The idea of a four-day working week has raised the interest of many in recent weeks. It taps into genuine concerns: long working hours, family pressures, burnout and the search for better balance between work and life. These are not abstract issues. Employers experience them daily and many have already responded in practical ways. But recognising the problem is not the same as endorsing a single, economy-wide solution.

From an employer's perspective, the central issue is not whether shorter working arrangements can work at all. In certain companies, sectors and roles, they already do. The question is whether a four-day week can be sensibly applied across Malta's economy, through broad policy direction and whether it is in the country's interest to do so.

Malta's economic structure matters. The country already lags behind its European counterparts in terms of labour productivity.  This is mainly because it relies heavily on labour-intensive and high-contact service industries like hospitality, retail, healthcare, logistics, construction, manufacturing and transport. In many of these sectors, output remains directly and closely correlated to time. Fewer hours worked means fewer services delivered unless more people are hired and costs rise. This is not a theoretical concern. It goes to the heart of competitiveness, pricing and business viability in a small, open economy.

An extensive Malta Employers survey shows that employers are unconvinced about four-day week proposals not out of stubbornness, but out of experience. The concerns are consistent: higher labour costs, operational difficulties, staffing gaps, recruitment challenges and the risk of undermining already tight margins. In a labour market characterised by very low unemployment and skills shortages, absorbing a sudden reduction in hours would almost certainly increase reliance on imported labour, not reduce it.

International experience also calls for caution. Outcomes vary widely between countries, depending on income levels, productivity, sector mix and how changes are introduced. Iceland's shorter working week emerged through collective agreements in the public sector, not legislation. Belgium's legally introduced four-day compressed week has seen less than 1% of employees taking this option. In Portugal, a mandated reduction in working hours led to job losses and lower sales, despite some productivity gains.

These examples underline a simple point: context is everything.

The proponents of a shorter working week often make the argument that a four-day working week is a productivity tool, often citing theoretical studies or biased pilot studies.  But if there was a proven, straight forward relationship between shorter working hours and productivity increases, many employers would have implemented shorter working hours ages ago.   Others perceive four-day working weeks as a means towards achieving a better work life balance for employees.

A view that we must certainly avoid is to use the four-day working week as a means to perform part-time work on the fifth day, as this would, of course, undermine the intended benefits.

In the Netherlands, for example, most of the time gained from a shorter working week is not shifted into additional part-time employment. However, in a lower-income economy such as ours, there is a higher risk that workers may take on extra hours elsewhere, since the marginal benefit of earning additional income can outweigh the value of extra leisure.

This does not mean employers are indifferent to work-life balance.

Our survey clearly shows that workplace flexibility is already widespread. Around 73% of employers offer flexible working hours, 70% provide remote-working options, and 85% report improved work-life balance as a result. More than 72% intend to maintain or extend these arrangements. This quiet progress rarely features in public debate, yet it reflects what works best: voluntary, tailored solutions shaped around jobs, people and business realities.

There is also a risk in assuming that fewer days automatically mean better outcomes. Compressing five days of work into four can create more work pressure to meet targets in a shorter time-frame, thereby exacerbating stress, fatigue and burnout. In customer-facing or continuous operations, it can shift pressure rather than relieve it. A policy intended to improve well-being can, if poorly applied, achieve the opposite.

None of this dismisses the pressures faced by families, particularly those with young children. Employers recognise these challenges and support targeted, realistic measures that help where needs are greatest. But extensive, blanket reforms imposed by law carry consequences that are difficult to reverse and even harder to manage once competitiveness is lost.

A meaningful reduction in working time, if it is to come, must follow a deeper economic transition: towards higher value-added activity, better use of technology, business process re-engineering, improved productivity and skills development. That is the real foundation for sustainable flexibility.

The time has come to invest in productivity-enhancing methods and aspire for a higher-value added economy.  This would present an excellent opportunity to rectify past mistakes by translating productivity gains in restructuring our traditional 40-hour working week. But we cannot put the cart before the horse.  The four-day week is not a silver bullet. Malta needs an economic conversation that balances ambition with realism, and aspiration with evidence. Employers are ready for that discussion, provided it remains grounded in the realities of how work is actually done.

Ivan Refalo is President of the Malta Employers