The five-day working week has shaped European employment for generations. Yet changing expectations about work-life balance, persistent employee burnout, technological advances and a growing body of research have pushed an alternative model into mainstream debate: working four days a week without losing pay.

Experiments in Iceland, the United Kingdom, Portugal and Spain have produced encouraging results. Belgium has introduced a legal right for some employees to compress their normal weekly hours into four days, while employers across Europe are independently testing shorter schedules.

However, the phrase “four-day week” can describe very different arrangements. Some employees work approximately 32 hours for the same salary, while others compress 38 or 40 hours into four longer days. These models do not produce identical outcomes.

Could the genuine reduced-hours model become Europe’s new normal? The evidence suggests that it could become increasingly common, especially in knowledge-based and professional industries. But replacing the five-day week throughout Europe would require major changes in management, labour law, staffing and workplace culture.

What Is a Genuine Four-Day Working Week?

A genuine four-day week normally follows the “100-80-100” principle: employees receive 100 percent of their salary while working approximately 80 percent of their previous hours, in exchange for maintaining 100 percent of expected productivity or output.

This differs from part-time employment, under which workers usually receive lower pay. It is also different from a compressed working week, where an employee may complete 38 or 40 hours over four longer days.

That distinction is crucial. Four ten-hour shifts may provide an additional free day, but they do not reduce the total amount of work. Long daily shifts can create fatigue, childcare difficulties and health concerns, particularly for employees performing physically demanding work.

A reduced-hours model, by contrast, attempts to redesign work so that employees achieve comparable results in less time. It usually involves shorter meetings, greater use of technology, fewer unnecessary administrative duties and more concentrated periods of uninterrupted work.

Iceland Provided an Important Early Test

Iceland is frequently described as the country that successfully introduced a four-day working week. The reality is slightly more complicated, but its experience remains highly significant.

Between 2015 and 2019, Reykjavík City Council and Iceland’s national government conducted two large trials involving about 2,500 employees—more than one percent of the country’s working population. Participants generally moved from a 40-hour week to approximately 35 or 36 hours without a reduction in salary.

According to an analysis published by the Association for Sustainability and Democracy and the research organisation Autonomy, productivity and service provision remained unchanged or improved in most participating workplaces. Employees reported lower stress, reduced risk of burnout and a better balance between their professional and personal lives.

The Icelandic trials did not require every participant to work exactly four days. They were primarily experiments in shorter working hours. Nevertheless, the results helped unions secure reduced-hours agreements for a large share of the workforce.

Iceland therefore demonstrates that working time can be reduced without automatically damaging productivity. It also shows that lasting reform is more likely when trials are connected to collective bargaining and organisational redesign rather than treated merely as temporary employee benefits.

Britain’s Large-Scale Trial Strengthened the Case

One of the most widely discussed experiments took place in the United Kingdom from June to December 2022. Sixty-one organisations and approximately 2,900 employees participated in the six-month trial.

Researchers from the University of Cambridge, Boston College and Autonomy examined the results. The University of Cambridge reported that 71 percent of participating employees experienced lower levels of burnout, while 39 percent said they felt less stressed than they had at the beginning of the trial. Sick days also declined, and employee departures fell sharply.

Business performance was generally maintained. Among companies that supplied comparable financial information, revenue remained broadly stable and increased slightly on average. At the end of the experiment, most participating organisations decided to continue with the four-day arrangement, at least temporarily, and some adopted it permanently.

These results matter because the participating employers operated in different fields, including professional services, marketing, finance, education, healthcare-related services and charitable work.

However, the trial was not a fully representative sample of the British economy. Employers volunteered to participate and were therefore probably more open to flexible working than the average organisation. Many participants were also relatively small businesses in service or knowledge-based industries. The trial provides strong evidence of feasibility, but it does not prove that the same model can be introduced without difficulty in every occupation.

Portugal Recorded Improvements in Well-Being

Portugal launched a government-supported pilot in 2023 involving approximately 40 companies and more than 1,000 workers. Employers were not required to follow a single rigid schedule. Some offered one free day every week, while others adopted a nine-day fortnight or varied employees’ days off.

Portugal’s government reported that 95 percent of participating organisations viewed the trial positively. Researchers found that the companies reduced average working time without a corresponding collapse in performance.

The final pilot report also recorded notable changes in employee well-being. Among participants, the proportion of workers who often experienced end-of-day fatigue fell from 71 percent to 47 percent. Reports of frequent anxiety, fatigue, tension, depressive feelings and sleep problems also declined.

Importantly, the Portuguese experiment included a control group. This helped researchers distinguish changes associated with the trial from wider economic or seasonal trends. About 80 percent of managers considered the programme financially neutral, according to the University of Reading’s Henley Business School, and only one participating organisation reportedly needed to recruit additional workers specifically to complete the experiment.

The findings suggest that shorter hours can work outside Europe’s wealthiest northern economies. They also show the importance of allowing organisations to choose schedules that suit their customers and operations.

Belgium Chose Flexibility Rather Than Reduced Hours

Belgium introduced a legal mechanism in November 2022 allowing eligible employees to request a four-day or alternating working week. However, Belgium’s system is usually a compressed-hours arrangement rather than a 32-hour week with full pay.

A worker may perform the normal full-time weekly hours over four longer days. Employers can refuse a request but generally have to provide reasons.

This reform gives employees greater control over their schedules and may reduce commuting time. Yet it does not provide the same health or well-being advantages associated with a genuine reduction in working hours. Concentrating a full working week into four days may intensify work and make each day more exhausting.

Belgium’s experience therefore illustrates an important policy question: is the goal to reduce working time or simply to reorganise it? European governments and employers must be clear about which model they are offering.

Spain Has Used Public Funding to Encourage Trials

Spain has also experimented with shorter working time. In 2023, the Spanish government announced a €9.6 million programme for small and medium-sized industrial companies willing to reduce employees’ hours without cutting their salaries.

Public financial support was intended to help companies cover the costs of reorganising production, introducing new technology and managing the initial transition. The programme’s focus on industrial businesses was particularly relevant because much of the earlier four-day-week evidence came from offices and professional services.

Manufacturing presents different challenges. Machines, production lines and customer contracts cannot always be adjusted simply by shortening meetings or reducing email traffic. If a factory needs to operate continuously, shorter individual schedules may require additional shifts or workers.

Spain’s approach recognises that employers may need temporary assistance to redesign their operations before they can capture longer-term productivity benefits.

The Strongest Argument: Employee Well-Being

The most consistent finding across four-day-week trials is an improvement in employee well-being.

A peer-reviewed study published in Nature Human Behaviour in 2025 examined income-preserving four-day-week programmes involving 141 organisations and 2,896 employees. It found improvements in burnout, job satisfaction, mental health and physical health. The researchers identified reductions in fatigue and sleep problems, together with improved perceived work ability, as important reasons for these outcomes.

A three-day weekend gives employees more time for sleep, exercise, childcare, caring for relatives, education and social activities. It may also reduce the conflict between paid employment and unpaid domestic responsibilities.

For employers, better well-being can translate into lower absence, improved retention and stronger recruitment. In sectors struggling to attract skilled employees, a shorter week may be a powerful benefit even when competitors offer higher salaries.

Can Productivity Really Be Maintained?

The economic case for a four-day week does not depend on employees somehow performing five full days of tasks at greater speed. It depends on eliminating low-value work.

Participating organisations have commonly reduced meeting lengths, introduced meeting-free periods, improved software systems, automated repetitive duties and limited unnecessary internal communications. Employees are encouraged to protect periods of concentrated work and make decisions more efficiently.

There is also a difference between total output and hourly productivity. If employees produce the same amount in 32 hours that they previously produced in 40, output is unchanged but output per hour rises significantly.

The International Labour Organization notes that excessively long hours can reduce hourly productivity because of fatigue. The organisation has also argued that balanced working-time arrangements may help businesses reduce absenteeism and staff turnover while improving motivation and performance.

Nevertheless, productivity gains are not guaranteed. If management simply removes one working day while leaving all duties, targets and meetings unchanged, employees may experience greater pressure. A shorter week can easily become five days of work forced into four days.

Why Some Industries Will Find It More Difficult

A four-day week is easier to introduce where output is based on projects, analysis or creative work. It is more difficult in sectors that require continuous physical presence.

Hospitals, care homes, schools, shops, hotels, emergency services, transport networks and factories must continue serving the public throughout the week. Individual employees may work fewer hours, but the organisation may still need seven-day coverage.

In these fields, shorter hours may require:

• Rotating days off rather than closing every Friday.
• Additional recruitment or expanded part-time employment.
• Greater use of shift-based scheduling.
• Government funding for essential public services.
• Changes to professional staffing requirements.
• Careful consultation with workers and trade unions.

The model may also create inequality if highly paid office workers receive shorter weeks while lower-paid service employees continue working traditional schedules. Any national reform would have to consider how its benefits could be extended beyond professional and technology-based occupations.

Europe Does Not Yet Have a Common Four-Day-Week Policy

The European Union’s Working Time Directive establishes minimum protections covering rest, paid leave and maximum working time. In general, average weekly working time, including overtime, must not exceed 48 hours. The directive does not establish a 32-hour or four-day standard.

Working hours remain heavily influenced by national legislation and collective agreements. France has experience with a statutory 35-hour week, while countries such as Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands have comparatively low average annual working hours. According to the OECD, several European economies recorded fewer than 1,500 annual hours per worker in 2023, with Germany and Denmark below 1,400.

These differences mean that a single Europe-wide transition is unlikely in the immediate future. Change is more likely to occur through sector-specific agreements, voluntary employer schemes, national trials and collective bargaining.

Could It Become the New Normal?

A universal four-day week is unlikely to replace the five-day model across Europe in the next few years. The continent’s economies, labour laws and industrial structures are too diverse for a rapid, uniform transition.

However, the four-day week could become a normal—rather than unusual—employment option. Its strongest prospects are in technology, finance, marketing, administration, research, consulting and other fields where performance can be measured by results instead of hours spent at a particular location.

The most likely European future is not a single schedule applied to every worker. It is a more varied labour market consisting of reduced-hour weeks, nine-day fortnights, flexible shifts, compressed schedules and sector-specific arrangements.

The evidence so far suggests that genuine reductions in working time can improve health and job satisfaction without necessarily reducing output. But successful programmes require planning, employee participation and meaningful changes to working practices.

Europe’s debate is therefore no longer about whether a four-day week can work anywhere. Trials have shown that it can. The more important question is where it can work, how it should be designed and whether its benefits can be shared fairly across different industries and income groups.

If employers and governments can answer those questions, the four-day week may not become Europe’s only working model—but it could become an increasingly important part of the new normal.

Full References

1. Autonomy and Association for Sustainability and Democracy. “Going Public: Iceland’s Journey to a Shorter Working Week,” July 2021. Read the report.
2. University of Cambridge. “Would You Prefer a Four-Day Working Week?,” February 21, 2023. Read the UK trial findings.
3. Autonomy. “The Results Are In: The UK’s Four-Day Week Pilot,” 2023. Read the report.
4. Government of Portugal. “95% of Companies Assess Positively the Four-Day Week Experiment,” December 12, 2023. Read the government statement.
5. Gomes, Pedro, and Rita Fontinha. Four-Day Week: Results from the Portuguese Trial—Final Report, 2024. Read the complete report.
6. Henley Business School, University of Reading. “Results from Portugal’s Government-Backed Four-Day Week Trial Released,” July 18, 2024. Read the summary.
7. Reuters. “Spain Offers to Pay Companies Testing a Four-Day Work Week,” April 13, 2023. Read the report.
8. Eurofound. “Four Days a Week? Europe Debates Shorter Working Times,” 2025. Read the policy update.
9. European Union. Directive 2003/88/EC Concerning Certain Aspects of the Organisation of Working Time, November 4, 2003. Read the directive.
10. International Labour Organization. “Working Time and Work-Life Balance,” January 12, 2023. Read the transcript.
11. International Labour Organization. Guide to Developing Balanced Working Time Arrangements. Read the guide.
12. OECD. “Hours Worked.” OECD Data Explorer. View the indicator.
13. OECD. Compendium of Productivity Indicators 2025: Cross-Country Comparisons of Labour Productivity Levels, July 10, 2025. Read the analysis.
14. Fan, Wen, et al. “Work Time Reduction via a Four-Day Workweek Finds Improvements in Workers’ Well-Being.” Nature Human Behaviour, July 21, 2025. Read the peer-reviewed study.
15. KPMG Law Belgium. “Four-Day and Alternating Work Week: Not a Mere Discretionary Possibility of the Employer,” September 19, 2023. Read the legal explanation.