Scholarlink

<p>Working time reduction (WTR), particularly in the form of a four-day workweek, has emerged as a topical issue in the future-of-work discourse amplified by the Covid-19 pandemic. This is relevant from a sustainability perspective since WTR has long been considered as potentially beneficial for the environment. Utilising Framing Theory, we study the characteristics of the current online, written media discourse of WTR that matter for sustainability. Based on 3617 English language news pieces and 156 advocacy documents, we find that the discourse focuses on a single type of WTR which leaves aggregate production and consumption unchanged. This is the least adversarial type of WTR, but its environmental benefits are very limited. The presentation of its feasibility and impacts is overly positive and scientifically unfounded. We suggest that this hinders learning from difficulties and hides unavoidable conflicts of more widespread WTRs. To achieve more transformative change, we advocate for the inclusion of new voices, more confrontational strategies and a disaggregated view of the labour force.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Too good to be true: the English-language discourse of working time reductions and its implications for environmental sustainability

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月10日

查看全文
  • Benedikt Lehmann,
  • Zoltán Kmetty,
  • Miklós Antal

摘要

Working time reduction (WTR), particularly in the form of a four-day workweek, has emerged as a topical issue in the future-of-work discourse amplified by the Covid-19 pandemic. This is relevant from a sustainability perspective since WTR has long been considered as potentially beneficial for the environment. Utilising Framing Theory, we study the characteristics of the current online, written media discourse of WTR that matter for sustainability. Based on 3617 English language news pieces and 156 advocacy documents, we find that the discourse focuses on a single type of WTR which leaves aggregate production and consumption unchanged. This is the least adversarial type of WTR, but its environmental benefits are very limited. The presentation of its feasibility and impacts is overly positive and scientifically unfounded. We suggest that this hinders learning from difficulties and hides unavoidable conflicts of more widespread WTRs. To achieve more transformative change, we advocate for the inclusion of new voices, more confrontational strategies and a disaggregated view of the labour force.