all the huge big salaries. We also ask a lot of people;
they wear a lot of dierent hats. Being able to oer this four-day week; it's a WOW when we're hiring
people. Now, it might decline more and more as more companies come into this, but right now,
the candidates usually react by saying something like. “I don't even know if I believe you! Are you
telling me we have an extra day o every week? Really?”
A manager, Brenda, highlighted the positive impacts of the reduced work schedule on her management responsibilities
due to increased employee motivation and initiative.
“I think my role of supervising and management has become smoother. It's a lot calmer. We're an
awful lot more susceptible to change in the sense that, for example, if someone wants to split their
day o, that's ne. There's more onus on the employees as well to make arrangements, which is
great because the responsibility shifts to the employees, and it also gives people a considerable
amount of autonomy.”
Ann, a manager in a recruitment company, had reservations about the trial at the start but was similarly impressed by the
gains in productivity.
“I was sceptical about how it would work because recruitment is not one of those jobs that are
generally 9 to 5, and how we work with clients. But in terms of productivity, we're beating every
target from the previous year, hands down. So if anything, reducing our working week has improved
priority productivity to a level that it would be a very foolish decision to go back to 5 days”.
Brian observed similar increases in employee motivation but noted that the organisation will be keeping on top of internal
metrics to ensure that productivity does not wane over time.
“As a manager, my job has gotten easier because the reduced work time has motivated employees
and increased morale. They know they could go back to ve days if the arrangement stops working
for the company. So, they work together to make sure that it does. But we will keep on top of KPIs
to ensure motivation doesn’t drop now that the ocial trip has ended.”
This was a common theme among managers. As discussed in the next section, Chris also highlights the challenge of
maintaining productivity gains in a high-growth environment.
better 4 everyone
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
14
Figure 2: Results of monthly organisational metrics
RESPONSE
RATE
10/12
companies
reported some
or all metrics
REVENUE
Increased in 6
Decreased in 1
NO. OF
EMPLOYEES
Increased in 6
Decreased in 2
Stable in 2
SICK/
PERSONAL
DAYS
Decreased in 3
Increased in 4
Stable in 1
ENERGY
USE
Decreased in 2
compared with
2021
COMPANY-
SPECIFIC
METRICS
Increased
profitibility in 2
Increased call
volume in 1
Decreased
hours in
meetings in 1

5.Employee outcomes
In the previous section, we reported on how participating organisations experienced the trial.
We turn now to the data we collected from employees. When we note something “changed”, the difference between the
baseline and endpoint values is a statistically significant change (rather than a random or meaningless change). Asterisks
in the table refer to the level of confidence we have in the meaningfulness of the change. Small changes that are not
statistically significant mean that we cannot determine that the before and after values are the same.
5.1 Employee work re-organisation
Our findings show that the trial changed the workplace in important ways. As expected, work time declined from 38.3
hours per week to 32.7. Although employees worked on average less than 40 hours a week, this is almost a complete
reduction to 32 hours. In some companies, people were still doing some work on their day off.
Nevertheless, there was a significant average reduction of 6 hours of work. When measured by the number of people
whose work time went down (or up), 83% of the sample experienced a decline in working hours, while 8.53% were working
more.
Similarly, the average number of days worked went from 4.9 to 4.3. The frequency of overtime also fell. It’s also notable
that the prevalence of remote working also declined a bit over the trial, from an average of 4.4 days per week to 3.4.
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
better 4 everyone
15
Variable Measure N Mean at Mean at Δ (%) Sig.
baseline endpoint
Work time Number of working 87 38.3 32.7 -17.2% ***
hours per week
Days working Number of working 88 4.9 4.3 -14.6% ***
days per week
Remote work 0-2 (never to fully) 88 1.7 1.5 -14.5% ***
working remotely
Remote work days Number of days 82 4.4 3.4 -29.0% ***
working remotely
Overtime 1-4 (never to daily) 2.25 1.76 -27.8% ***
^+p<0.1, *p<0.05, **<0.01, ***p<0.001 using paired-sample t-tests
Table 4: Work and employment outcomes for employees
At the end of the trial, we collected some data from employees about their participation in the trial. We found that 91%
of all employees did reduce their worktime. For those who reduced work time, 95% reported that they had gone to a four-
day week schedule, and the remaining 5% had shifted to alternative reduced time schemes. We asked how often they
could take that fifth day off (reduced work time frequency). Of those who reduced worktime, 87% reported that they got
it off every week, and another 8% got a day off every two weeks. The remaining 5% were either once a month or less.

When we consider the quality and experiences of work during the trial, a few things stand out. First, we asked employees
how their current work ability compared to their lifetime best. Current work ability, measured on a 10-point scale via
responses to the question: “thinking about the last four weeks, how would you rate your current work ability when you
compare it with your lifetime best?” Before the trial began, the average self-rated ability was 7.16 on a scale from 0-10. At
the end of the trial, it had risen to 7.72, a statistically significant shift. People felt they were more productive and doing
better at work with the change to a four-day week.
In the interviews, employees indicated that they became more conscious about their time management to fit a five-day
volume of work into four days. Almost every interviewee mentioned that they reconsidered meeting practices, making
them shorter and more structured, as the quotes below illustrate.
“Smart quick and get the job done.” - Fiona
“I will never schedule a meeting for an hour. I will schedule a meeting for either twenty-ve minutes
or forty-ve minutes…. I'm working more productively. I'm working much smarter. I have been more
focused throughout the day. I'm not getting to one o'clock and having a slump.” – Brenda
For many participants, increasing efficiency did not require a wholesale reorganisation of practices but rather smaller
scale change.
“We didn’t have to reshape how we worked. It was more that we had to decide between us how to
structure our days and our client work more eciently.” - Brian
Others reflected that the increase in productivity is partly due to being more strategic in terms of their organisational
skills, as the employees below describe.
“I guess I've been a lot more careful with my calendar. It is one thing in terms of planning, focus
time or identifying my priorities for the work week … So it's made me much more proactive in
planning. And yeah, not accepting every meeting that comes in.” - Chris
Several employees also commented that strategic changes at the organisational level, helped the employees to become
more productive, as the quote from Brenda below illustrates.
”The organisation has changed too. We had a very reactive way of working… We were very used to
being very busy all the time, and that was an issue. If you weren't wrecked by Friday evening, you
hadn't done a proper week's work. Now we have shifted away from that to be much more strategic
and eective in terms of the types of clients we take on and the work that we do for them”.
better 4 everyone
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
16
Table 5: Employee reports of work time reduction at trial end
Variable Measure Mean/Perc.
Trial participation Percentage reduced worktime 91%
WTR arrangement Percentage with one day off per week (out of employees on WTR) 95%

We found an increased level of control over their schedule. This is a multi-item scale from 1-5, which includes control over
days worked, number of hours, time off work and when each workday begins and ends. There is evidence of reduced
turnover intentions by 11% and a decrease in the share of workers with second jobs from 17% to 12%.
In addition, some other dimensions did not change, which is a welcome finding. Perhaps most importantly, on average,
the four-day week did not lead to an increase in the intensity or pace of work, as measured from baseline to endpoint. The
sample was split roughly evenly into three groups on this measure. While just over a third of employees did register an
increase, nearly as many had a decline, and the remainder had no change in their work intensity. In conjunction with reports
from the company, this suggests that the process of work re-organisation, and reductions in unproductive time, was
mostly successful.
This means that productivity and performance were not achieved via speedup, which is not generally a sustainable or
desirable strategy. We also found that the complexity of people’s work didn’t rise on average, which is another kind of
intensification. Just over 42% did have some increase in complexity, but 38% had a decrease, and the remainder had no
change. Another reassuring finding is that employees did not experience increased job insecurity, nor were they more
likely to be intending to leave their jobs. Women, in fact, reported increased feelings of job security, as will be discussed
in the next section. Somewhat surprisingly, self-reported absenteeism did not decline. And a very welcome finding from
a wellbeing perspective is that people did not use their day off to take on a second job–there was no increase in this
measure.
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
better 4 everyone
17
Variable Measure N Mean at Mean at Δ (abs) Δ (%) Sig.
baseline endpoint
Current work ability 0-10 (very poor to very good) 87 7.16 7.72 0.563 7.3% **
Schedule control 1-5 (very little to very much), 86 3.84 3.81 -0.023 -0.8%
four items
Turnover intentions 1-5 (strongly disagree to 86 2.24 2.01 -0.233 -11.4% +
agree strongly) to the
statement, "I am seriously
considering quitting or
changing my current job"
Second job Percentage with a 86 0.17 0.12 -0.058 -41.7% +
second job
^+p<0.1, *p<0.05, **<0.01, ***p<0.001 using paired-sample t-tests
Table 6: Workplace experiences: What changed

We also added a few retrospective questions in the endpoint survey, in which we asked people to look back to the
beginning of the trial and tell us how they thought things had changed. One difference from the before-and-after findings
discussed above stands out: There was a reported increase in the pace of work. Over half of employees thought their
pace of work increased, just over 36% thought it was the same. (A small group (4%) felt it decreased.) The original question
(reported above) is a two item scale that references working at very high speeds and to tight deadlines. So wording may
account for the different results. It’s also possible that the pace of work was a bit higher, but people had already adjusted,
and it no longer felt more intense, so the level from baseline to endpoint did not rise.
Similarly, respondents retrospectively registered a statistically significant, slight increase in the workload, although about
three-quarters reported no change.
better 4 everyone
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
18
Variable Measure N Mean at Mean at Δ (abs) Δ (%) Sig.
baseline endpoint
Work intensity 1-5 (never to all the time), 86 3.47 3.41 -0.06 -1.8%
two items: working at very
high speeds, working to
tight deadlines
Work complexity 1-5 (never to all the time), 86 3.69 3.70 0.01 0.3%
six items
Job security 1-4 (very to not at all) 85 3.64 3.66 0.02 0.5%
likelihood of being laid off
Work absenteeism 0-4 (0 to 10+ days absent 85 0.16 0.14 -0.02 -14.3%
from work due to sick or
health-related leave in
past 4 weeks)
^+p<0.1, *p<0.05, **<0.01, ***p<0.001 using paired-sample t-tests
Table 7: Workplace experiences: What didn’t change
Table 8: Retrospective questions on how employees experienced the trial
Variable: Measure N Mean Sig^
“As a result of the trial, did the
following change for you?”
Change in work pace (-1) decrease, 0 no change, 1 increase 85 0.56 ***
Change in workload (-1) decrease, 0 no change, 1 increase 85 0.14 **
***p<0.001

The desire to continue the new reduced work time schedule was universally echoed in the qualitative interviews as the
quote below from Carol illustrates:
“Life has gotten so much better, just a much better balance like, Oh, my God! Like, I don't know
how people who don't have it can function. Honestly, even now, when I look back on my own life,
I'm like, how was I able to manage to do anything like? Especially when you work a full-on and intense
job. [before the four-day week] I didn’t feel I had the time or capacity for all the other parts of my
life that needed attention. Having that extra day is a game-changer!”
5.2 Employee health and wellbeing
Overall, measures of wellbeing in the workplace show a strong pattern of improvement with the transition to the four-
day week, with statistically significant reductions in burnout, as well as significant increases in a feeling of job satisfaction.
As illustrated in table 10, we found that work stress (described on a five-point scale from “never” to “all of the time”)
decreased over the trial period. However, the magnitude of this change was small and insignificant (-0.1), suggesting that
in the first six months of working a four-day week, some participants noticed a reduction in stress levels, but this was not
a large shift or one experienced by all.
On the other hand, when asked about tiredness, exhaustion, frustration, and leisure time relating to burnout, participants
reported a large (-0.6) and significant reduction throughout the trial. Finally, job satisfaction was measured again on a 10-
point scale from 0, “completely unsatisfied”, to 10 “, completely satisfied”, increasing from a mean response of 7.0 out of
10 to 7.5. This improvement in mean score was statistically significant, demonstrating a shift to working four-days a week
was associated with an increase in the satisfaction employees gain from their job roles.
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
better 4 everyone
19
Another set of retrospective questions asked people about their overall experience of the trial. On a 1-10 scale where
zero was very bad, and ten was very good, the average score was 9.4, a very high level of satisfaction. When asked if they
wanted to continue, 100% said ‘yes’; they definitely wanted to continue.
Table 9: Overall experience with the trial and desire to continue
Variable Measure Mean
Overall experience with the trial (1-10 with 1 being extremely negative and 10 extremely positive) 9.4
Table 10: Changes in employee workplace wellbeing
Variable Measure N Mean at Mean at Δ (abs) Δ (%) Sig.
baseline endpoint
Work stress 1-5 (never to all the time)
over the past four weeks 87 3.1 3.1 -0.1 -3.2%
Burnout Seven-item scale, range:
1-5 (never to always) over
the past four weeks 87 2.7 2.1 -0.6 -22.2% ***
Job satisfaction 0-10 (not satisfied at all
to completely satisfied) 85 7.0 7.5 0.4 5.7% *
^+p<0.1, *p<0.05, **<0.01, ***p<0.001 using paired-sample t tests

We measured overall mental and physical health on a scale from 1-5, ranging from “very bad” to “very good” at the
beginning and end point of the trial. For this particular measure, we did not observe a statistically significant change.
However, participants did report a statistically significant reduction in anxiety and negative affect, as well as an
improvement in positive affect. Examining these results more closely, it becomes apparent that anxiety (measured in
frequency of experience ranging on a four-point scale from “never” to “daily'') reduced by -0.4 from 2.3 to 1.9 throughout
the trial. Negative affect (measured on a five-point scale), experienced a similar reduction, also falling by 0.4 from 2.3 to
1.9. Positive affect (also measured on a five-point scale) improved significantly throughout the trial, increasing from 3.1
to 3.7 (a 0.6 improvement). These results then pose the question as to why physical and mental health did not significantly
improve when affect shifted positively and the frequency of experiences of anxiety reduced. Perhaps the more all-
encompassing nature of mental and physical health made differences harder to observe, whereas, for components of
mental health, e.g. anxiety, changes were easier to quantify.
better 4 everyone
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
20
One reason for these positive changes in affect and anxiety may be the improvements in exercise, fatigue and sleep that
employees experienced. Comparing exercise frequency pre- and post-trial, we found a small increase from 2.7 to 2.8
times per week. We also found highly statistically significant improvements in fatigue, with the average fatigue score
falling from 2.6 to 2.1 (on a scale of 1-4, where 1 is “never” and 4 is “daily”). The prevalence of insomnia and general sleep
problems declined significantly, from 2.1 to 1.7. We find that the fraction of respondents who are “sleep deprived” (defined
by fewer than 7 hours per night) fell significantly, from 32.94% to 9.41%. However, readers should interpret these results
with caution due to possible seasonal variations in sleep.
Interviewees’ thoughts on how participation in the trial had shaped their sleep, diet, and physical and mental health varied.
Whilst some could trace the direct benefits of reduced worktime into healthier eating, increased exercising, and better
sleep, others found it more challenging to separate the influence of the trial from day-to-day life.
“I don't nd myself eating the same level of crap that I would have done before, because I'm not
constantly tired denitely.” - Ann
“My mental health has denitely improved. It’s great to just take some time for myself, be it taking
a walk, reading a book, or having lunch in town. My sleep patterns have not changed but that has
never been a problem for me.” - Brian
It is important to note that this trial took place in the shadow of a global pandemic which has had long-term physical and
mental health implications for the general population, as Carol explains below. This context undoubtedly shaped the
participants’ experience of worktime reduction.
“I had anxiety for the rst time ever in my life through Covid, and so that was tough. When we did
the trial, things were opening up…..it's such a unique time to do a four-day trial. I found that as
things opened up, I was getting sick because I was seeing people. And so yeah, in general, it's been
very busy. So I would say the day o has helped, but you know it's not as good as it could have
been.”- Carol
Table 11: Changes in employee health and wellbeing outcomes
Variable Measure N Mean at Mean at Δ (abs) Δ (%) Sig.
baseline endpoint
Physical health Self-rated on a scale of 1-5 86 3.5 3.4 -0.1 -2.9%
(very bad to very good)
Mental health Self-rated on a scale of 1-5 86 3.4 3.5 0.2 5.9%
(very bad to very good)
Anxiety 1-4 (never to daily) 86 2.3 1.9 -0.4 -17.4% ***
Positive affect 1-5, 5 items 85 3.1 3.7 0.6 19.4% ***
Negative affect 1-5, 3 items 85 2.3 1.9 -0.4 -17.4% ***
^+p<0.1, *p<0.05, **<0.01, ***p<0.001 using paired-sample t tests

Table 13: Changes in employee work–family/life balance
Variable Measure N Mean at Mean at Δ (abs) Δ (%) Sig.
baseline endpoint
Work-family balance 1-5 (very difficult to 56 2.9 3.9 1.0 34.5% ***
very easy) to combine
paid work with care
responsibilities
Work-life balance 1-5 (very difficult to 85 3.0 4.0 1.0 33.3% ***
very easy) to combine
paid work with social life
Work-to-family conflict 0-3 (never to several 71 1.5 1.2 -0.3 -20.0% **
times a week) too tired
from work to do
household jobs
Family-to-work conflict 0-3 (never to several 82 1.8 1.2 -0.6 -33.3% ***
times a week) difficulty
concentrating on work
due to family
responsibilities
^+p<0.1, *p<0.05, **<0.01, ***p<0.001 using paired-sample t-tests
The reduced working schedule is associated with positive changes at the interface of work and family/life. When asked
how easy it is to combine paid work with care responsibilities, the average score increased significantly from 2.9 to 3.9 on
a 1-5 scale, where 5 is “very easy”. Similarly, work-life balance increased by 1.0, rising from 3.0 at the start of the trial to
4.0 by the end. Also notable is that both work-to-family and family-to-work conflicts declined significantly following the
trial. For example, for the question of whether employees come home from work too tired to do some of the household
jobs which need to be done, the average score fell by 20%.
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
better 4 everyone
21
Table 12: Changes in employee sleep and exercise patterns
Variable Measure N Mean at Mean at Δ (abs) Δ (%) Sig.
baseline endpoint
Exercise frequency Times per week, taking the 86 2.7 2.8 0.1 3.7%
mean of five categories, 0,
(1-2)1.5, (3-4)3.5, (5-6)5.5,
(7+)7
Fatigue 1-4 (never to daily) 86 2.6 2.1 -0.5 -19.2% ***
Sleep problems 1-4 (never to daily) 86 2.2 1.7 -0.5 -22.7% ***
Sleep time Hours, taking the mean of
four categories, 0-3 (2),
4-6 (5), 7-9 (8), 10+ (10) 85 7.0 7.7 0.7 10.0% ***
Sleep deprivation Percentage with less than
seven hours of sleep daily 85 32.9% 9.4% -23.5% -71.4% ***
^+p<0.1, *p<0.05, **<0.01, ***p<0.001 using paired-sample t tests

Table 14: Changes in employee sleep and exercise patterns employee experiences: Increased satisfaction
Variable Measure N Mean at Mean at Δ (abs) Δ (%) Sig.
baseline endpoint
Life satisfaction 0-10 (not satisfied at 85 6.3 7.4 1.1 17.5% ***
all to completely
satisfied)
Satisfaction with 0-10 (not satisfied at all 85 6.3 6.9 0.6 9.5% **
household finances to completely satisfied)
Satisfaction with 0-10 (not satisfied at all 85 7.2 7.9 0.6 8.3% **
relationships to completely satisfied)
Satisfaction with time 0-10 (not satisfied at all 85 5.6 7.5 1.9 33.9% ***
to completely satisfied),
with the amount of time
you have to do the things
you like doing
^+p<0.1, *p<0.05, **<0.01, ***p<0.001 using paired-sample t tests
This positive finding in terms of balancing work/family life also emerged in the qualitative interviews. Parents consistently
reported that the reduced work time schedule allowed them to spend more time with their children as well as to take time
for themselves.
“I have two young children, so the weekends are taken up with them. Working four-days allows me
to take some time for myself.” – Brian
“If I had this 20 years ago when my son was in school, my life would have been so much simpler.” –
Ann
“Say this evening [Helen’s day o], my partner will nish work at half-four and we’ll go to collect my
daughter from the creche together. That’s quite precious time for two adults alone not chasing a
toddler around. It’s an amazing time we can spend talking about adult things.” – Helen
Similarly, respondents without children reported that the trial allowed them to spend more time with other family
members, such as parents, as both Fiona and Dave explain:
“Yeah, my mum, brother and sister live on the other side of the country so I have been able to head
o the weekend to see them because I've got that day to travel. Before it would be Friday, so I
wouldn't bother going because the trac was too bad.”- Dave
“My parents are older and recently they regularly say how good it is that I have this time to spend
with them now. So for that reason it's been really great.” - Fiona
In the questionnaire, we asked a set of questions to assess employees’ overall life satisfaction and satisfaction with specific
life domains. At the beginning of the trial, when asked how satisfied they were with their life, participants responded with
an average of 6.3 out of 10. This measure had a marked and statistically significant increase to 7.3 out of 10 (a 1.1-point
shift). Employees are also more satisfied with other domains of life, including household finances, relationships, and time.
Most notably, employees recorded an almost two-point increase in satisfaction with time (rising from 5.6 to 7.5), from
before the trial to after. The magnitude of this relationship was largest for women. Further gendered impacts will be
explored at the end of this report.
Participants in the trial reported how the four-day week afforded them greater ability to switch off from work and more
effectively engage with their personal and family lives. Through confining work in the week to four days, weekends became
opportunities to properly reset and move out of the headspace of work.
“I think the biggest thing is that it that it gives you time to really unwind.” – Andrew
“It’s given me more time to spend with my family members, and I think that the even greater benet
has been that it frees up my mental space for when I’m interacting with them. The mental load of
work doesn’t spill into your personal life.” – Helen
better 4 everyone
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
22

5.3 Time use on participants’ day off
In the midpoint survey, we asked employees to record each of the activities they engaged in, in 30 minute intervals, during
their most recent day off. As shown in Figure 4, employees allocated most of their waking time to leisure (6 hrs 16 minutes),
followed by housework and care work (4hrs 31 minutes) and personal maintenance (4hrs 5 minutes). Participants only
spent about one hour on their main job, and consistent with the result we show above, only 0.1 hours were spent on other
paid job(s). Overall, the trial appears to have provided a lot of time for employees’ self-care, housework and leisure.
These changes in time use were also reflected in the employee interviews. One employee used the time to study for
professional exams, and another trained for and completed two half marathons. Brian, a manager in a consulting firm,
noted that he sometimes spent the day with friends and occasionally just took time for himself. As the excerpt below
from Deirdre’s interview details, the four-day week allowed her to get on top of her personal life and carve out some time
to relax, which in turn impacted how she spent her weekends and how she interacted with her entire family.
“So before the trial, I would spend my Saturday and Sunday trying to get the house ready for the
following week. If I had to get anything done with my car, that would be done at the weekend. Hair
appointments would be made at the weekend, and shopping for anything needed for the house.
Everything was scheduled around a Saturday.
Now say, for example, on a Friday, I will get up in the morning, and I will drop my son to a creche. I'll
get to walk there and back. I'll put on a wash. I can clean out the fridge and look at what we need in
the press for food. Sometimes I go to the gym or go for another walk. Then I went to a food shop.
I sometimes schedule to get my nails and my hair done. Or I would meet a friend, maybe go over to
see my granny, and visit my grandad in the graveyard. So it's nice.
Then I collect my son early from the creche. Come home. We have a movie night on a Friday. We
watch a jungle book or whatever he wants to watch. Then on Saturday, we always go and do
something in the morning. I can now sit down and watch Netix whenever he takes a nap. I never
did that before….
Before the trial, I would never watch TV, I would have to catch up on jobs during naps. Then I would
be tired. I'd be a stress head getting anxious and annoyed and short-tempered because I'd have all
this stu to do, and then, before I knew it was Sunday and I’d have to get ready for the next week.
Before the trial that was the cycle, I was spending my whole time working and having family
responsibilities as well.”
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
better 4 everyone
23
Figure 3: Irish employees’ time use on day off
How do people tend to spend time on their additional day off? (minutes)
0 hours 5 hours 10 hours 15 hours 20 hours
376 271 245 80 34
Leisure activities Household work
and caring
Personal
maintenance
Work, education,
volunteering
Transit between
activities

5.4 COVID-19 and time-use
As discussed earlier, it is important to note that this research took place in early 2021 when Ireland was beginning to
emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic. For some, the pandemic's aftermath influenced how they spent their time. For
example, Carol felt that the aftermath of successive lockdowns limited her ability to use her reduced work schedule to
develop new pursuits because of a backlog in social engagements.
“So I got a keyboard for my birthday last year. I was going to learn, and I wanted to learn a language
or practice French, and then I wanted to volunteer but coming out of COVID and lockdowns meant
that it has been so busy socially. It's been the most mental year. We've had seven weddings and
loads of hen parties, so I'm just grateful that I had the other day o to get ready for all of these!”
It is important to note that lockdowns implemented by the government during COVID–19 led to increased levels social
isolation in Ireland. Those in Carol’s age group were particularly impacted. The Central Statistics Office found that almost
three quarters of those aged between 18 and 34 reported that their mental health was negatively impacted. Therefore,
the notable increase in levels of social engagement was reported by participants during the trial, which took place during
the reversal of social distancing restrictions. This is reflective of the specific termporal context of the Irish trial18.
Brenda explained building supply shortages associated with the pandemic complicated an ongoing house renovation and
limited her ability to make positive lifestyle changes. Though she did highlight that the extra day did give her time for some
self-care.
“Well, I didn't make the time, really, because any time that I did have went on the house, I was just
wrecked. So with everything that was going on I didn't put the extra time that I had into looking
after myself, but I'm hoping to now….I will say without the four-day week, I would never have
survived this year.”
For Brian, his day off was often spent looking after their children when they were sent home from childcare due to viral
symptoms. Like Brenda’s experience, the extra day off allowed him to deal with these COVID-19-related complications
that were critical to his and his partner’s wellbeing during this challenging period.
“I occasionally take my day o when the kids are sick. This has taken the pressure o both my wife
and me as I have the ability to pick up the slack when the kids have been sent home from creche or
if they have any symptoms. This has been a lifesaver during COVID!”
Given the employees’ reflections on the deleterious impacts of COVID-19 on their wellbeing, it is quite possible that the
gains in wellbeing associated with reduced worktime were lower due to the pandemic.
5.5 Gender differences in employee outcomes
Proponents of reduced work time highlight the promise of the policy for promoting gender equality. Because of caring
responsibilities, women tend to favour more flexible work arrangements, which WTR facilitates. In Ireland, 28.2% of
employed women compared to just 9.6 % work part-time . This gap is larger than the EU average20. Research has found
that part-time work limits women's career prospects and reinforce inequalities within the home21. A universal worktime
reduction policy has the potential offset these disadvantages because the program will be equally availed of by employees
regardless of gender. The rationale is that with more free time available, men may spend greater time on housework or
childcare, thereby narrowing the well-documented gender gap in unpaid domestic and care work.
Among respondents who have a partner, the move to four-day week did not change the household division of labour,
measured by respondents’ share of time looking after children or housework.
On the other hand there was also no significant difference in how men and women spend their day off. This is a promising
finding from a gender equity perspective, as in other national contexts, women were more likely than men to report
spending their additional free time on care and household work22.
better 4 everyone
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
24
20 Eurostat, “Employment Patterns.”
21 Jones, “Women’s Progression in the Workplace.”
22 Buhl and Acosta, “Work Less, Do Less?”

Meanwhile, we find evidence that childcare costs went down since the beginning of the four-day week trial. When asked
how the money they spent on childcare changed following the trial, the average response is -0.28 (-1 indicates decrease
and 1 indicates increase).
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
better 4 everyone
25
Table 15: Changes in couples’ division of labor, by gender
Variable Measure N Mean at Mean at Δ (abs) Δ (%) Sig.
baseline endpoint
Share of time looking 1 (more time than
after children: men partner), -1 (less less), 20 -0.55 -0.4 0.15 -27.3%
0 (same)
Share of housework: 1 (more than fair share),
women -1 (less than), 26 0.46 0.65 0.19 41.7%
0 (just about)
Share of housework: men 1 (more than fair share), 49 0.08 0.04 -0.04 -50.0%
-1 (less than),
0 (just about)
^+p<0.1, *p<0.05, **<0.01, ***p<0.001 using paired-sample t tests
Table 16: Changes in childcare costs
Variable Measure Mean Sig.^
Change in childcare costs (-1) decrease, (0) no change, (1) increase -0.28 **
^Significance is only for the six change variables by one-sample t test, **p<0.01
Examining variables relating to work illustrated some differing trends for men and women. First, feelings of being in control
of one’s work schedule moved in opposite directions: increasing in women by 0.28 points versus a 0.24 point decrease in
men, measured on a 1-5 scale from “very little” to “very much” (p<0.01). This difference may arise from transitioning to a
four-day week for men introducing insecurity into a routine. In contrast, women may instead experience this as being able
to choose a day off and better control their time. Second, only women report that they feel less likely to be laid off as their
perceived job security increased from 3.69 to 3.89 on a 1-4 scale over the trial (p<0.1). Finally, men reduced commuting
to work by car by 11% over the six months of the trial (p<0.05), with no evidence supporting similar for women.
Gendered differences also arose throughout the trial regarding life satisfaction, sleep, and positive affect. Women report
a significantly larger improvement in life satisfaction throughout the trial: an increase of 1.56 points compared with 0.843
points for men (p<0.1). Perhaps this is due to women also experiencing a significantly (p<0.1) larger increase in sleep (over
one hour per night) compared to just half an hour for men, and in positive affect improving by 0.86 on a five-point scale,
relative to 0.51. Notably, however, improvements are seen across all three variables discussed here for both men and
women. They are just greater in magnitude for women.

better 4 everyone
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
26
6.Environmental
footprint and
behaviour
The third category of expected benefit, after economic and social, is environmental, specifically climate benefit. As noted
above, prior research has found associations between shorter hours of work and lower carbon emissions. Studies of the
compressed workweek (four ten-hour days) have found lower energy use via less commuting and less organisational
energy use. In the 4DWG trials, we were interested in measuring employee and household carbon footprints. However,
carbon footprints consist of many types of energy use, both direct and indirect, and are difficult to measure. Most of the
existing calculators for individuals are not oriented to short-term changes. A new generation of personal calculators relies
on credit card data, which was unavailable for privacy reasons. We decided to focus on a few key areas comprising the
biggest energy expenditure sources which are household electricity, heating and cooling, gas purchased for driving, and
domestic and international travel. It is important to include both company and household changes, however, most
companies and individuals could not give us data. For companies, many felt unable to do so because their energy bills are
included in rental payments and/or they transitioned to being partly and/or fully remote before or during the trial. Similarly,
among the individual employees, questions on household energy use had a much lower response rate than the other
questions. We suspect the low response rate is due to the administrative burden of responding to this question. Further
complications arise in calculating energy usage in rental accommodation and larger family living arrangements. In addition,
there can be strong seasonality in household energy use and travel. We are still developing correction factors for those
metrics and will report them later. At this point, we have a limited number of metrics to share.
One important environment-related variable for which we have a high response rate is commuting. Here we see significant
decreases in the frequency and duration of commuting. Between the beginning and end of the trial, the fraction of
respondents who reported commuting to work by car fell by 3.45%, from 31.03% to 27.59%. The magnitude of this change
and the lack of statistical significance may be because many employees had been working remotely before the trial (73%).
A second commuting variable – the amount of time spent commuting – fell from 2.4 to 2.2 hours per week.
We also asked about leisure travel. We found a significant increase in the average domestic travel over the trial from 0.2
to 0.8 trips over the last four weeks. Similarly, international travel rose slightly from 0.2 to 0.5. We expected an increase
for seasonal reasons and not necessarily due to an increase in leisure time. The time use data suggests that participants
in this trial spent their off days in hobbies, housework and self-care. Though increased leisure time may contribute to
changes in travel patterns.
In an additional effort to gather data on energy use, we also asked respondents whether they thought their energy use
decreased, was unchanged, or increased over the trial period at the end of the trial questionnaire. The majority reported
no change. On the other hand, 64% of respondents also thought their leisure travel had gone up.
Table 17: Changes in energy use and leisure travel
Variable Measure Mean Sig.
Change in energy use (-1) decrease, 0 no change, one increase 0.37
Change in leisure travel (-1) decrease, 0 no change, one increase 0.62 ***
^Significance is only for the six change variables by one-sample t-test, **p<0.01

Finally, we measured changes in pro-environmental behaviour. We operationalise pro-environmental behaviour in three
ways: household behaviour, social behaviour and volunteering. For the first category of items, which included household
recycling, walking and cycling rather than driving, and buying eco-friendly products, we found a small but significant
increase in self-reports of these behaviours. Similarly, we also found increases in the other two domains of environmental
behaviour related to volunteering for environmental causes and social dimensions of environmental activism, including
sharing environmental information and educating others. Notably, we did not observe the same increases in pro-
environmental behaviour in employees outside of Ireland who also participated in this particular trial.
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
better 4 everyone
27
Table 18: Changes in pro-environmental behaviour
Variable Measure N Mean at Mean at Δ (abs) Δ (%) Sig.
baseline endpoint
Pro-environment 1-5 (never to always), 85 3.74 3.89 0.16 4.14% *
behavior: household 4 items: recycling,
buying eco friendly,
walking + cycling over
driving
Pro-environment 1-5 (never to always), 85 3.28 3.60 0.32 9.88% **
behavior: social 2 items, encouraging
others and educating
oneself about
environmental
protection
Pro-environment 1-5 (never to always), 69 1.57 1.93 0.36 23.06% *
behavior: volunteering 1 item
Commute time per week Number of hours spent 61 2.38 2.21 -0.17 -7.27%
per week commuting
Means of commuting Percentage commuting 87 0.31 0.28 -0.03 -10.97%
to work to work by car
Domestic travel Number of domestic 85 0.20 0.76 0.57 282.50% ***
trips taken in the past
4 weeks
International travel Number of round-trip 85 0.24 0.47 0.24 97.92% **
international flights
taken in the past 4
weeks
^+p<0.1, *p<0.05, **<0.01, ***p<0.001 using paired-sample t tests

7.Control group and
limitations
It is important to note that a pre and post intervention research design has some limitations. Namely, it is difficult to rule
out other factors that may have contributed to the changes we observed among the participants in the trial. One way to
overcome this limitation is to introduce a comparison or control group. The presence of control groups allows researchers
to confirm that study results are due to the changes in the key independent variable (in this case, the reduction in
worktime) rather than other factors. At the outset of the trial, two companies that were NOT implementing a reduced
work schedule agreed to share our base and endline survey with their employees so that we could statistically compare
if the results we observed among the employees in the four-day week trial were different from the results for the
employees that did not have a reduced work schedule (control group).
Unfortunately, only 23 employees from one organisation completed the base and endline survey. This low participation
rate limits the reliability of the comparison between the trial participants and the control group. With this caveat, we
observed the following differences in employee outcomes between the group that participated in the trial and the group
that did not (i.e. the control group):
lWe observed a decline in physical and mental health outcomes for the comparison group but not for the trial
participants
lEmployees’ perception of work/life and family/life balance decreased for the comparison group and
increased for participants in the trial
lOvertime work increased among participants in the comparison group but decreased for participants in the
trial
lWe observed a slight decrease in the number of employees that were sleep deprived in both the trial and
control group. However, the magnitude of this change was twice as large for participants in the trial
lThe amount of domestic and international travel increased at the same rate for both groups. This suggests
that the increase in leisure travel observed among trial participants may be partly due to seasonality and the
lifting of COVID-19 travel restrictions.
It is important to note that a pre and post-intervention research design has some limitations. Namely, it is difficult to rule
out other factors that may have contributed to the changes we observed among the participants in the trial. One way to
overcome this limitation is to introduce a comparison or control group. The presence of control groups allows researchers
to confirm that study results are due to the changes in the key independent variable (in this case, the reduction in wartime)
rather than other factors. At the outset of the trial, two companies that were NOT implementing a reduced work schedule
agreed to share our base and endline survey with their employees so that we could statistically compare if the results we
observed among the employees in the 4-day week trial were different from the results for the employees that did not
have a reduced work schedule (control group).
Unfortunately, only 23 employees from one organisation completed the base and ending survey. This low participation
rate limits the reliability of the comparison between the trial participants and the control group. With this caveat, we
observed the following differences in employee outcomes between the group that participated in the trial and the group
that did not (i.e. the control group).
Overtime work increased among participants in the comparison group but decreased for participants in the trial. We
observed a slight decrease in the number of employees that were sleep deprived in both the trial and control group.
However, the magnitude of this change was twice as large for participants in the trial. We observed a decline in physical
and mental health outcomes for the comparison group but not for the trial participants. Employees’ perception of work/life
and family/life balance decreased for the comparison group and increased for participants in the trial.
better 4 everyone
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
28

The amount of domestic and international travel increased at the same rate for both groups. This suggests that the
increase in leisure travel observed among trial participants may be partly due to seasonality and the lifting of COVID-19
travel restrictions.
While we have collected a large number of outcome variables from employees and a smaller number from companies, our
data collection and analysis have been limited in other ways. The Irish context's findings reflect a small subset of Irish
industries. In addition, the number of employees who participated in the trial was relatively small owing to the small size
of the participating organisations. Another limitation is from the company data. Many organisations do not collect detailed
performance or productivity data; as a result, we had to confine our company data gathering to a small number of metrics.
In future trials, we hope to expand our efforts in terms of sample size and diversity and complexity of the research design.
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
better 4 everyone
29

8. Conclusion
Proponents of the four-day week argue that it provides multiple benefits – to the organisations that implement this
innovative schedule, the employees who work it, and the climate. To assess these claims, we collaborated with 4 Day
Week Global and studied companies and employees piloting a four-day workweek with no reduction in pay. As we have
detailed throughout this report, the results of these trials have been overwhelmingly positive. The companies report that
they are extremely pleased with their performance, productivity and their overall experience. Employees express similar
sentiments. These are valuable pieces of information. However, our research design allows us to go beyond recording the
sentiments of those involved to quantify how the trial changed wellbeing and employee experiences, both at work and at
home. The before-and-after design is a far more accurate way of assessing impacts than retrospective data. We found
that the trial had profound effects. For the companies, relevant metrics showed high levels of success. Revenue rose on
average.
And on a wide range of outcomes, employees were far better off at the end of the trial than they were at the beginning.
They were less stressed and less burned out. Their satisfaction with their lives improved, generally and across various
domains. Their self-reports of work performance went up substantially, but not because they were sped up or worked
harder. The companies’ efforts to re-organise work successfully elicited productivity without speed-up.
These findings should serve as a strong signal to employers across many sectors that it is time to explore the possibility
of retiring the nearly hundred-year-old convention of the five-day, 40-hour week and begin to embrace a four-day, 32-
hour week.
better 4 everyone
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
30

Qualitative interview participants
Name Age Sex Relationship status Education Parent Child <18 Occupation
Ann 45-49 F Cohabiting partner Diploma yes 0 Business and
administration
professionals
Brenda 30-34 F Cohabiting partner Post- yes 1 Administrative
graduate and commercial
managers
Carol 30-34 F Cohabiting partner Post- No - Business and
graduate administration
professionals
Andrew 45-54 M Married Post- yes 2 Science and
graduate engineering
professionals
Deirdre 55-64 F Married Post- yes 0 Chief executives,
graduate senior officials
and legislators
Brian 35-44 M Married Post- yes 2 Business and
graduate administration
professionals
Elaine 30-34 F Married Post- No - Business and
graduate administration
professionals
Fiona 45-54 F Single Post- No - Chief executives,
graduate senior officials
and legislators
Chris 35-44 M Cohabiting partner Post- No - Science and
graduate engineering
professionals
Dave 30-34 M Cohabiting partner Post- No - Information and
graduate communications
technology
professionals
Helen 35-44 F Married Post- yes 1 Business and
graduate administration
professionals
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
better 4 everyone
31
9. Appendix A

10. Bibliography
Alderman, Liz. “In Sweden, an Experiment Turns Shorter Workdays Into Bigger Gains.” The New York Times, May 20, 2016,
sec. Business. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/business/international/in-sweden-an-experiment-turns-shorter-
workdays-into-bigger-gains.html.
“Anttila, Timo, and Jouko Nätti. 1999. ‘Experiments of Reduced Working Hours in Finnish Municipalities.’ Journal of Human
Resource Costing &amp; Accounting 4 (2): 45–61.= - Google Search.” Accessed November 15, 2022.
Bakker, Arnold B., and Evangelia Demerouti. “The Job Demands-Resources Model: State of the Art.” Journal of Managerial
Psychology 22, no. 3 (October 2006): 309–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115.
Barck-Holst, Peter, Åsa Nilsonne, Torbjörn Åkerstedt, and Carina Hellgren. “Reduced Working Hours and Stress in the
Swedish Social Services: A Longitudinal Study.” International Social Work 60, no. 4 (2017): 897–913.
Barnes, Coulthard. “Guidelines for an Outcome-Based Trial – Raising Productivity and Engagement.” Perpetual Guardian,
February 19, 2019. New Zealand. https://apo.org.au/node/220571.
Buhl, Johannes, and José Acosta. “Work Less, Do Less?” Sustainability Science 11, no. 2 (March 1, 2016): 261–76.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0322-8.
Coote, Anna, Aidan Harper, and Alfie Stirling. The Case for a Four-Day Week. Polity Press Cambridge, UK, 2021.
Eurostat. “Employment Patterns.” The life of women and men in Europe, 2020.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/infographs/womenmen/bloc-2b.html?lang=en.
Fitzgerald, Jared B., Juliet B. Schor, and Andrew K. Jorgenson. “Working Hours and Carbon Dioxide Emissions in the United
States, 2007–2013.” Social Forces 96, no. 4 (2018): 1851–74.
Fremstad, Anders, Mark Paul, and Anthony Underwood. “Work Hours and CO2 Emissions: Evidence from U.S. Households.”
Review of Political Economy 31, no. 1 (2019): 42–59.
Gallup, Inc. “State of the Global Workplace: 2022,” 2022. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-
workplace-2022-report.aspx
Hamermesh, Daniel S., Daiji Kawaguchi, and Jungmin Lee. “Does Labor Legislation Benefit Workers? Well-Being after an
Hours Reduction.” Journal of the Japanese and International Economies 44 (2017): 1–12.
Haraldsson, Guðmundur D, and Jack Kellam. “Going Public; Icelands Journey to a Shorter Working Week.” Alda and
Autonomy, June 2021. https://autonomy.work/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ICELAND_4DW.pdf.
Jones, Laura. “Women’s Progression in the Workplace.” United Kingdom: Global Institute for Women’s Leadership, Kings
College London, October 2019.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/840404/KCL_Main_
Report.pdf.
Knight, Kyle, Eugene A. Rosa, and Juliet B. Schor. “Reducing Growth to Achieve Environmental Sustainability: The Role of
Work Hours.” In Capitalism on Trial. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013.
Lepinteur, Anthony. “The Shorter Workweek and Worker Wellbeing: Evidence from Portugal and France.” Labour Economics
58 (June 1, 2019): 204–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2018.05.010.
Office of the Legislative Auditor General, State of Utah. “A Performance Audit of the Working 4 Utah Initiative,” July 2010.
Parrique, Timothée. “The Political Economy of Degrowth.” PhD Thesis, Université Clermont Auvergne�(2017-2020), 2019.
Pega, Frank, Bálint Náfrádi, Natalie C. Momen, Yuka Ujita, Kai N. Streicher, Annette M. Prüss-Üstün, Technical Advisory
Group, Alexis Descatha, Tim Driscoll, and Frida M. Fischer. “Global, Regional, and National Burdens of Ischemic Heart
Disease and Stroke Attributable to Exposure to Long Working Hours for 194 Countries, 2000–2016: A Systematic Analysis
from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-Related Burden of Disease and Injury.” Environment International 154
(2021): 106595.
Persson, Ola, Jörgen Larsson, and Jonas Nässén. “Working Less by Choice: What Are the Benefits and Hardships?”
Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 18, no. 1 (December 9, 2022): 81–96.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2021.2023292.
better 4 everyone
Assessing global trials of reduced work time with no reduction in pay: Evidence from Ireland
32

Front cover: 4 Day Week Ireland team.
Photo: Fennel Photography
Four Day Week Ireland
Four Day Week Ireland is a campaign advocating for a gradual,
steady, managed transition to a shorter working week for all
workers, in the private and public sectors.
Our medium-term objective is to move towards the four-day
week being the standard work arrangement across the economy,
with no loss of pay. As with the five-day week today, it will not be
the only work arrangement.
For some sectors, employments and workers, different variances
of reduced working hours and a shorter working week will need to
co-exist alongside the benchmark of the four-day week.
We have seen big changes in the ways we work and live.
Technology has removed barriers to new ways of working, and
employers have seen the benefit of allowing for flexibility among
their workforces.
These changes are leading to more efficient working practices,
now and in the future. We must make sure that these changes
work for workers, their families, and communities.
Website: www.fourdayweek.ie • Email: contact@fourdayweek.ie