196
This discussion has highlighted some win-win approaches to reducing carbon
emissions while increasing well-being, and these should be key components of
strategies for moving towards a more sustainable future. But before closing this
chapter it is worth taking stock and standing back to take a whole-systems approach.
A whole-systems approach requires looking at systems of production and consumption in which households play a central role. The economy is circular in nature:
in simplistic terms, households earn wages from fi rms, and fi rms produce goods and
services to sell to the households. Thus producers are consumers, and consumers
are producers. Linking this understanding with the earlier discussion in which it was
shown that one of the main determinants of a household’s carbon footprint is
income, and also that households spend or invest all their income, raises another
possible win-win situation: that of working-hours reduction.
Reducing the average number of hours worked per week can have both a scale
effect and a compositional effect (Gough 2013 ). Hypothetically, due to the scale
effect of fewer hours at work, workers’ incomes would be reduced, and thus expenditures and consumption would also be expected to be reduced. With each person
working less, there is the possibility of increasing the number of people employed
and thus reducing inequalities. High levels of inequality are associated with low
levels of well-being (Wilkinson and Pickett 2009 ), and, furthermore, meaningful
work is a generally found to be a positive factor in increasing well-being (Diener
and Seligman 2004 ). Hence sharing the work may yield multiple benefi ts (Hayden
1999 ).
The compositional effect can be explained as follows: with lower incomes but
less time at work, people’s use of time outside work would be expected to change,
as would the composition of their expenditure baskets. For example, rather than
buying ready-meals, people may be more inclined to cook from raw ingredients.
Now such changes in time and expenditure budgets might result in higher or lower
carbon emissions. For example, with less time pressure, people might walk and
cycle for short journeys rather than drive. On the other hand, some people may drive
further and more often to visit friends. But if we look back to the graph in Fig. 9.1 ,
we see that there is good evidence that lower incomes will, in general, result in
lower carbon footprints .
Reducing the working week has been shown to enhance the work-life balance
(Nassen and Larsson 2015 ; Kasser and Sheldon 2009 ; Eurofund 2013 ). For example, Hayden ( 1999 ) records how French employees reported overall improved quality of life when their working week was reduced to 35 h. In another investigation
400 Swedish employees who had their worktime reduced to 6 h per day for 18
months reported improved life satisfaction, health and a more equal gender-balance
on time spent on housework (Bildt (2007) cited in Nassen and Larsson ( 2015 )).
The suggestion of reducing working hours must be taken with an important
warning concerning low income groups. Currently many low paid workers are
struggling to meet their weekly household expenses (MacInnes et al. 2014 ; The
Living Wage Commission 2014 ), and therefore any initiative to reduce the working
week must be accompanied by special measures to protect them. If these are put in
A. Druckman and T. Jackson
This discussion has highlighted some win-win approaches to reducing carbon
emissions while increasing well-being, and these should be key components of
strategies for moving towards a more sustainable future. But before closing this
chapter it is worth taking stock and standing back to take a whole-systems approach.
A whole-systems approach requires looking at systems of production and consumption in which households play a central role. The economy is circular in nature:
in simplistic terms, households earn wages from fi rms, and fi rms produce goods and
services to sell to the households. Thus producers are consumers, and consumers
are producers. Linking this understanding with the earlier discussion in which it was
shown that one of the main determinants of a household’s carbon footprint is
income, and also that households spend or invest all their income, raises another
possible win-win situation: that of working-hours reduction.
Reducing the average number of hours worked per week can have both a scale
effect and a compositional effect (Gough 2013 ). Hypothetically, due to the scale
effect of fewer hours at work, workers’ incomes would be reduced, and thus expenditures and consumption would also be expected to be reduced. With each person
working less, there is the possibility of increasing the number of people employed
and thus reducing inequalities. High levels of inequality are associated with low
levels of well-being (Wilkinson and Pickett 2009 ), and, furthermore, meaningful
work is a generally found to be a positive factor in increasing well-being (Diener
and Seligman 2004 ). Hence sharing the work may yield multiple benefi ts (Hayden
1999 ).
The compositional effect can be explained as follows: with lower incomes but
less time at work, people’s use of time outside work would be expected to change,
as would the composition of their expenditure baskets. For example, rather than
buying ready-meals, people may be more inclined to cook from raw ingredients.
Now such changes in time and expenditure budgets might result in higher or lower
carbon emissions. For example, with less time pressure, people might walk and
cycle for short journeys rather than drive. On the other hand, some people may drive
further and more often to visit friends. But if we look back to the graph in Fig. 9.1 ,
we see that there is good evidence that lower incomes will, in general, result in
lower carbon footprints .
Reducing the working week has been shown to enhance the work-life balance
(Nassen and Larsson 2015 ; Kasser and Sheldon 2009 ; Eurofund 2013 ). For example, Hayden ( 1999 ) records how French employees reported overall improved quality of life when their working week was reduced to 35 h. In another investigation
400 Swedish employees who had their worktime reduced to 6 h per day for 18
months reported improved life satisfaction, health and a more equal gender-balance
on time spent on housework (Bildt (2007) cited in Nassen and Larsson ( 2015 )).
The suggestion of reducing working hours must be taken with an important
warning concerning low income groups. Currently many low paid workers are
struggling to meet their weekly household expenses (MacInnes et al. 2014 ; The
Living Wage Commission 2014 ), and therefore any initiative to reduce the working
week must be accompanied by special measures to protect them. If these are put in
A. Druckman and T. Jackson