Rewarding “Good” Companies—How the Economy for the Common Good Wants to Change the World

The Economy for the Common Good (ECG) is an alternative to the existing economic model of capitalism, including the pursuit of profit and constant growth. The ultimate goal is a good life for all people. The idea: the state supports companies that produce in an environmentally friendly way and pay their employees fairly. Through favorable loans and tax breaks, they receive a clear advantage and can thus operate even more successfully. Piece by piece, this could lead to a sustainable and socially just economic system.

Let’s imagine that a small café, a local carpentry shop and a family bakery are suddenly more successful than the branches of the large global corporations. The reason: the state supports them with favorable loans, investment aid and tax breaks because they operate more sustainably, socially and fairly. The corporations, on the other hand, have to pay higher taxes because they exploit their employees and destroy nature. This deliberately gives small businesses a clear advantage over corporations and enables them to assert themselves on the market with their fair and sustainable products.
A utopia? From today’s perspective, yes. But in the sense of the Economy for the Common Good, this is what our economic reality could look like. 
[embedded content]
Economy for the Common Good Explained: What is it?
The Economy for the Common Good (ECG) is an alternative to the existing economic model of capitalism. The primary goal is a good life for all people, and not the maximum enrichment of a few company owners. It is an ethical market economy based on basic human values. The focus is on human dignity, solidarity and justice, ecological sustainability, transparency and co-determination. Values that are also shared by almost all democratic constitutions. 
One of the strengths of the Economy for the Common Good is that it links to core elements of the capitalist market economy: corporations, credit, trade, markets, property. However, it transforms these elements by consistently placing them at the service of overarching values—human dignity, solidarity, justice, sustainability, democracy. It is therefore transformation and evolution, not “disruption” or “system change.” (Christian Felber, founder of the Economy for the Common Good)
These overarching values are only a proposal. The concept envisages that they will be (further) developed jointly in a democratic process. 
Sustainability for People, Environment, and Economy
The Economy for the Common Good understands sustainability as being, not only the resource-conserving use of nature, but also respect for human dignity as well as free and successful economic activity as part of an ethical market economy. 
The three Pillars of Sustainability

 Upholding human dignity
Respectful treatment of nature
Entrepreneurial freedom and success within the framework of an ethical market economy
ECG leads to more sustainability, as it promotes those companies that operate in an environmentally friendly and socially responsible manner. Through loans, investments and tax breaks, they gain a clear advantage over others and thus prevail with their products on the market.
Following this simple principle, it would simply no longer be worthwhile to disregard human dignity, destroy the environment or drive inequality in society for the profits of a few. Step by step, this could lead to an economic system in which careful use of our finite resources pays off—while reckless and exploitative behavior does not. 
Many people are now looking for meaningful work. Sustainability is particularly important—especially among the younger generation. This is another advantage for companies that focus on the common good: many of their employees feel significantly more satisfied  they see their work as making a contribution to the common good.
The “common good balance sheet” measures exactly how much a company contributes to the common good. 
Common Good Economy Goals: Democratize the economy
Through a new economic order and a fundamentally new way of thinking about business, the common good economy aims to achieve a good life for all. This is its ultimate goal. Everything is to be discussed anew and decided democratically:
ECG Goals: Democratize the Economy

Should a CEO really earn 300 times as much as an employee? Or wouldn’t 10 times be fairer? Of course, there should be more pay for more responsibility. But at the moment there is a lack of proportionality. Because such high salary differences endanger social cohesion.
Shouldn’t toxic sprays be banned altogether, even if a global corporation is resisting one  with all its might? After all, every single person bears the health consequences. Wouldn’t it be fairer if they were the ones to decide?
Eight billionaires own more than the poorer half of the world’s population. Is that still fair? Or do we need a wealth cap, higher inheritance taxes and a fairer distribution of property?
How high should the minimum wage be? Is 12 euros per hour (Germany) enough? Is it okay that there is none at all in Austria?
The Economy for the Common Good wants to put control over our future back into the hands of democracy. An accumulation of capital, money and consequently power should only be possible to a limited extent. Where this limit lies, all people should decide together.
The common good balance sheet: This is how it is assessed
With the common good balance sheet, a company, university, city, or municipality can measure its contribution to the common good.
Contribution to the Common Good

Are the raw materials used mined in an environmentally friendly way?
Are there human rights violations in the supply chains?
Does the customer benefit take precedence over the company’s own sales aspirations?
Are all those involved paid fairly?
Is transparency ensured in dealings with employees?
One of these companies is the sporting goods manufacturer Vaude. Vaude pays attention to the highest ecological standards in textile production. With the Common Good balance sheet, the company can measure the resulting contribution to the common good. 
The Common Good Matrix (graphic: www.ecogood.org/)
The Common Good Balance Sheet is based on the Common Good Matrix and rates companies in 20 categories with + or – points. Plus points are awarded, for example, for resource-conserving and environmentally friendly business practices, fair wages and social working conditions. Minus points, on the other hand, are awarded for environmentally harmful behavior or disregard for human rights. The more plus points a company has, the more it contributes to the common good. 
The Economy of the Common Good advocates that such a balance sheet would be mandatory for companies and, above all, would have legal and economic consequences. Companies with a high score would receive certain advantages, such as lower taxes, more favorable investments, or would be given preference in the awarding of public contracts. This would create concrete incentives to operate and produce in a sustainable and socially responsible manner.
Around 1,000 companies in 35 countries are already drawing up a common good balance sheet and have decided to pursue social goals beyond mere profit maximization. These include well-known companies such as Vaude, Sonnentor, Windkraft Simonsfeld, the Trumer brewery and the Freistadt brewery community.
Pros & cons of the Economy of Common Good: advantages and disadvantages for society
The basic values of the common good economy (human dignity, solidarity, justice, sustainability, and democracy) result in the following benefits: Pros & Cons of the Economy of the Common Good

Sustainability: By committing to sustainable and resource-conserving production, we save our planet. 
Transparency: The common good balance sheet makes the behavior of companies comprehensible and transparent for society. 
Solidarity and justice: Social cohesion and solidarity with one another grow as inequalities and injustices are reduced. 
Equality of opportunity: A wealth cap (for legal entities: e.g., a limited liability company, stock corporations or trade associations) reduces the differences between rich and poor. This leads to greater equality of opportunity. This is because wealth and private ownership contribute significantly to economic, social and also political inequality in a society. Today, the rule is: those who are rich get richer. Those who are poor remain poor. 
More democracy: In Austria, 90 percent want a new economic order—in Germany, the figure is 88 percent (Bertelsmann Foundation survey, 2012). People want change, but in the current model they have no voice. It’s quite different in the common good economy: here, they would vote together on every aspect of the economy. Everything would be up for debate: Is it fair, for example, for a manager to earn 300 times that of a regular employee? Wouldn’t 10 times be enough?     
Less lobbying: Lobbying and corporate influence on political decisions would simply no longer be possible, as the common good would be the ultimate goal. As a result, global corporations and extremely wealthy individuals would lose the basis of their power and influence. 
Human dignity: No more exploitation, as the economic consequences (more taxes and duties) would make it no longer worthwhile.
Disadvantages would arise mainly for those who exploit the current situation and profit from the fact that people and the environment are exploited, that political influence is possible and that there are no real consequences for it (yet).
The Criticism: The Effort and the limited Freedom
The Austrian Chamber of Commerce criticizes the bureaucratic effort that this could create. Not only would one have to draw up a common good balance sheet for every company, but one would also have to define the tax and social advantages and disadvantages that result from this. 
But if you think back, you will see that the introduction of general accounting also involved a lot of effort. So should we really ask ourselves whether it would be too burdensome? Or shouldn’t we better ask: does a company benefit the environment, peace, people? Does it contribute to the general welfare of society, or does it do more harm?
[embedded content]
Of course, a new balance sheet would be a costly undertaking—but one that would be worthwhile for companies and society. It would help them reflect on their own actions, classify them and, if necessary, adjust them to contribute to a better society. Which, at the end of the day, is also in their best interest. 
It is also often criticized that the common good economy would restrict the freedom of companies and individuals too much. However, it is questionable how much of a restriction there can be when entrepreneurial freedom means the exploitation of people and nature. 
Our society is built on restrictions—that’s the only way coexistence and freedom work. For example, we do not race through the inner city at 200 km/h because that would be too dangerous for everyone involved. We also do not solve conflicts with violence, but in court. Restrictions are necessary—but only we as a society should decide on them.
The Economy for the Common Good: Examples
Worldwide, there are nearly 60 practicing cities and communities, 175 active regional groups, and 200 universities committed to the common good economy. These people have chosen it because they no longer want to watch large corporations destroy the environment and erode democracy. They want to see meaning in their work again, and working together for a better society gives them just that. The reasons and the exemples for their commitment are numerous and could not be more different, but they all have one thing in common: dissatisfaction with the current situation and the will to change something. 
Good Practices:

Valencia: Since 2021, the autonomous region has been promoting companies that produce sustainably and that have drawn up a common good balance sheet. A total of 700,000 euros in funding will be awarded.
Hamburg: In the future, public companies will be required to comply with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. To monitor compliance, they are to draw up a common good balance sheet.
Common good balance sheet in banks: Vorarlberger Landesversicherung, Raiffeisenbank Lech and Dornbirner Sparkasse already prepare common good balance sheets. The pioneer in Germany was Sparda-Bank München. Former Chairman of the Board Günter Grzega: “In the course of our common good reporting, my successor abolished all bonus payments at Sparda-Bank München. As a result, two out of a total of 700 employees left the company. And that was a good thing.”
Common Good account: The “Gemeinwohl Konto” is a cooperative project between the “Genossenschaft für Gemeinwohl” and the environmental center of Raiffeisenbank Gunskirchen. The goal is to use money specifically for undertakings that serve the common good and thereby contribute to a change in the monetary and financial system. This is made possible by a rather simple step: a separate accounting cycle guarantees that money to the value of all deposits in common good accounts is allocated as financing for common good-oriented projects. This way, all account holders know that their money contributes to the common good.
Faced with the climate crisis, the gap between rich and poor, and the crisis of confidence in politics and democracy, transforming the current economic system towards a common good economy could defuse, if not solve, many global problems.
Constraints will result from this. However, these restrictions will not curtail our freedom, but will set in motion a democratic process that can make all our lives better.  Läs mer…

Black Friday: Amazon employees protest for better working conditions

On Black Friday, in over 40 countries, Amazon employees protested to draw attention to the poor working conditions in the distribution centers. With the “Make Amazon Pay” initiative, the workforce is demanding higher wages and better working conditions. Although the company is making record profits, many of its employees can barely live on their salaries. 
For many, “Black Friday” is simply a day on which to look for a bargain or two. For the Amazon workforce, it is a day of worldwide strikes and protests to draw attention to the miserable working conditions in the distribution centers. In the past, the poor working conditions in the Amazon distribution centers have repeatedly made headlines: employees are poorly paid, monitored and put under pressure.
[embedded content]
 Over 80 organizations have joined together to stage protests from Mexico to India in countries around the world. This is the third year that people around the world have united against the exploitative methods of the major corporation. 
The “Make Amazon Pay” initiative, for example, is trying to use the day for strikes and rallies to support the fight for fair working conditions. They accuse the company of squeezing “every last drop out of workers, communities, and the planet” and seek to end this injustice. 

Today, on #BlackFriday, we start our @organizeAWAS campaign against the surveillance of workers in all parts of @AmazonDE. We fight back against constant tracking of every move, be it in fulfillment centers, parcel delivery, data centers or office work. #MakeAmazonPay 1/4
— Amazon Workers Against Surveillance (@organizeAWAS) November 26, 2021

Despite 470 billion in sales: Amazon employees still poorly paid
In 2021, the online retailer Amazon generated sales of around 470 billion US dollars—which is roughly equivalent to the entire economic power of Austria. However, the employees of the major corporation feel relatively little of the record profits. In some cases, the low wages are barely enough to survive reasonably well. 
Amazon exploits not only its own workers, but also the public. In 2021, the online retailer did not pay a single cent in income tax in Europe, instead pocketing tax refunds.
System error: Amazon fires employees in case of illness
In the USA, Amazon employees have been paid less or even fired when they are sick, according to a report in the New York Times. The reason for this was a system error, according to the company. The sick days were interpreted as days of absence. The company is trying to find and compensate those affected. 
Amazon mobilizes against unionization in Alabama
In early 2021, Amazon workers* in Alabama began to band together to form a union and  fight grievances. The company financed a mobilization campaign instead of supplying better working conditions itself. In conferences, the management openly spoke out against the formation of a union. Flyers on toilets or a dedicated homepage were supposed to convince employees that wages were already sufficiently high.
Employees in Staten Island formed Amazons first ever Union. (Photo: Amazon Labour Union_Twitter)
First Amazon union ever, founded in Staten Island
But this is slowly changing: Not much later, a union was successfully founded for the first time at Amazon in a distribution center in Staten Island—despite immense resistance from the company’s management.  Läs mer…

Interview – Andrew Barnes: “The reality is the 4-day-week works everywhere!”

Four years ago, New Zealand’s trust company Perpetual Guardian introduces 4-day week to work less for the same pay. The attempt was so successful and the worldwide response so enormous that director Andrew Barnes and a colleague founded an international lobby organization for the 4-day week: 4 Day Week Global. In an interview with Kontrast, founder Andrew Barnes says the 4-day work week is an opportunity to change the world. 
The “4 Day Week Global” works with leading universities, such as Boston College, the University of Queensland or the University of Sydney, among others, and have already reached 5.5 billion people witThe non-profit platform has accompanied countless attempts to reduce working hours around the globe, including the largest attempt in the UK.h their campaign. 
[embedded content]
AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF THE 4-DAY WEEK IN OUR OWN COMPANY: THE GLOBAL MEDIA ECHO WAS ENORMOUS
Kontrast: Why did you co-found the organisation 4 Day Week Global?
When we ran the 4-day week trial in our own company, Perpetual Guardian, in 2018, there was a huge global response that we didn’t expect. And not just media-wise, but literally thousands of companies got in touch and asked, “How did you do it? What did you learn from this?” And so a colleague and I decided to share our experience with others.
When we announced the final results and that we would keep the 4-day week after the pilot phase, there was another huge media response. At that point, we said to ourselves, this is bigger than us—we need to start an organization. Since then, we have been supporting companies to introduce measures like the four-day week, lobbying governments and doing research on working time reduction.
I believe that the impact on society and workers is so positive that we should work for it. You don’t get many chances to change the world.
80 PERCENT OF EMPLOYEES WORLDWIDE WANT MORE FREE TIME
Kontrast: Why do you think the reaction was so enormous?
I think, first of all, it was probably a day when there wasn’t much else going on and everyone was thinking, what the hell are those crazy New Zealanders doing? But basically I think two things happened. One, it hit the zeitgeist. I think 80% of working people around the world, regardless of their culture, also think that they would like to have more free time. And secondly, the pandemic came and changed a lot of things. I believe that people, both employers and employees, are now questioning the way they worked before the pandemic and are looking for different solutions. The pandemic proved that you can do things differently.
Another reason the Perpetual Guardian trial got so much attention worldwide was that we accompanied the trial with independent research. So it wasn’t just me sitting there saying, “Hey, that was good.” It was an independent academic study that said, “These are the results, and these are statistically important deviations from what we saw before. So I think ultimately the research is helping to prove the benefits of the 4-day week. The narratives from the individual companies are also helpful, but it’s the combination of these two factors that I think underscores that we’re on to something big. The idea is much more robust than you might think.
LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES OF THE 4-DAY WEEK: DOUBLE PRODUCTIVITY, HALVED SICK DAYS, LOWER COSTS
Kontrast: So it all started with the trial at Perpetual Guardian in 2018. Can you explain what has happened since then?
In November 2018, we made the reduction in working hours permanent at Perpetual Guardian. We have found that productivity has remained high. I think we are twice as productive per capita as one of our nearest competitors. We haven’t experienced the backsliding that people fear when you permanently reduce working hours. We have found that it is easier to attract and retain good staff.
Our sick days have been halved. And of course our costs are also lower because we no longer need so much space and our electricity bills are lower.
Internationally, we have seen four-day week grow globally from a few staff exchanging ideas over the internet to a global organization now running trials in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Spain, Portugal, South Africa and Israel. We have influenced legislative changes in the US, Romania, Lithuania, Belgium, Russia, Japan, and India. We know that there are now governments in Scotland, Wales, Central and South America actively considering how to introduce a four-day week. And then there is the United Arab Emirates, which has actually done it.
More and more countries are launching pilot projects for the 4-day week. Most recently, Scotland has announced that it will pilot the four-day week—following models from Iceland and New Zealand. (Photo:Ross Sneddon on Unsplash)
Larger and larger companies are also coming out of the woodwork and starting to actively think about how they can attract and retain good employees. Because flexible working at home is no longer enough. Unilever, for example, has announced that their successful trial in New Zealand will now be rolled out in Australia. There are companies like Volkswagen that have been doing it for a while. Panasonic is doing it too. There are organizations like a bank in the UK that is doing it.
The 4-day week has evolved from a fringe idea in 2018 to one that has now entered the mainstream. It is not necessarily accepted by the mainstream, but it is clearly being discussed in the mainstream.
Kontrast: Would you say that there are mainly similarities or differences between the countries?
Well, I think in the 21st century, there are more similarities than differences between countries. As the world has by and large industrialized and developed, the problems you face in a country like Malaysia, Bangladesh, or India are in many ways no different from those you see in the US or the UK. Of course, that is not true for the whole economy. But I am pretty sure that the problems faced by many of the Bangalore-based tech companies are exactly the same as the problems faced by tech companies in Silicon Valley, for example.
I think that’s why the Four Day Week campaign has now reached about five and a half billion people worldwide.
We have talked about the four-day week in over a hundred countries. It is not something that is focused on the 27 European countries, North America, Australia, and New Zealand. In the course of our pilot project in South Africa, companies from four or five other African countries have also come forward and said they are interested in participating. This is not a Western world problem. It is much more than that.
GREAT BRITAIN: MAJOR TRIAL SHOWS VERY POSITIVE RESULT IN INTERIM REPORT
Kontrast: When we talk about the process in the UK, the biggest process ever is now almost in its final stages. What do you expect next here?
We don’t have the results yet, of course, but in the midterm phase we sampled some of the companies that participated in the study, and we got the usual results, which is that the overwhelming number of companies say, “This is really fantastic, and we’re going to keep it.” They see higher productivity, higher employee engagement and lower employee stress.
I would be very surprised if the pattern of other attempts is not repeated. There are now probably thousands, if not tens of thousands, of companies around the world that have introduced a four-day week. And there is a consistent message coming from them. And if you think about it, it’s not surprising. I mean, who would have thought that healthier, happier, more rested and more engaged employees would be more productive… It’s obvious, right?
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES, STATE-OWNED ENTERPRISES AND PRIVATE COMPANIES: 4-DAY WEEK BRINGS CLEAR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
Kontrast: Looking at the examples and trials, are there differences between the public and private companies?
At the end of the day, it is sometimes more difficult for a public company to introduce a four-day week because it has to get different stakeholders on board. In a private company, it can simply be decided by the owner of the company. But it can be done. There are now some local authorities that will try a four-day week, for example South Cambridge Council in the UK. They have come under quite a bit of fire in the right-wing media, and they will be scrutinized. It’s a very brave move. I think they will prove that it works, but it takes a very committed council or local authority or government to do it.
I think that at the country level, you are starting to see that the global labor shortage is going to lead to governments increasingly asking themselves how they can make their region or state more competitive. An example of this is the Premier of the Australian state of Victoria, who has announced that if he wins the election, he will introduce the four-day week throughout the state of Victoria. This is his way of attracting talent to Victoria at the expense of other Australian states. So it’s becoming a competitive issue.
The biggest risk a country or a company can take now is that they will not introduce the 4-day week. Their biggest risk is that their biggest competitor does it first.
The first one to move gets the headlines, the recognition, the choice of employees—everyone else then has to catch up.
RETHINKING THE WAY WE WORK MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO REDUCE WORKING HOURS IN THE SERVICE SECTOR AS WELL
Kontrast: Would you say that the four-day week can also be implemented in the service sector, e.g., in the care sector, in schools, in the health sector? There are reservations that productivity cannot be increased there as easily as in industry or in the digital sector…
There are examples here too. 1,600 school districts in the United States have already introduced the four-day week. But I think the best answer to this question is a trial in the United Kingdom. There, surgeons at St Thomas’ Hospitals put together a medical team that was one and a half times the size of a normal medical team. They had two operating theaters, which they ran in tandem. In this way, they managed to perform a week’s worth of operations in one day because they were able to optimally utilize the capacity.
We could even introduce the three-day week with this model—with the same number of operations. If you think about it, it means rethinking healthcare.
We are a bit in the situation where people say, well, you can’t possibly do it. If you don’t believe that you can do it, if you believe that what we are doing today is the pinnacle of human achievement, you will never be able to improve.
But if you think there must be a better way, then we should reconsider. There are pioneers who show that the 4-day week is possible. For example, a restaurant chain in Spain or a fish and chips place in England. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily easy, but once you get people thinking differently, then all the possibilities open up.
Kontrast: So there are many examples that show that working time reduction in the service sector is possible, but is there also data that proves that it actually works well?
That’s why we are doing the pilot programs all over the world. I can tell you company after company that says, “We did this, and we have an improvement.” But the problem with that is that there is no standard method of analysis. So when we put the studies together—and that’s why we have a global research program—the idea is that we are able to measure in a consistent way the impact on companies and their employees. That way we can get a global picture. When we have completed all these pilot programs, we will have very meaningful data that will show how it affects people—across cultures, countries, and industries.
RISK OF COMPRESSED WORKING HOURS? PEOPLE ONLY PRODUCTIVE FOR THREE HOURS A DAY ACCORDING TO STUDIES
Kontrast: You advocate the 100-80-100 model, which means 100 per cent of the wage, 80 per cent of the time, but for 100 per cent of the productivity. Isn’t there a danger here that the compression of working time will lead to more stress, pressure, and dissatisfaction with the job?
The research results show that people are less stressed. In Unilever’s recent report on their study in New Zealand, the data suggests that people are talking about compressed working hours. But global research shows that people are actually only really productive for two and a half to three hours a day. So out of an eight-hour day, five hours are “fluff”, five hours while you are busy but not necessarily productive.
Statistically, you are interrupted every 11 minutes and need 22 minutes to become fully productive again. So if you give someone one hour of intensive work without being interrupted, that is equivalent to three normal time-outs.
If I skip one day, my other days are much more productive, and actually I don’t even have to work every hour and every minute of the four days. I actually only have to spend 45 minutes of extra productivity on each of the four days to make up for the fifth day. So I work three hours and 45 minutes and I still have four hours to hang out at the water cooler or go on the internet. So it’s not what people think. That’s because people think that when I’m at work, I’m fully productive.
COMPANIES SHOULD INFORM THEMSELVES AND SIMPLY TRY IT
Kontrast: Have you already worked with companies or authorities in Austria?
Some companies in Austria have come forward. Some universities have also come forward that are interested in participating in the research.
Kontrast: So, what advice would you give to companies?
The real problem is often that companies think too much about it. A lot of companies say, “Well, maybe there were some difficulties with the implementation, but basically it wasn’t as hard as we thought.” That’s why one of our first pieces of advice to companies is that they shouldn’t think too much about it. They often try to analyze everything and come up with a solution for everything. But it doesn’t work that way. If you think about it too much, you come up with all these reasons why it won’t work. The reality is that it does work. It’s much easier now because you have all the evidence that’s there. You just have to try it out. And then staff have to find the things that are preventing them from being productive. It varies from staff member to staff member, from department to department.
And secondly, read the material, because there is so much of it now that it is much easier to take the step than it was four years ago. And what’s the worst that can happen? If it doesn’t work, at least the staff will love you for it. So you will get something out of it, even if the only benefit is that you figure out how to measure productivity.
FOUR-DAY WEEK IS ALSO GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND OUR HEALTH SYSTEM
Kontrast: And what would you advise the Austrian government?
Why are they different? I mean, governments have the same problem. We all face the question of how to deal with mental health problems in the workplace. One in four is affected by it. How can we reduce our carbon footprint?
A study carried out in the UK says that switching to a four-day week in the UK would result in an emissions’ reduction equivalent to taking all UK car traffic off the road.
If people only work four days a week, you have fewer cars on the road. Then there are more opportunities for free traffic, less congestion, and that in turn leads to a higher GDP. So there is a virtuous circle here that governments need to keep an eye on.
And then we all struggle with how to finance our health care system. Because people are living longer, but they are getting sicker over a longer period of time. If you are healthier and happier, don’t eat junk food, have more time to exercise and spend more time with your family, what do you think happens? The effects on health improve. You have more time to learn. This means you can help your employees get used to issues like artificial intelligence and the transformation of work. There are a lot of fantastic things that a government, if it is willing to understand this, can actually do.
And that is what I would say to the Austrian government: look at the macroeconomic benefits, think outside the box. So it’s not just about what happens at the factory gate, but what the impact is on the whole society. 
This work is licensed under the Creative Common License. It can be republished for free, either translated or in the original language. In both cases, please cite / Lena Krainz as the original source/author and set a link to this article on Scoop.me. https://scoop.me/interview-andrew-barnes-4-day-week/
The rights to the content remain with the original publisher. Läs mer…

Remote Inequality: The effects of working from home on the work-life balance of women

Remote work has established itself throughout the past two years. The change to labour suddenly taking place in the private sphere of our own homes has led to drastic changes and raised a debate about what exactly can be called ´real´ work. 
During 2020 around 40% of workers in the European Union switched to working from home. This marked a rise of 35% compared to 2019 where only 5,4% of EU-employees worked remotely—the majority of them being women. 
But even before facing the challenges of a global pandemic, working from home has been the only practicable way to combine both their paid and unpaid work. Unpaid work includes tasks like childcare and household duties which, even in 2022, are still predominantly carried out by women.
Carework such as childcare is still mostly carried out by women
In 2020 12.3% of EU-employees started to work remotely on a regular basis with 41% of EU-women working from home—and this is not a coincidence. A report by the European Foundation for the improvement of working and living conditions issued in late 2020 has found that the work-life balance of women has been affected to a much greater extent by the overall effects of the pandemic than those of men. Women, for example, were found to carry a much heavier burden of care responsibilities. Simultaneously, young women were more likely to lose their jobs compared to their male coworkers. This depicts an utterly different picture of the way employees adapted to the changes work life has undergone within the past two years. 
Carework is work 
The divide between working in the private and the public sphere has manifested itself for centuries. Even though work itself has undergone some drastic changes with ongoing digitalization and globalization, the changes remain limited. The perception of work in the private sphere, often referred to as carework, versus work taking place in the public sector has differed enormously.
Carework is rarely considered real work in our society
Carework such as childcare, cleaning and cooking duties have historically been unequally distributed in households. The majority of the work is still taken care of by women. This is clearly linked to gender stereotypes and gender based discrimination in social (and public) institutions. Even after centuries of fighting for women’s rights and emancipation, men are perceived as the main breadwinners in most families.
On the challenges of Teleworkers
With the surge of remote work during the crisis, many challenges of working from home have been highlighted. Overall, it can be stated that remote workers are less protected in their own homes. This is especially noteworthy when talking about women that live with abusive partners and/or under poor living conditions.
“In addition to being less protected in the ‘private’ space, home-based teleworkers are at risk of being sidelined at their workplace, with reduced professional visibility and career prospects and less access to information and personal and professional support.” Kalina Arabajieva and Paula Franklin, Researchers at the European Trade Union Institute (ETUI)
Additionally, most of them experience reduced professional visibility, which stems from them not being physically present at meetings etc. This then leads to their isolation from the in-office team.
41% of EU-women worked from home in 2020
The lack of physical presence also leads to reduced interpersonal exchange with the team. This can result in a lack of information and support—both personally and professionally—such as unionizing. That alone can lead to severe work-life conflicts disproportionately affecting women.
Protecting the health of remote workers
Telework is filled with psychosocial risks affecting the health of workers. Therefore, preventive measures must be undertaken to ensure the safety of those working from home. An overall review of the working conditions is required to ensure that the shift from office to home based or hybrid work can be adapted without workers losing the rights that the working class has fought for over the past centuries. Such changes have to be established within both the legal and the social landscape. But therefore, the binary divide between paid and unpaid work has to be questioned.
Establishing homeoffice as a protected working sphere 
Even with all the challenges workers face when carrying out telework, many of them still want to work from home or at least have the opportunity to do so. However, the divide between work carried out from home versus such carried out in the public sphere leads to remote work from home being perceived as less valuable or not real work. 
Telework is filled with psychosocial risks affecting the health of workers
To support workers in their ability to divide their private from professional/work life, it is imperative to end the societal perception of remote work and unpaid domestic labor. Only this way can a better work-life balance for those with caring responsibilities be established. Both the rights and working conditions of teleworkers need to be protected—particularly of those with caring responsibilities.  Läs mer…