In recent years, a growing number of companies have experimented with a four-day working week, in which employees work about 80 per cent of their usual hours for 100 per cent of their pay, on the condition that they maintain their output. Supporters argue that the model could transform working life. Critics warn that its benefits may be exaggerated.
The most widely reported trials have produced striking results. In one large study involving several dozen organisations, most companies chose to continue the four-day week after the trial ended. Employees reported less stress, better sleep and fewer days off sick, while company revenue remained broadly stable. For businesses struggling to recruit, the promise of an extra day off can be a powerful attraction.
Yet these findings come with important caveats. Companies that volunteer for such trials may already be enthusiastic about flexible working and well suited to it. Their success may not be representative of all workplaces. Moreover, many of the participating organisations were offices or creative businesses, where output is relatively easy to reorganise. In hospitals, schools or factories, where staff must be present to deliver a service, reducing hours without hiring more people may simply be impossible.
There are also questions about what happens in the long term. Early enthusiasm can fade, and the pressure to fit five days of work into four may eventually lead to longer, more intense working days, cancelling out the benefits to wellbeing.
None of this means the idea should be dismissed. It does suggest that the four-day week is less a universal solution than a tool that may suit some sectors far better than others. The challenge for policymakers is to learn from the trials without assuming that what worked for a marketing agency will work for an emergency ward.
