Working anytime, anywhere: The quality of working time in the EU

Working time is an important aspect of job quality. The duration of working time has been slowly reducing in the EU (by around half an hour for full-time employees and almost one hour for the whole workforce over the last 14 years). An average working week of 40 hours had already been adopted in regulations in most advanced European economies at the end of the last century. A more recent development, during the 21st century, has been an increase in flexibility about the time and place of work, triggered by (among other societal developments) the digitalisation of the world of work.

Today, at least one in five employees in the EU make use of teleworking arrangements. Eurofound research has elucidated three main types of teleworking arrangement, depending on how frequently workers work remotely: full-time telework, regular telework in a hybrid or partial mode and occasional telework. This illustrates the role of digitalisation as a facilitator of flexible working arrangements. Flexible working arrangements have improved some aspects of working time quality, notably enabling workers to have greater autonomy to decide when and where they work. However, flexibility can also be associated with patterns that hinder job quality, such as extended hours of availability, irregular or unpredictable schedules, or work spilling into personal time. This report investigates flexible working arrangements in terms of time and place of work, and their effects on the quality of working time.

The Working Time Directive (Directive 2003/88/EC) sets out minimum requirements as regards the duration of weekly working time, daily and weekly rest periods, and paid annual leave. This legislation, together with social partner agreements, has contributed to the reduction in working time across the EU. Increasing possibilities for flexible arrangements are echoed in Directive (EU) 2019/1158 on work–life balance for parents and carers. In relation to teleworking, the European Parliament passed a resolution on 21 January 2021 on the right to disconnect. Following this initiative and others at the sectoral level, the European Commission finalised a two-stage consultation of social partners on possible action in the area of telework and workers’ right to disconnect. Improving quality of working time is also a goal of the European Pillar of Social Rights.

• The increase in flexible working has been driven by workers’ preferences, technological change, changing values with regard to work, gender balance in the labour market and a highly competitive environment. Digital technologies and ICT use are important facilitators.

• While teleworking has increased and become consolidated in the European labour market, working time autonomy has increased mainly among workers with access to teleworking. This is a manifestation of the close links between flexible working and workers’ autonomy in the organisation of working time.

• Flexible working entails certain risks to the quality of working time for both ends of the occupational structure, although the characteristics differ for high- and low-skilled workers. High-skilled workers tend to have greater autonomy but are more likely to work long hours, whereas low-skilled workers have less autonomy and are more at risk of experiencing more fragmented working time. Both patterns present risks to the quality of working time and to work–life balance.

• In 2024, the quality of working time had considerably improved for workers in teleworking arrangements compared with the situation in 2015. However, workers working remotely at different frequencies continued to be more exposed to certain working time patterns – such as longer hours, overtime, working in one’s free time, irregular schedules, lack of rest and a need to be constantly available – than those working only at their employer’s premises.

• Research on flexible working arrangements continues to reveal some paradoxes. For instance, workers report having a better work–life balance while simultaneously being more likely to work during their free time. Research shows that flexible schedules generally reduce the quality of working time, but, when workers have autonomy over their schedules, the effects are more neutral or even positive. Ultimately, the impact of flexible working on health and work–life balance depends on contextual factors, including organisational practices and workplace culture and roles. However, telework and autonomy are, for example, positively associated with reduced risk of burnout and of mental and physical exhaustion.

• Digitalisation may be useful for recording working time. However, high levels of intrusive digital monitoring may reduce workers’ autonomy and increase their stress levels.

• Being frequently contacted outside working hours by one’s employer or colleagues is one of the aspects of the organisation of working time with the strongest negative effect on employees’ stress, mental strain and work–life balance. According to a literature review, legislation such as policies on the right to disconnect seem to have a positive effect. After eight years of implementing regulatory initiatives, France has become one of the countries where employees are least likely to be contacted outside working hours. Since the pandemic, an increasing number of countries have included this right in their national regulatory frameworks. In 2025, 13 countries had provisions on the right to disconnect in their national regulatory frameworks.

• From a gender perspective, while the take-up of flexible working is broadly similar for men and women, there are differences in the quality of working time. Women are more likely to report working in their free time, whereas men more frequently report working longer hours, having more irregular schedules and having insufficient rest between working days. Finally, teleworking improves work–life balance for both men and women. However, it seems to have little effect on improving work–family interference for women, and working fully from home may have a more negative effect on women’s health.

• There is wide diversity between the EU Member States as regards policy priorities and regulatory approaches in relation to the organisation of working time in flexible working arrangements. Overall, there has been an increase in regulatory provisions related to flexible working time and telework since the pandemic. This is partly related to the incorporation of the Work–Life Balance Directive (Directive (EU) 2019/1158) in national legislation.

• Policies and agreements between social partners on the organisation of working time in teleworking arrangements are mostly adopted at the company level. Companies implementing teleworking arrangements offer, in most cases, opportunities for hybrid working, typically involving two or three days a week of remote working.

• The expansion of teleworking has contributed to savings in commuting time. In general, time saved as a consequence of working from home is used by employees primarily for leisure activities. The second most common use of this time is for work and the third is to meet caring demands.

• Across the EU, various aspects of working time quality are regulated differently in Member States, and some present significant challenges to workers’ work–life balance and health. EU-level, national or sectoral initiatives may therefore be needed to address aspects with strong negative effects on workers’ well-being. These could include measures to limit extremely flexible and irregular schedules that offer no working time autonomy, to prevent frequent contact outside working hours and to improve the enforcement of existing working time regulations. Even though those who telework and have flexible schedules are more likely to be contacted outside working hours, a substantial number of employees who do not telework experience this situation. Therefore, any initiative or measure related to preventing contact outside working hours must consider all workers, regardless of working arrangement.

• High workloads are one of the most significant reasons for reduced quality of working time. There is a need to address underlying working conditions with the objective of improving the quality of working time. For example, the implementation of measures to re-evaluate workloads could be considered.

• Since teleworking and working time autonomy have the potential to improve work–life balance, access to these arrangements should be facilitated for workers facing difficulties in maintaining a work–life balance, and initiatives to combat the risks associated with flexible arrangements should be reinforced. For example, workers could be granted autonomy while a clear framework is implemented to prevent them from working long hours and having highly flexible schedules. This is supported by data analysis and by the fact that the quality of working time has improved for workers in teleworking arrangements.

• Flexible arrangements alone may not overcome all work–life balance challenges, and therefore policies must be accompanied by overarching measures targeting, for example, workers with domestic responsibilities more specifically.

• New regulations in some countries reflect the trends towards flexible working, but do not consider the fragmentation of working time and the blurring of boundaries between working time and rest. Considering these characteristics of working time specifically could contribute to improving work–life balance and the health of European workers. Social dialogue at the company level could play a relevant role in addressing the challenges related to working time in the context of increasingly flexible working. This approach is able to adapt the arrangements to the specific situation of workers and companies.