Iceland’s experience with shorter working hours offers a practical test of whether employees can work less without sacrificing pay or workplace performance. Trials involving more than 2,500 workers between 2015 and 2019 reported that productivity and service provision remained stable or improved in most participating workplaces. The results helped establish Iceland as a prominent example in the international debate over working-time reform, although the details matter when assessing what the country actually achieved.
The trials were conducted by Reykjavík City Council and the national government. Participants worked in a variety of settings, including preschools, offices, social service providers and hospitals. Many moved from a 40-hour working week to 35 or 36 hours without a reduction in pay. The scale was significant: the programme included roughly 1% of Iceland’s working population, according to the research organisations cited by the BBC.
Workers reported lower stress and a reduced risk of burnout, alongside improvements in health and work-life balance. Participants also said they had more time for family, hobbies and household responsibilities. These reported experiences suggest that working-time reform can affect everyday life as well as the organisation of work. However, the findings do not establish that every workplace would experience the same benefits under a shorter schedule.
One important distinction is that a shorter working week does not necessarily mean working four days instead of five. The Icelandic trials largely reduced weekly hours, rather than requiring all participants to compress their work into four days. The programme therefore provides evidence about shorter hours and workplace performance, but it should not be treated as proof that a universal four-day schedule would work equally well across every occupation.
The trials nevertheless had consequences beyond the participating workplaces. According to the BBC’s account of research by UK think tank Autonomy and Icelandic organisation Alda, the results contributed to union negotiations over working patterns. By the time of that report in 2021, researchers said 86% of Iceland’s workforce had either moved to shorter hours for the same pay or gained the right to negotiate them. That figure describes a combination of existing arrangements and negotiated rights, rather than a guarantee that every worker had adopted a four-day week.
The range of participating workplaces is particularly relevant to discussions about public services. Preschools, hospitals and social service providers cannot simply stop serving people on an additional day off. Any move to shorter hours in such settings must account for staffing, continuity of care and service demand. The reported results show that improvements were possible in many participating workplaces, but the available account does not provide detailed, occupation-by-occupation measurements of staffing costs or service outcomes.
For Iceland, the central lesson is therefore more precise than the slogan of a four-day week suggests. Shorter working hours with unchanged pay were achievable in a substantial public-sector trial, and most participating workplaces maintained or improved productivity and service provision. The evidence supports considering carefully designed reductions in hours, while leaving room for different arrangements across sectors. It does not establish that every employee can work exactly four days, or that every employer can make the same change without further evaluation.
