The Four-Day Workweek Movement: Lessons from Belgian and Icelandic Models

The idea of a four-day workweek has gained new momentum in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, which accelerated the shift toward remote and flexible work arrangements. 

Two early adopters of this model—Iceland and Belgium—have taken very different approaches. 

Iceland: Fewer Hours, Same Pay

In Iceland, a pilot program ran from 2015 to 2019 with roughly 2,500 employees across various industries. The trial proved so successful that by 2022, shorter workweeks were widely adopted through collective bargaining agreements rather than legislation. A defining feature of Iceland’s model is a reduction in weekly hours (down to 36) without any loss in pay. Today, nearly 90% of the Icelandic workforce benefits from this change. According to María Hjálmtýsdóttir in The Guardian, the reform has led to lower stress, higher job satisfaction, and better work-life balance. It has also fostered greater equality, ensuring that part-time workers receive the same benefits and conditions as full-time employees.

Belgium: Four Days, Same Hours

By contrast, Belgium introduced its four-day workweek through legislation in 2022. However, unlike Iceland, Belgium’s approach does not reduce overall working hours. Instead, employees can choose to compress their standard workweek into four longer days. Prime Minister Alexander De Croo explained that the goal was to bring flexibility to a traditionally rigid labor market. Despite this intention, uptake has been minimal—only about 1% of Belgian workers have chosen the compressed schedule—highlighting both practical challenges and limited enthusiasm.

The two models demonstrate very different outcomes. Iceland’s voluntary, negotiated approach has resulted in broad adoption and consistency, while Belgium’s legislative, compressed-hour model has seen limited success and may even disadvantage workers who could benefit from shorter weeks.

The Pros and Cons of a Four-Day Workweek

Benefits:

• Improved employee well-being and reduced stress.
• Higher job satisfaction and morale.
• Potential boosts in productivity and long-term economic growth.
• Enhanced workplace equality, especially for part-time employees.

Challenges:

• Sectors that rely on 24/7 operations—such as healthcare, transportation, and hospitality—face significant scheduling difficulties.
• Without widespread adoption, some companies may gain a competitive edge by continuing to operate on a five-day model, potentially limiting broader implementation.

Others have also commented that, to be successful, the 4-day working week needs to be widely accepted and to become the standard, as competition would take advantage of those who are happy to work longer days/ weeks and offer their services on a 5-day basis. 

What Businesses Can Learn

Despite growing global interest, the four-day workweek is still far from mainstream. One of the biggest obstacles is resistance from large U.S.-based corporations like Amazon and JP Morgan Chase, which continue to prefer traditional five-day structures. Achieving widespread adoption will require not just cultural change, but also the right HR and payroll infrastructure to support flexible schedules across industries and borders. At IRIS, with our international HR services, we help businesses simplify workforce management across 135+ countries, ensuring compliance and consistency no matter how work models evolve. Whether you’re exploring a four-day workweek or adapting to other flexible arrangements, IRIS provides the tools and expertise to make it possible.

About the Author: Marta Nocchi - International HR Consultant at IRIS 

Marta has a solid foundation in employment law, holding a law degree and currently enhancing her expertise through the CIPD Level 5 qualification. Fluent in both Italian and English, and with a background in HR operations, employee benefits, and payroll, she brings a strategic and culturally attuned perspective to global workforce management.

Conclusion: The Four-Day Week Paradox – When Flexibility Isn’t Enough

By: Dan J Grace, Director of IRIS HR Consulting Services 

After examining the Belgian and Icelandic models of the four-day workweek that Marta explored, I’m left with a striking realization: real reform often requires courage, not compromise.

Iceland’s approach—reducing hours while maintaining pay—was a bold reimagining of work itself. By achieving this through collective bargaining instead of legislation, the country proved that cultural consensus can be more powerful than legal mandates. The result? A remarkable 90% adoption rate and measurable gains in well-being, equality, and work-life balance. This wasn’t just policy change; it was social transformation.

Belgium’s model, by contrast, highlights the limits of half-measures. Compressing the same number of hours into fewer days may look like flexibility, but it sidesteps the deeper question: Are we working too much? The dismal 1% uptake speaks volumes. Workers know instinctively that longer daily hours don’t solve burnout—they accelerate it. Prime Minister De Croo’s bid to modernize a “rigid” labor market ended up exposing a hard truth: flexibility without reduction is just rearranging deck chairs.

What’s most telling is how Iceland succeeded without legislation, while Belgium’s law has barely moved the needle. This shows that authentic reform isn’t about regulatory frameworks—it’s about cultural readiness and collective will. Iceland was ready to prioritize life over labor. Belgium offered a compromise that satisfied no one.

Resistance from corporate giants like Amazon and JPMorgan Chase underscores the deeper challenge: the four-day week isn’t simply about scheduling—it’s about power, values, and our core beliefs about what work should be. These companies know that if shorter weeks succeed, it proves productivity depends not on hours logged but on human creativity and engagement—something only possible when people are truly rested.

My takeaway is sobering yet hopeful: the four-day week’s success depends less on the structure of policies and more on society’s willingness to challenge the assumption that more hours equal more value. Iceland shows what’s possible. Belgium shows why cosmetic changes fail. The real question isn’t whether we can afford to work less—it’s whether we can afford not to, given what we know about burnout, inequality, and untapped human potential.

The path forward requires transformation, not tinkering. Because at the end of the day, a four-day workweek that just crams five days of exhaustion into four isn’t progress—it’s denial dressed up as innovation.