Is reducing paid working time a potential win-win climate change mitigation strategy, which may simultaneously serve environmental sustainability and human well-being? While some researchers and commentators frequently refer to such "double-dividends", most climate and environmental discussions ignore this topic. The societal relevance of paid working time and the potential role of its reduction as a demand-side measure for mitigating the climate- and ecological crisis calls for a critical review of the evidence. Here we systematically review the empirical, quantitative literature on the relationships between paid working time and a number of environmental indicators: resource use (incl. energy), greenhouse gas emissions and the ecological footprint. We applied two comprehensive search queries in two scientific databases; screened ~2,500 articles published until December 2019, and used citation snowballing to identify relevant research. However, we only found 15 fully relevant studies, as well as a number of partially relevant ones. This literature employs substantially different scopes, indicators and statistical methods, each with important caveats, which inhibits a formal quantitative evidence synthesis but usefully informs a critical discussion of the research frontier. Most studies conclude that reductions in paid working time reduce environmental pressures, primarily by decreasing incomes and consumption expenditures. However, existing research does not provide reliable guidance beyond the established link between expenditures and environmental impacts. Quantifying the effects of time use changes and macro-economic feedbacks through productivity, employment, and the complementarity or substitution between human labour and natural resources in production processes has proven to be difficult. To better understand the environmental impacts of specific types of working time reductions, new forms of data collection as well as studies at different scales and scopes are required. The critical discussion of the existing literature helps to conceptually map the pathways investigated so far and to identify crucial next steps towards more robust insights.

中文翻译：

---

减少工作真的对环境有益吗？对资源使用、温室气体排放和生态足迹的经验证据的系统评价

减少带薪工作时间是否是一种潜在的双赢气候变化缓解策略，可以同时为环境可持续性和人类福祉服务？虽然一些研究人员和评论员经常提到这种“双重红利”，但大多数气候和环境讨论都忽略了这个话题。带薪工作时间的社会相关性以及减少带薪工作时间作为缓解气候和生态危机的需求方措施的潜在作用，需要对证据进行严格审查。在这里，我们系统地回顾了关于带薪工作时间与许多环境指标之间关系的实证、定量文献：资源使用（包括能源）、温室气体排放和生态足迹。我们在两个科学数据库中应用了两个综合搜索查询；筛选〜2，截至 2019 年 12 月发表的 500 篇文章，并使用引文滚雪球来确定相关研究。然而，我们只发现了 15 项完全相关的研究，以及一些部分相关的研究。这些文献采用了截然不同的范围、指标和统计方法，每一个都有重要的警告，这抑制了正式的定量证据综合，但为研究前沿的批判性讨论提供了有用的信息。大多数研究得出的结论是，减少带薪工作时间可以减轻环境压力，主要是通过减少收入和消费支出。然而，除了支出和环境影响之间既定的联系之外，现有的研究并没有提供可靠的指导。通过生产力、就业、在生产过程中，人力和自然资源之间的互补或替代已被证明是困难的。为了更好地了解特定类型的工作时间减少对环境的影响，需要新形式的数据收集以及不同规模和范围的研究。对现有文献的批判性讨论有助于从概念上绘制迄今为止所研究的途径，并确定通往更强大见解的关键下一步。