Working time reduction as a catalyst for global justice
Tatiana Pignon
14th July 2026
Introduction
Recently, the World Inequality Lab has set out an inspiring vision in its Global Justice Report: by 2100, we could have eliminated global inequality, raised living standards in every country, and restored an inhabitable planet. But to achieve this, we will have to have successfully reorganised the global economy – and reducing working hours could be the focal point of a winning strategy to do this.
Justice and habitability by 2100: the challenge of transformation
The horizon set out by Thomas Piketty and colleagues in the paper (published in early June), is inspiring: eliminating inequalities on a global scale, massively reducing working hours for all, providing universal access to high-quality education and healthcare, guaranteeing a disposable monthly income of €5,000 per capita in all countries of the world – and all within the limits of planetary habitability, with global warming not exceeding 2°C and carbon neutrality achieved by the end of the century.
Such a vision, of course, requires a profound transformation of the economic and social organisation of our societies. It’s an immense scale of change: new global economic governance institutions (a Global Justice Fund, a Global Sovereign Fund, a United Nations Central Bank), new global taxes, and a new global currency. These innovations are necessary though, according to the report, to organise global funding and investment strategy into climate and social justice, all the while continuing to raise living standards.
The challenge, therefore, is clear: convince and mobilise people in order to build a large-scale global social movement, the only way to force governments and those in power to make the changes we need. Even though the vast majority of humanity would benefit, in absolute numbers as well as in living standards, the authors are not naïve: as small as it may be, the 1% that may have something to lose will suffice to organise a powerful resistance. So, political strategy is the key – and this is the central theme of Chapter 4, dedicated to strategies that can help “build majorities for equality”.
Indeed, as the authors write, “nothing can be achieved without a powerful citizen movement and network of broad-based organisations (including labour unions and political parties) which are sufficiently well organised and effective at promoting the Global Justice Platform (or a similar platform or set of platforms with similar goals)” (p.111). At the same time, it is at a national level that these movements will have to win; and, as necessary as a global strategy may be to address the justice and inhabitability challenges of the 21st century, nothing is more difficult for a national political leader than embracing a global platform – especially when these projects are, for now, nothing more than abstract ideas.
To build these coalitions, a winning strategy could be to transform one of the key levers of the project into its catalyst, by making working time reduction the heart of political mobilisation and economic transformation.
Reducing working hours, a key element of the project
The Global Justice Report’s proposal rests on three pillars: decarbonising the economy; achieving “sufficiency,” meaning a level of material consumption that is both sufficient for human prosperity and remains within the limits of planetary habitability; and finally, compressing (i.e., reducing) inequalities on a global scale, which is a necessary condition for the success of the first two. “Sufficiency,” for its part, implies a massive reduction in working hours, an equally massive reduction in the material footprint of our economic activities, and a profound transformation of consumption habits (see chapter 2).
Regarding working time, the report anticipates a convergence towards 1,000 working hours per person and per year by 2100. This corresponds to a 25-hour week with twelve weeks of paid vacation per year; we can also envision a four-day, six-hour work week with ten weeks of vacation per year, or even three eight-hour workdays. The implementation details will obviously vary depending on the sector and context, but this gives you an idea of what it might look like.
Working time reduction is a necessary target for both social and environmental reasons. It is the starting point of sufficiency, because it allows us to reduce our pressure on natural resources and the material footprint of our economy. By “dematerialising” the economy, the report’s authors mean reorienting economic activities towards “immaterial” sectors such as education, health and culture, while reducing the relative share of sectors which have a significant material footprint, like food, mining, or construction. Furthermore, working time reduction continues a long-term historical trend, in which productivity gains have served in part to reduce working hours – from 3,000 annual working hours on average in 1800 to 2,100 today. Finally, it helps us achieve gender equality in overall working time, which includes not only employment time but also domestic and reproductive labour.
A lever for mobilisation and transformation
But above all, the reduction of working hours can be the key political lever to bring about this vision, by acting as the central proposition around which to organise social mobilisation and economic reorganisation. At least four reasons support this idea.
First, the mobilising power of reduced working hours is undeniable. It has historically been a key demand of the workers’ movement, and is still championed today by numerous trade unions – such as the CGT in France, the UAW in the United States, the FNV in the Netherlands, the CUT in Brazil, and LO in Sweden (to name only a few). In recent years, the multiplication of working time reduction programmes with no loss in pay has further demonstrated the continued mobilising power of this issue – and in opinion polls, at least two thirds of the general population consistently declares itself in favour of a significant reduction in working hours with no loss in pay.
It is important to specify here that working time, in this context, means the time spent in mandatory work, whether due to legal obligation or financial necessity; in other words, the time during which we have no other choice but to work. Let’s be clear: when talking about working time reduction, no one is planning to prevent those who wish to do so from engaging in so-called ‘productive’ activities in their free time. This is important, because ‘work’ is a multi-faceted term whose definition is not consensual. We see it all the time in our working time reduction projects, when people tell us about what they do with their extra time off: they rest, yes, but they also do things that can resemble ‘work’: providing care, exercising, engaging in creative or artistic pursuits, getting trained and equipped with new skills, doing things around the house or volunteering. But, and that is the entire point, they choose to do so. Working time reduction extends the domain of freedom – it does not restrict it.
It is important to specify here that working time, in this context, means the time spent in mandatory work, whether due to legal obligation or financial necessity; in other words, the time during which we have no other choice but to work. Let’s be clear: when talking about working time reduction, no one is planning to prevent those who wish to do so from engaging in so-called ‘productive’ activities in their free time. This is important, because ‘work’ is a multi-faceted term whose definition is not consensual. We see it all the time in our working time reduction projects, when people tell us about what they do with their extra time off: they rest, yes, but they also do things that can resemble ‘work’: providing care, exercising, engaging in creative or artistic pursuits, getting trained and equipped with new skills, doing things around the house or volunteering. But, and that is the entire point, they choose to do so. Working time reduction extends the domain of freedom – it does not restrict it.
Secondly, reducing working hours is not only a popular measure; it is also a realistic and economically sound policy. Since the Industrial Revolution, the productivity of economic activity has been multiplied several times over, but only a minority of these gains (35% to 40% according to another recent report) has served to improve living conditions for workers: most of it has gone instead to increases in production and profit. Meanwhile, the enrichment of the ultra-rich, which has exploded in recent years (the world got its first trillionaire just a month ago), has relied on the exploitation and appropriation of natural resources, but also of human labour. According to the International Labour Organization, more than half of the world’s working population works without adequate social protection, and nearly 600 million people live in poverty despite having a job. In parallel, only 35 to 40% of the productivity gains achieved over the last two centuries have been used to improve the lives of workers through a reduction in working hours. It is high time to remedy this and redistribute productivity gains more fairly.
More broadly, working time reduction is a measure of global and social justice that reduces inequalities between social classes as well as between countries worldwide. It also allows for a more equitable distribution of domestic and reproductive labour, which is largely gendered and unpaid; it promotes the integration of people with health issues or disabilities into the labour market; and it is essential to bridge the gap between working conditions in the wealthiest countries from those imposed on workers in the poorest regions of the world. Just in Europe, average working hours vary from 31.9 hours per week in the Netherlands to over 42 hours in Turkey, and it rises to 55 hours per week in some other countries; this does not even account for informal work, where working time is often not regulated at all. This is a crucial point, since the reduction of working hours is already underway in many countries. To avoid further exacerbating existing inequalities in working conditions, it must go hand in hand with a clear vision on justice and global prosperity – precisely what the Global Justice Project enables.
Finally, this is a radical measure that will transform people’s lives overnight, while providing the central focus for a profound reorganisation of the economy in all the countries in the world. The example of the healthcare and education sectors, central to the new economy proposed by the report but currently experiencing structural labour shortages, is telling: reducing working hours would be a powerful way to attract and retain workers in these fields, and thus enable the rise in living standards envisioned by the Global Justice Platform. Beyond just these two, all sectors of the economy would have to reorganise to adapt to shorter working hours. This would be the perfect opportunity to trigger the economic reorientation which the report calls for.
Working time reduction can thus be the key lever to prompt popular mobilisation around a platform for global justice and habitability. As it has done in the past, it can once again be the driver of change, and a powerful way to engage in the long-awaited ecological bifurcation that our economies need. In the words of the report itself, this proposal certainly leans more towards a “radical” than a “gradualist” strategy. But “radical” is what is needed if we are to trigger a transformation of this scale, in the timeline that we have. Working time reduction can elicit mass mobilisation while compelling those currently in power to undertake profound transformation; in this way, it can help us achieve, by the end of this century, the horizon of planetary justice and inhabitability to which most of the world’s population aspires – and which it deserves.
Tatiana is a political scientist and Associate Director at the Autonomy Institute, where she leads the Workplace Transformation Unit.