Declining household greenhouse gas footprints in

Germany: Decomposing the contributions of

working time, consumption, mobility, energy
e ciency and decarbonization between 2000 - 2019
Dominik Wiedenhofer (  dominik.wiedenhofer@boku.ac.at )
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7418-3477
Barbara Plank
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0306-3715
Miklós Antal
MTA-ELTE Lendület New Vision Research Group, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Eötvös Loránd
University, Budapest. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3426-9916

Research Article

Keywords: climate change mitigation, demand-side measures, environmentally extended input-output

analysis (EE-IOA), sustainable lifestyles, working time, decomposition analysis

Posted Date: November 14th, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3409954/v2

License:   This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Read Full License

Additional Declarations:
Supplementary information are not available with this version.
 1 Declining household greenhouse gas footprints in Germany:
2 Decomposing the contributions of working time, consumption,
3 mobility, energy efficiency and decarbonization between 2000 –
4 2019
5
6 Dominik Wiedenhofer*,1, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7418-3477
7 Barbara Plank1, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0306-3715
8 Miklós Antal2, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3426-9916
9
1
10 …. Institute of Social Ecology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna.
2
11 …. MTA-ELTE Lendület New Vision Research Group, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Eötvös Loránd
12 University, Budapest.
13 *…. Corresponding author: dominik.wiedenhofer@boku.ac.at
14
15
16 Abstract
17 Understanding the drivers of household greenhouse gas (GHG) footprints is crucial for
18 designing measures accelerating emission reductions. Well-documented drivers are demand, energy
19 efficiency and decarbonization of energy supply, while mobility and esp. working time have received
20 less attention.
21 Herein, the drivers of German household energy and GHG emissions footprints from 2000–
22 2019 are decomposed using extended Kaya Decompositions. Footprints are declining at -1%/year, due
23 to improving energy efficiency and decarbonization overcompensating the growth of per-capita and per-
24 hour incomes. Private mobility footprints decline by -1.4%/year, driven up by growing distances, car-
25 dominated modal splits and growing air travel, compensated by improving energy efficiency and
26 decarbonization, slightly decreasing numbers of trips and stable expenditure on mobility. Aggregate
27 working time is growing, which drives up footprints, while increasing part-time employment resultin
28 small reductions of average per-capita working time.
29 Part-time work is one form of working time reduction for which assumptions of the Kaya
30 Decomposition are fairly realistic. However macro-economic feedbacks and potentially negative social
31 side-effects of part-time work need to be addressed to design equitable policy measures. Remaining
32 research issues are the roles of work-related trips and mobility on company expenses, delivery services
33 and transport of goods, and targeted analyses for socio-economic groups.
34
35
36

1 / 29
37 Keywords (max 6): climate change mitigation; demand-side measures; environmentally extended
38 input-output analysis (EE-IOA); sustainable lifestyles; working time; decomposition analysis
39
40
41 Highlights:

42 • Major drivers of household footprints are income, consumption patterns and mobility
43 • Growing part-time workforce increases aggregate and reduces per capita working time
44 • Current trends in working time raise social and environmental questions
45 • Household mobility footprints were reduced by energy efficiency and decarbonization
46
47

2 / 29
48 1 Introduction
49 The global community committed itself to ambitious and rapid action to achieve net-zero
50 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the next few decades (UNFCCC, 2015). In Europe, net-zero
51 emissions targets fall between 2040-2050, requiring real reductions of GHG emissions of 2.5-7%
52 annually, without simply outsourcing emissions (Lamb et al., 2021a). In recent years, national
53 production-based emissions across many European countries, including Germany, have been slowly
54 declining from high levels (Lamb et al., 2021a; Le Quéré et al., 2019).
55 From a consumption-based perspective, which takes into account global emissions occurring to
56 satisfy final demand, GHG emissions footprints are substantially larger than production-based emissions
57 and their reductions in Germany and Europe are happening more slowly. Household footprints constitute
58 ~2/3 of the German national GHG footprint (Lamb et al., 2021a; Lee et al., 2023). Understanding if and
59 why household GHG footprints are declining fast enough to comply with climate policy targets is
60 therefore paramount for designing further supply- and demand-side measures for climate change
61 mitigation.
62 Previous research has mainly focused on a few key drivers, primarily for countries with
63 increasing GHG emissions (Lenzen, 2016; Ottelin et al., 2019; Pottier, 2022): growing household
64 income enables increasing demand in general and mobility in particular, which drive up household
65 footprints; while supply-side improvements in energy efficiency and slowly decarbonizing energy
66 supply mitigate some of the increasing demand. The specific interplay and strength of each driver varies
67 across countries, population density, household sizes and socio-economic groups, as well as the
68 complexity of the explanatory statistical models employed (Gill and Moeller, 2018; Lamb et al., 2021b,
69 2021a; Lee et al., 2023; Pottier, 2022; Song et al., 2022). This raises the question of how the underlying
70 socio-economic drivers of household consumption footprints changed, enabling the decline in household
71 footprints in Germany and how this might inform further climate change mitigation measures.
72 Beyond the roles of the afore mentioned drivers, this study addresses the emerging strand of
73 research indicating that paid working time (WT) might be an important mediating factor (Antal et al.,
74 2021; Hanbury et al., 2023). In 1992, Schor problematized the “work-spend” cycle driving consumption
75 and environmental impacts. Shortly summarized, working more can be expected to increase income and
76 time constraints on everyday life, driving up consumption and environmental impacts. Of course, there
77 are many structural and socio-economic complexities not captured by this simple summary (e.g. Jackson
78 and Victor 2011, Pullinger 2014, Antal 2014, Wiedenhofer et al 2018). For example, incomes and
79 household footprints are highly unequally distributed, despite comparable time spent at paid work
80 (Fitzgerald, 2022; Song et al., 2022). WT arrangements also interact with consumption patterns, e.g.
81 through resource- and emission-intensive activities such as leisure travel (Hanbury et al., 2019), the
82 consumption of emissions-intensive products (Fremstad et al., 2019; Neubert et al., 2022), or its relation
83 with environmentally conscious lifestyles and the prioritization of family and friends (Chapman et al.,
84 2023; Neubert et al., 2022), as well as care obligations for the elderly and children (Smetschka et al.,
3 / 29
 85 2019; Zhang et al., 2023). Changing WT may also trigger production-side changes over time, whose
86 consequences for resource use and emissions depend on shifts in relative costs of labor across
87 international supply chains and the substitutability or complementarity of labor, capital and resource use
88 across sectors (Apostolakis, 1990; Jackson and Victor, 2011). While the literature on the role of work
89 and time use for household GHG footprints is slowly consolidating (Madsen and Weidema, 2023),
90 longitudinal analyses linking the role of working time with established drivers of household footprints
91 for major economies and GHG emitters like Germany are missing.
92 At the same time, the meaning and role of paid work and employment is changing in many
93 industrialized high-income countries like Germany (Gerold et al., 2023; ILO, 2019). Automatization
94 and globalization are advancing, while political demands about improved work-life balance and
95 wellbeing are coming to the fore, especially regarding unpaid care and household work, gender roles
96 and new lifestyles (Druckman et al., 2012; Neubert et al., 2022; Smetschka et al., 2019). Changes to
97 WT arrangements are also rediscovered by unions and left-leaning parties as timely political topics,
98 occasionally linking these to the climate crisis (Flanagan and Goods, 2022; Keil and Kreinin, 2022).
99 Therefore, it is useful to pay more explicit attention to WT as one of several determinants of
100 consumption and GHG emissions.
101 Herein, the case of Germany is investigated, which is a high-income country and a pioneer of
102 policy-driven decarbonization, where national-level and household footprints are slowly declining
103 (Lamb et al., 2021a). Previous research suggests that slowing household consumption, decreasing
104 energy intensity of supply chains and the decarbonization of energy supply may explain this (Lee et al.,
105 2023). Fuel switching and increasing renewable energy supply are especially relevant in Germany
106 (Lamb et al., 2021b). However, mobility and transport have been increasing in Germany, mostly due to
107 road passenger and freight transport, followed by international shipping and aviation, while railways
108 and other modes of transport only contribute a minor share of mobility emissions (Lee et al., 2023;
109 Umweltbundesamt, 2022). A more systematic analysis of the previously discussed drivers of household
110 consumption in shaping the decline of German household GHG emissions footprints is however
111 missing.
112 This study therefore investigates the role of changes in WT, levels and patterns of incomes,
113 expenditures, mobility, as well as energy and emissions intensity of supply chains in shaping total
114 household GHG footprints of German households, from 2000-2019. The focus is on the macro-level of
115 national dynamics, while a differentiation of the dynamics for individual households or socio-
116 demographic groups are out of the scope due to data limitations. We address the following research
117 questions:
118 • How can WT and mobility be included next to established drivers of energy and GHG footprints in
119 the same analytical framework applying consistent system boundaries for their joint analysis of
120 trajectories in countries with high quality data, like Germany?

4 / 29
121 • How did WT, income, consumption patterns, mobility, and supply-side factors affect household
122 energy and GHG emission footprints in a Kaya framework in Germany between 2000 and 2019?
123
124 The high-resolution multi-regional input-output model EXIOBASE is used to model household
125 footprints from 2000 – 2019 and a comprehensive socio-economic dataset from official German
126 statistics was compiled, taking specific care to apply consistent system boundaries and accounting
127 principles across data sources and footprint estimates, to address some of the key limitations of previous
128 work identified recently (Antal et al., 2021; Usubiaga and Acosta-Fernández, 2015; Usubiaga-Liaño et
129 al., 2021). For a detailed discussion of these methodological issues, we refer to the supplementary
130 information. Results from a descriptive analysis of trends and patterns, as well as an extended Kaya
131 Identity Decomposition are presented in section 3. Section four discusses findings and limitations and
132 concludes with implications for climate change mitigation policy.
133

134 Framework of analysis, data and methods

135 Two levels of analyses are discerned in this study, to identify the changing relationships between
136 WT, income, expenditure, mobility and the resulting energy and emissions footprints at the national
137 level (Figure 1): macro-level (total household footprints) and mobility-focused (mobility footprints).

Global economy

Germany
Macro-level
Total final Total GHG
Paid & energy used emissions
effective
Incomes Expenditures
working Mobility-focus
times Mobility
Emissions- Emissions from
relevant final energy carriers
energy use

Scope and analysis:

- German households, their paid working time, income, expenditure and mobility patterns, from 2000 – 2019
- Two matching energy-emissions footprints for household GHG footprints, and mobility-related footprints, stemming from national
production and the global economy. Both exclude government and investment footprints.
- Descriptive analysis of underlying dynamics for each aspect of the investigated relationships
- Five extended Kaya-Decompositions dissecting two levels of analysis: macro-level and mobility-focused
138
139 Figure 1: Overview of the conceptual relationships and the scope of the analysis. In the descriptive analysis of the
140 detailed data as reported from each source, each topical area analyzed to understand how employment types and
141 sectors, income groups, expenditure patterns, mobility modes and patterns, as well as energy and emissions
142 footprints are changing. In the analytical section, an aggregate and harmonized dataset for the extended Kaya
143 Decompositions is used to quantify the contributions of each explanatory variable on declining household GHG
144 emissions footprints.

145 The dataset assembled for this analysis covers: 1) All persons who are employed or self-
146 employed (including farmers), and those who are not doing paid work, (such as children, students,
147 pensioners, unemployed persons, etc.). 2) Their effective paid WT, as opposed to officially contracted
148 hours or unpaid work such as care work, household chores or voluntary honorary work (Wanger et al.,
5 / 29
149 2016, see section 1.1. in the supplementary information). 3) Incomes and expenditures in constant,
150 inflation corrected prices, as well as mobility patterns in monetary and physical terms.
151 Two pairs of matched energy-emissions footprint indicators are estimated for this study. Firstly,
152 macro-level total household footprints of total final energy use (and total GHG emissions, across all
153 energy carriers including renewables, and six climate-relevant GHGs, making them the broadest
154 available indicators to analyze the climate impacts of household consumption. Secondly, for mobility
155 only the mobility-related footprints from emission-relevant energy carrier use and the respective CO2
156 emissions from burning fossil fuels are modelled, broken down by mobility modes. All footprint
157 indicators by definition include direct household energy use and emissions, as well as indirect energy
158 use and emissions occurring along national and global supply chains, making those “embodied” in
159 consumer products and services (Wiedmann and Lenzen, 2018). All data was sourced from various
160 official statistical sources reported at heterogenous levels of detail, as well as the high-resolution MRIO
161 model EXIOBASE-MRIO v 3.8.1 (Stadler et al., 2021), for the years 2000-2019 for which data was
162 available consistently across all sources. These data were then harmonized to 34 categories to enable
163 the Kaya Decompositions. We refer to the supplementary information for a detailed documentation and
164 discussion of harmonization procedures and all data sources used. All variables shown in the following
165 equations are summarized in Table 1; the respective data sources and harmonization procedures are
166 described in the supplementary information.
167 Table 1: Definitions of the variables used in the extended Kaya-Decompositions. Definitions underlying each
168 decomposition variable and the respective sources are shown in Table SI-1 in the supporting information.

Decomposition Derivation of the

variable Definition and short explanations decomposition variable
POP Change in total population numbers POPtot
EMP Change in employed population ratio POPemp/POPtot
WTcap Changes in annual average working time per employed person WTtot/POPemp

WTtotal Changes in total annual work volume WTtot

I Changes in income per hour worked Inctot/WTtot

Changes in expenditure ratio
R Exptot/Inctot
(share of income spent, inverse of savings rate)
S Changes in expenditure structures (consumption basket) Exptot/Expi

EI Changes in energy intensity of expenditures EFi/Expi

GI Changes in GHG emissions per energy GFi/EFi

Changes in mobility expenditure ratio
Rmob Expmob,tot/Inctot
(share of income spent on mobility)
Changes in mobility expenditure structures
Smob Expmob,mode/Expmob,tot
(expenditures on transport modes)
KM Change in total passenger kilometers per year KMtot
KMmode/KMtot &
MOkm Modal split of kilometers (share of transport modes)
KMpurp,mode/KMpurp
EXPmob Changes in mobility expenditures per kilometer Expmob,mode/KMmode

TRIP Change in total number of trips per year TRIPtot

6 / 29
 Purpose split of trips
PUtrip TRIPpurp/TRIPtot
(share of total trips for specific purposes, e.g. work-related trips)
Distance of trips
DI KMpurp/TRIPpurp
(km per trip for each purpose)
EImob Changes in energy intensity of expenditures for mobility EFmob,mode/Expmob,mode

GImob Changes in GHG emissions per energy for mobility GFmob,mode/EFmob,mode

169
170 2.1. Extending Kaya-Decompositions by working time and mobility
171 Kaya-Identity decompositions are a widely established method, because they quantify
172 interrelated effects over time and are quite straightforward to apply and interpret for environmental
173 questions (Ang, 2015, 2004). The well-known Kaya Identity postulates that changes in total GHG
174 emissions can be expressed as a product of four basic factors: population, GDP per capita, energy
175 intensity (per unit of GDP) and carbon intensity (emissions per unit of energy) (Kaya and Yokobori,
176 1998).
177 Herein, this standard Identity is extended to include the role of working time and mobility
178 alongside established explanatory factors; all the underlying equations used to derive the identities are
179 shown in the supplementary information. The additive Logarithmic Mean Divisia Index I (LMDI I)
180 method is used, which is the recommended index decomposition method (Ang, 2015, 2004). Compared
181 to other decomposition methods, it satisfies a number of useful conditions, starting with a valid
182 theoretical foundation such as passing the factor-reversal test, i.e., giving ideal decompositions whereby
183 no unexplained residual term remains. Operationalizing the extended Kaya-Identities through an LMDI-
184 I decomposition, yields the following equations 1-5, with the definitions of variables and their main
185 sources in Table 2. Please note that for each variable, logarithmic changes are used in the index
186 decomposition to explain changes in the respective total footprints (GF), but the ln() is dropped for each
187 variable to facilitate readability.
188 For the macro-level national analysis, the standard Kaya variable population is substituted by
189 total WT in the economy and total GDP by total household expenditures and incomes (equation 1). In
190 this study, WT always refers to an indicator that approximates the time actually spent working as
191 precisely as possible, which is sometimes called effective WT (for sources and methods, see Section 2.2
192 and the SI). In a second step, the effect of total hours worked is decomposed into the effect of total
193 population growth, changes in (un)employment as well as average working hours per employed person
194 (equation 2).
195
𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟏𝟏𝟐𝟐

∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮 = � 𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝒕𝒕+𝟏𝟏 − 𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝒕𝒕 = ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝒕𝒕𝑾𝑾𝒕𝒕 + ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑰𝑰 + ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑹𝑹 + ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑺𝑺 + ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑬𝑬𝑰𝑰 + ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑰𝑰 (Eq. 1)
𝒕𝒕=𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐
𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟏𝟏𝟐𝟐

∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮 = � 𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝒕𝒕+𝟏𝟏 − 𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝒕𝒕

𝒕𝒕=𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 (Eq. 2)
= ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷 + ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑷𝑷 + ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾 + ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑰𝑰 + ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑹𝑹 + ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑺𝑺 + ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑬𝑬𝑰𝑰 + ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑰𝑰

7 / 29
196 For the mobility-focused decompositions changes in working time, number of trips, distances,
197 transport mode and purposes are investigated. Respective mobility footprints cover only emission-
198 relevant energy carrier use (EFmob) and CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion (GFmob), making this
199 system boundary narrower and more fitting to mobility. First, mobility footprints are analyzed similarly
200 as in the macro-level analysis (equation 1), to see differences between total household consumption
201 patterns and mobility patterns in particular (equation 3). Changes in footprints are attributed to the
202 changes in mobility expenditures by modes of transport, enabling the observation of the role of changing
203 household mobility practices: railroad & waterway, public road transport, air transport, motorized
204 individual mobility, foot & bicycle. Secondly, the changes in footprints as driven by mobility
205 expenditures and total passenger kilometers are investigated (equation 4). Thirdly, information on
206 mobility purposes, i.e., work-related trips, education, shopping and errands, leisure and others, for
207 passenger kilometers and numbers of trips per purpose are used in the final mobility-related
208 Decomposition, to analyze changes in distances, purposes, and transport modes (equation 5).
𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟏𝟏𝟐𝟐

∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝒎𝒎𝑾𝑾𝒎𝒎 = � 𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝒎𝒎𝑾𝑾𝒎𝒎,𝒕𝒕+𝟏𝟏 − 𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝒎𝒎𝑾𝑾𝒎𝒎,𝒕𝒕 (Eq.

𝒕𝒕=𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐
3)
= ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝒕𝒕𝑾𝑾𝒕𝒕 + ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑰𝑰 + ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑹𝑹𝒎𝒎𝑾𝑾𝒎𝒎 + ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑺𝑺𝒎𝒎𝑾𝑾𝒎𝒎 + ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑬𝑬𝑰𝑰𝒎𝒎𝑾𝑾𝒎𝒎 + ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑰𝑰𝒎𝒎𝑾𝑾𝒎𝒎
𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟏𝟏𝟐𝟐

∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝒎𝒎𝑾𝑾𝒎𝒎 = � 𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝒎𝒎𝑾𝑾𝒎𝒎,𝒕𝒕+𝟏𝟏 − 𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝒎𝒎𝑾𝑾𝒎𝒎,𝒕𝒕 = ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑲𝑲𝑬𝑬 + ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑬𝑬𝑷𝑷𝑴𝑴𝒎𝒎 + ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑷𝑷𝒎𝒎𝑾𝑾𝒎𝒎 + ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑬𝑬𝑰𝑰𝒎𝒎𝑾𝑾𝒎𝒎 + ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑰𝑰𝒎𝒎𝑾𝑾𝒎𝒎 (Eq. 4)

𝒕𝒕=𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐
𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟏𝟏𝟐𝟐

∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝒎𝒎𝑾𝑾𝒎𝒎 = � 𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝒎𝒎𝑾𝑾𝒎𝒎,𝒕𝒕+𝟏𝟏 − 𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝒎𝒎𝑾𝑾𝒎𝒎,𝒕𝒕

𝒕𝒕=𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐
(Eq. 5)
= ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑾𝑾𝑹𝑹𝑰𝑰𝑷𝑷 + ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝒕𝒕𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑾𝑾 + ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑫𝑫𝑰𝑰 + ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑬𝑬𝑷𝑷𝑴𝑴𝒎𝒎 + ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑷𝑷𝒎𝒎𝑾𝑾𝒎𝒎 + ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑬𝑬𝑰𝑰𝒎𝒎𝑾𝑾𝒎𝒎
+ ∆𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑰𝑰𝒎𝒎𝑾𝑾𝒎𝒎
209
210

8 / 29
211 Results
212 Because Kaya Decompositions show aggregate summary contributions of various drivers, first
213 a descriptive analysis of the underlying dynamics of energy use, GHG emissions, as well as WT, income
214 and mobility are provided.

215 3.1. German household footprints and territorial emissions

216 It is found, find that national and household GHG footprints, as well as territorial emissions
217 decreased between 2000 and 2019, especially in the latter 10 years (Figure 2A). Relative to emissions
218 in the year 2000, household footprints decreased slightly faster than national footprints, while territorial
219 emissions decreased less. National GHG footprints are at 1064 Mt/yr in 2019, 24% higher than territorial
220 GHG emissions (861 Mt/yr). Household footprints account for the largest share of the total national
221 footprints (60-70%). During that time, territorial production-based GHG emissions also slowly
222 decreased, with further deep reductions required to achieve national net-zero climate targets until 2045
223 (BMWK, 2022).
224 For total household footprints, excluding government, NGOs and investments, mobility-related
225 emissions allocated to German household consumption account for the largest shares in total footprints:
226 34% for GHG and 44% for FEU (Figure 2B). Housing is second, while the other three product groups
227 are more or less equally important, except of food having a larger share in GHG emissions. Footprints
228 of all product groups develop rather constantly or decrease slightly, except for services, where footprints
229 are still increasing.
230 Mobility footprints are decreasing by -1.4% per year, primarily because emissions due to
231 motorized individual mobility (MIM) decreased substantially (Figure 2C). MIM has the largest share in
232 each of the footprint indicators, but its share also decreased over the time period studied, from 82-84%
233 in 2000 to 65-69% in 2019. Air transport emissions more than doubled and largely filled that space with
234 its shares increasing from 6% in 2000 to 17-19% in 2019. Emissions footprints from other transport
235 modes by rail, road and water, incl. public transport, remained relatively stable in absolute terms and
236 increased their shares in total mobility footprints only slightly from 10-12% in 2000 to 14-16% in 2019.
237 Please note, that these mobility-related emissions only cover those directly and indirectly attributable to
238 German household consumption.
239

9 / 29
 A) GHG emissions in Germany from consump on and produc on-based territorial perspec ves
1.400
1.200
1.000
800
Mt/yr

600
400 Net-zero target

200
-
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
Household GHG footprint Mobility-related household CO2 footprint
Na onal GHG footprint Na onal territorial GHG emissions

[B] Household GHG footprints [C] Mobility-related household footprints

10 1.000 5 500
10.000
8 800 4 400
8.000
6 600 3 6 300
Mt/yr

Mt/yr
Mt/yr

6.000
EJ/yr
EJ/yr

4
4 4.000 400 2 2 200
2 2.000 200 1 - 100
EJ/yr

- 2000 2019
- - - -
2000 2019 2000 2019
2000 2019 2000 2019 2000 2019 2000EREU
2019
FEU GHG GHG
FEU EREU CO2
Food Consumer goods Rail, road, water & other passenger transport
Housing Transport Air passenger transport
Services Motorized individual mobility
240
241 Figure 2. Energy use and emission accounts for Germany. A) Total national GHG footprints, territorial GHG
242 emissions (incl. 2045 climate target) (lines), total household (HH) GHG footprints and its mobility-related share
243 (area). B) Total household footprints for final energy use (FEU) & GHG emissions by main sector aggregates for
244 2000 & 2019. C) Mobility-related household footprints for emission-relevant energy carrier use (EREU) & CO2
245 emissions by main transport modes for 2000 & 2019. Source: Exiobase v3.8.1(Stadler et al., 2021).

246

247 3.2. Working time, (un)employment, income and expenditure

248 Between 2000 – 2019, total effective paid WT increased in Germany, which is primarily due to
249 a growing number of persons in employment and a falling unemployment rate. Total WT per year
250 increased from the year 2000 by 4 billion hours (+7%), to 62 billion hours in 2019 (Figure 3A). The
251 number of persons in employment increased even more, with +5 million persons (+13%) (Figure 3B).
252 This resulted in a strong decrease of the unemployment rate from 7% (3.1 million persons) in 2000, to
253 3% (1.3 million) in 2019, additionally to a strong increase in the economically active population (+8%;
254 SI section 3). Labor productivity per hour (+18%) and total GDP (+24%) also increased substantially.
255 Interestingly, effective per-capita WT of the economically active population decreased on average by -
256 6%, to 1,383 hours per year (Figure 3A and B).

10 / 29
257 Across the different employment types, a more differentiated trend emerges between full-time-
258 and part-time employment, persons in multiple jobs and self-employed persons including farmers. For
259 full-time employment, total WT (2000: 42.1 billion hours; 2019: 41.3 billion total hours) as well as total
260 persons in full-time employment (2000: 25.4 million; 2019; 25.2 million) remained nearly unchanged
261 (Figure 3A). WT by self-employed persons in total and per capita is decreasing, while their share in
262 employment is stable at 13% of total persons in employment. The increasing employment and total WT
263 are driven by a 50% increase of part-time jobs (+5 million persons) and an 80% increase of WT in part-
264 time employment (Figure 3A). Overall, this results in a substantial increase in the share of part-time jobs
265 in total employment (rising from 29% to 39%). Part-time employees also work more hours per capita
266 on average (+3hours/week, or 18 hours per week in 2019). Accordingly, the part-time share of total WT
267 in Germany has increased from 12% to 19%. Finally, the strongest growth, although from very low
268 levels, is found for secondary employment in an additional job. The number of persons grew by +238%
269 and total WT by +198%. While secondary part-time jobs are a relatively small phenomenon making up
270 only 2% of total hours in 2019, 10% of economically active persons already have secondary jobs.

11 / 29
 A: Effec ve working hours in total and per capita B: Total GDP, persons in employment, effec ve hours
65 worked and labour produc vity
2500 Secondary jobs, 125%
60
total GDP (constant)
55
Self-employed, 120%
50 2000 total
45 Part- me, total Labour

per-capita eff. WT
115%
total eff. WT (bn.)

Index 2000=100%
40 produc vity
1500 Full- me, total
35 110%
Employed
30 Self-employed, persons
25 1000 per-cap 105%
20 Full- me, per- Total WT
cap 100%
15
500 Part- me, per-
10 cap 95% Per-capita WT
5 Secondary jobs,
0 per-cap 90%

2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
C: Change in hours worked and persons in employment D: Effec ve vs. contracted working hours
by sector, between 2000-2019
70 2,5%
Public services, educa on, health Total eff. WT
60 2,0%
Business services

Share of coll. agreed WT

Real estate ac vi es 50 1,5% Contracted WT

total WT (bn.)
Financial and insurance services
40 1,0%
Informa on and communica on
Unpaid over me
Trade, transport, accomm., food services 30 0,5%
Construc on
20 0,0% Paid over me
Industry, excluding construc on
Agriculture, forestry and fishing 10 -0,5%
Total
Transitory
0 -1,0% over me
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
-60% -10% 40%
Employed persons Per-capita WT Total WT

E: Disposable income per employment type F: total household expenditures by

1800 consump on categories
Marginal, 1200
1600 50 total Leisure services and other
average per-capita income (1000 €/yr)

1400 1000 Financial and social security

total income, constant (bn €/yr)

Part- me,
40
total expenditures, constant (bn €/yr)

Informa on and communica on

1200 total
800 Educa on
1000 30 Full- me,
Health and social work
total
800 600 Other passenger transport

600 20 Full- me, per- Air passenger transport

cap 400
Motorized individual mobility
400
10 Part- me, Construc on
200 200
per-cap
Housing
0 0
Marginal, per- 0 Consumer goods
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019

2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018

cap
Food

271
272 Figure 3: Development of working time (WT), employment, income and expenditures in Germany, 2000 – 2019.
273 A) Working hours per employment type and per capita. B) GDP, labor productivity, employment and total WT. C)
274 Relative changes of total and per-capita WT, as well as numbers of employed persons, per sector. D) Differences
275 between effective WT (corrected by sick leave, holidays and overtime) and contracted WT. E) Total and per capita
276 incomes per employment type and F) total household expenditures by consumption categories in constant prices
277 (base=2015). Note that data for figure 3C and 3D is only available for employed persons and therefore excludes
278 self-employed persons and farmers. Sources: (Destatis, 2021a, 2021b, 2020a, 2020b, 2019a, 2019b; IAB, 2021).

279
280 A closer investigation of the economic sectors contributing to the increase in total WT (Figure
281 3C), shows that the majority of the increase of +4 billion hours occurred due to increasing employment
282 in the service sectors. 63% of the increase in total WT is due to two sectors: business services (+3 billion
283 hours) and public services (+2.7 billion hours). Slightly decreasing total WT is found in industry (-0.59
284 billion hours), construction (-0.7 billion hours) and the agricultural sector (-0.55 billion hours).

12 / 29
285 Interestingly, per-capita WT declines in all sectors except information and communication services. We
286 find that the top five sectors: business services, information and communication, public services, other
287 services, as well as trade, transport, accommodation and food services all expand their total WT while
288 redistributing hours between more employed persons, resulting in slight decreases of per capita WT.
289 Information and communications services is the only sector which employs more persons who on
290 average also work more. In the sectors real estate, industry, construction, financial and insurances
291 services, as well as agriculture, forestry and fishing, total WTs are declining even more than the number
292 of persons employed, as per-capita WT also decreases.
293 Between 2000–2019 paid and unpaid overtime have become slightly less important. While total
294 WT increased from 50 to 55 billion hours/year, paid overtime declined slightly from 2.2% to 1.7% of
295 total WT, or from 1.1 billion to 0.94 billion hours/year (Fig. 3D). The lowest share of overtime is found
296 at 1.4% during the economic crises in 2008/2009. Unpaid overtime has also decreased, however, after
297 an increase and peak in 2006/2007, where its share in total WT was 2.5% or 1.2 billion hours. Transitory
298 overtime budgets are used counter-cyclically, which is especially visible during the economic crises in
299 2008/2009, while their effect on annual hours is insignificant among the gainfully employed population
300 since 2012/2013. Overtime seems to be occurring more often in full-time, rather than in part-time jobs
301 (Wanger et al., 2016). The decrease of overtime has been explained by the rising share of part-time
302 employment of women, shifts in employment between sectors (e.g., from production industry to service
303 sectors), and the increased use of transitory working time accounts (Wanger et al., 2016).
304 Figure 3E shows the development of price-adjusted real incomes for full-time, part-time and
305 marginal employment 1, for all sectors except the agricultural sector. Due to data limitations, information
306 is only available for 2007 – 2019 on this specific aspect, showing that the share of marginal employment
307 income in the total income of all households is stable at 1% (17 billion EUR). The number of persons
308 in marginal employment remained relatively stable at 4.4 million employees. The share of mini-jobs in
309 total employment remained stable at 11 – 12 % of total employment, while its share of total part-time
310 employment dropped from 40% in 2007 to 31% in 2019. For part-time jobs excluding marginal mini-
311 jobs, we find that from 2007–2019, incomes increased similarly as for full-time jobs, both per capita
312 (+39% vs +32%) and per hour (both +31%). Also, the number of jobs in part-time excluding marginal
313 mini-jobs increased to 24% of total jobs by 2019 (Fig. SI-1 to SI-3 for details).
314 From 2000–2019, total expenditures of all German households in constant prices increased by
315 17% (Figure 3F). While the impacts of the global financial crisis in 2008/9 are visible, they only left a

1
Structural reforms of the German labor market in the past 20 years have fostered so-called marginal
employment for long-term unemployed persons. Marginal employment comprises persons employed in so-called
“1-Euro Mini-Jobs” or “450-Euro-Jobs” (max per month). These mini-jobs are indirectly subsidized by the state,
as these people still receive some unemployment benefits and because they are supposed to be only additional and
non-competitive with the regular labor market. Earnings from these mini-jobs must not exceed a monthly threshold
of 450 EUR, after which social insurance contributions would be mandatory and the complementary
unemployment benefits would be cancelled.

13 / 29
316 small dent in the overall growth dynamics. By 2019, the highest share of expenditure, 35%, is spent on
317 housing (gas, heating, electricity, water and rents). The next largest consumption groups are consumer
318 goods as well as leisure services both at 16%, food at 14% and motorized individual mobility at 10% of
319 total expenditures. Public rail/road/water only accounted for 5% and air travel for 0.5% of total
320 expenditures.
321

322 3.3. Mobility modes, distances and purposes

323 To understand the relation between work, mobility and the environment, it is crucial to not only
324 investigate changes in expenditures, but to complement the analysis by information capturing mobility
325 behavior in terms of modes, distances and purposes, as modes and distances are primarily relevant for
326 energy use and GHG emissions.
327 Total travelled distances increased by +13% (145bn. km), from 1099 billion km to 1244 billion
328 km between 2000-2019 2 (Fig. 4). Motorized individual mobility is the dominant means of mobility in
329 terms of distances (2019: 917 billion km, Fig 3A) and purposes (74%, Fig 3B). Motorized individual
330 mobility also showed the largest total increase of +67 billion km (+8%), while air travel shows the
331 strongest relative increase (+66%) and the second highest absolute growth (+28 billion km) (Fig 4C).
332 Similar to air travel, distances travelled by railroad (+34%, +25 billion km) and by foot/bicycle (+40%,
333 +21 billion km) gained in shares. Public road transport experienced the lowest increase with 2 billion
334 km (+3%). Overall, the car-centric modal split remained quite stable over the past 20 years (77 vs 74%)
335 (Fig. SI-11 for details).

2
Please note that from 2017 onwards, a new calculation method and additional data source for travelled
distances with motor vehicles was established in the underlying official ViZ survey, which leads to a small data
break (DIW Berlin & DLR, 2019)
14 / 29
 A: Passenger kilometers by transport mode B: Passenger kilometers by purpose

1.200 1.200

1.000 Vaca on
Foot and bicycle 1.000
Escort
800 800
bn km/yr

Motorized individual

bn km/yr
Leisure
mobility
600 Air transport 600 Shopping and errands

Public road transport Work related trip

400 400
Educa on
Railroad
200 200 Trip to work

- -
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
2018

C: Changes in passenger kilometers by D: Passenger kilometers by purpose

purpose and transport mode from 2000 - 2019 and transport mode in 2019

Vaca on Vaca on
Railroad
Escort Escort
Public road
Leisure transport Leisure
Air transport
Shopping and errands Shopping and errands
Motorized
Work related trip individual mobility Work related trip
Foot and bicycle
Educa on Educa on

Trip to work Trip to work

-50%

-25%

25%

50%

75%
0%

- 150 300 450

bn km/yr
336
337 Figure 4: Mobility patterns in Germany from 2000 – 2019. Distances travelled by mode of transport (A),
338 purposes (B), their changes from 2000-2019 (C) and their patterns in 2019 (D). Source: (DIW Berlin & DLR,
339 2019)

340 Regarding mobility purposes, work-related trips have increased most strongly, by +53% or 75
341 billion km, resulting in a +5% growth of its share (2019: 18%). Work-related mobility includes business
342 trips and routine work trips, e.g., of postal workers, sales representatives, and care workers, but excludes
343 the mobility due to delivery services and transport services such as taxis (due to data constraints in the
344 underlying source). These work-related trips are also to a large extent paid for by the respective
345 companies, meaning that their costs are only partially included in the private household expenditure
346 surveys shown above. In terms of distances, taken together, work-related trips (218 billion km) and trips
347 to work (216 billion km) account for most travelled kilometers (Figure 4D). The second largest increase
348 is found for travelled distances for vacation purposes, growing by +29% or 25 billion km. The rise of
349 total travelled distances is mainly driven by work-related motorized mobility, by vacation-related car
350 mobility and by leisure-related 3 railroad and air travel.
351

3
German mobility statistics define vacation-related mobility as trips lasting five or more days, while
leisure-related mobility covers all trips not recorded by all other purposes listed in figure 4 (DIW Berlin & DLR,
2019).
15 / 29
352 3.4. Decomposing how changes of working time, income, expenditure and
353 mobility shape decreasing emissions footprints
354 In the following sections decomposition results for the above-described socio-economic
355 changes are shown. Importantly please note, that the contribution of each factor in a decomposition can
356 only be interpreted additively with the contributions of all other factors. In other words, each factor
357 shows how much the footprint would have changed, if only this one factor had changed, while all else
358 would have remained equal (‘ceteris paribus’). Therefore, all factors’ contributions add up to the total
359 change in footprints. For the interpretation, this means that the relative ‘strength’ and direction of each
360 Kaya factor can be directly discussed, while the absolute contribution of each factor should only be
361 understood within the assumptions of a Kaya Decomposition.
362
363 3.4.1. Macro-level decomposition of household GHG emission footprints
364 The decrease in household GHG footprints of -166Mt CO2eq between 2000-2019 was achieved
365 primarily due to the falling emission intensity of energy supply in the German economy and its global
366 supply chains (Figure 5A). Shifts in expenditures patterns and improvements in energy efficiency along
367 supply chains have also contributed to decreasing emissions. However, growing incomes per hour and
368 an increase in total hours worked have driven household GHG footprints up, due to population growth
369 and the increase in the employed population (Figure 5B). The decrease of average per capita working
370 times per employee would have reduced GHG emissions by -47 Mt between 2000-2019 (Figure 5B).

16 / 29
 [A]
100

Emissions per energy use

Emissions per energy use
50
Energy efficiency
Energy efficiency
-
ΔGHG (Mt)

Expenditure
Expenditure structure
structure

-50 Expenditure ra o
Expenditure ra o

-100 Income
Income per hour per hour

Totalworked
Total hours hours worked
-150
ChangeininGHG
Change GHGfootprint
footprint
-200

-200

-150

-100

-50

50

100
ΔGHG (Mt)

[B]
100
Emissions
Emissions per
per energy
energy use
use
50 Energy efficiency
Energy efficiency

Expenditure structure
Expenditure structure
-
ΔGHG (Mt)

Expenditure ra o ra o
Expenditure

-50 Income per hourper hour

Income Total WT (48Mt)

Work
Work me
me per
per employee
-100 employee
Employed popula
Employed on on
popula

-150 Popula on Popula on

Change
ChangeininGHG
GHG footprint
-200 footprint
-200

-150

-100

-50

50

100
ΔGHG (Mt)

371
372 Figure 5: Decomposition of change in GHG footprint of German households from 2000-2019. A) Decomposition
373 following KAYA equation 1, B) following KAYA equation 2 (see method section). Changes in total German
374 household footprints for final energy use and GHG emissions were analyzed based on the contributions from
375 changes in population, working times, incomes, expenditures (equations 1-2, section 2).

376 3.4.2. Mobility and changes of household CO2 emission footprints

377 Next, changes in mobility and their contributions to declining household mobility footprints of
378 emission-relevant energy carrier use (EREU) and resulting CO2 footprints due to private household
379 consumption of mobility and mobility services are analyzed (section 2, equations 3-5). The decline in
380 the mobility footprint of -28% between 2000-2019 was primarily due to improvements in the emissions
381 intensity of energy use and increasing energy efficiency along supply chains and in mobility, as well as
382 due to the decreasing share of mobility expenditure in income 4 (Figure 6A). Income per working hour
383 is the major positive driver of mobility emissions, closely followed by increasing total hours worked,
384 which would have increased mobility footprints by 15 Mt.

4
While ddisposable income in constant terms grew by 17%, mobility expenditures remained
stable (Figure 3F).
17 / 29
 100
[A]
80 Emissions perper
Emissions energy useuse
energy
60
Energy
Energy efficiency
efficiency
40
ΔGHG (Mt)

Mobility Mobility
expenditure structure
expenditure
20
structure
Share of mobility expenditure in
- Share of mobility
income
expenditure in income
-20
Income per hour
Income per hour
-40
Total hours
Total worked
hours worked
-60
-80 Change
Change in mobility
in mobility footprint
-100 footprint

-100

-50

50

100
ΔGHG (Mt)

100
[B]
80 Emissions per
Emissions per energy
energy use
use
60
Energy efficiency
Energy efficiency
40
ΔGHG (Mt)

20 Expenditures
Expenditures per km
per km
-
Modal
Modal split split of km
of km
-20
-40 Total kilometer
Total kilometer
-60
-80 Change in mobility
Change footprint
in mobility
footprint
-100
-100

-50

50

100
ΔGHG (Mt)

100
[C]
80 Emissionsper
Emissions perenergy use
energy use
60 Energy Energy
efficiency
efficiency
40 Expenditures per per km
Expenditures
ΔGHG (Mt)

20 km
Modal split Modal split
-
Total km (33Mt)

DistanceDistance
per trip per trip
-20
-40 Purposestructure
Purpose structureof trips
of trips
-60 Number Number
of trips of trips
-80 Change
Change in mobility
in mobility footprint
-100 footprint
-100

-50

50

100

ΔGHG (Mt)
385
386 Figure 6: Decomposition of change in GHG footprint of mobility of German households from 2000-2019. A)
387 Decomposition following KAYA equation 3, B) following KAYA equation 4, C) following KAYA equation 5 (see
388 method section). Please note that the trend break for the total kilometers and distances per trip is partially due to
389 changes in the underlying survey.

390 Next, work volume is substituted by numbers of trips and passenger kilometers per transport
391 mode and purpose, including work-related trips (equation 4-5, Figure 6B). Total distances travelled are
392 the main drivers of CO2 emissions, while all other factors contributed negatively, from improvements
393 in the emissions intensity of energy use, to energy efficiency gains, to declining mobility expenditures

18 / 29
394 per kilometer. Interestingly, the declining number of trips contributes negatively to the mobility
395 footprint, while growing distances per trip are a major driver of CO2 emissions (Fig 6C). The purpose
396 structure of trips also contributed negatively to the mobility footprint by -25 Mt. As discussed in section
397 3.3., across purposes the share of work-related trips increased most, while trips to work, shopping and
398 errands, as well as leisure decreased slightly.
399 These findings on increasing work-related trips seemingly reducing mobility footprints has two
400 potential explanations. Firstly, work-related trips may have become more energy efficient and less
401 emissions intensive, due to organizational and technical improvements in transport modes and fuel
402 efficiency standards, as well as indirectly through improvements across supply chains producing and
403 delivering mobility-related products and services. Officially reported are -0.5%/year decrease of
404 transport GHG emissions between 2000 – 2019, covering all flights, roads, rails, and shipping emissions
405 from households, government and businesses (Umweltbundesamt, 2022). Please note that these rates of
406 decrease are not directly comparable, as the national emissions inventory applies a national ‘territorial’
407 system boundary and covers all transport of goods and services, as well as private and business mobility
408 of households. Herein, the mobility footprint covers private mobility as well as household consumption
409 of mobility-related goods and services and their global supply chains only.
410 This leads directly to the second consideration, as this finding on shifting mobility purposes also
411 potentially indicates problem-shifting beyond the system boundary of this analysis. Work-related
412 mobility might be paid for by the employing companies and not the household itself, therefore being
413 allocated to companies’ emissions. This means, that some of these work-related mobility expenditures
414 and some of the work-related mobility emissions are part of the supply chains for global final demand
415 and not of the employee anymore. This increase of work-related mobility and potential shift of mobility
416 emissions from the household sphere to the production sphere is therefore an interesting issue for further
417 research. Furthermore, the expansion of delivery services and shift to e-commerce with postal delivery
418 also might be part of this shift beyond the system boundary of the analysis.
419

420 Discussion
421 4.1. Key findings
422 In Germany between 2000 – 2019, GHG emissions are clearly and absolutely declining, from a
423 production- as well as from a consumption-based perspective. Total household GHG footprints are
424 declining at -1% per year and mobility-related footprints at -1.4% per year. Interestingly, the only part
425 of the footprint that is still increasing is the one related to service sectors, which showed the largest
426 increase in total WT and employment and which includes delivery services and transport of goods (not
427 discernable due to data limitations). This suggests that the service economy, often claimed to be low
428 carbon, slows down emissions reductions, demanding further attention to avoid problem-shifting
429 emissions from consumption to production, e.g., from household mobility to delivery services.

19 / 29
430 While the private mobility footprint of German households is declining at -1.4% per year, this
431 is primarily because of decreasing emissions intensity and secondly due to energy efficiency gains along
432 supply chains. Household expenditures on mobility are relatively stable in constant prices and mobility
433 emission footprints decreased because people travel less often and increasingly due to work-related trips.
434 However, this effect is counteracted by distances per trip increasing by +13% across all purposes, while
435 motorized individual mobility remains the dominant transport mode. This calls attention to the
436 mechanisms that stabilize the modal split and sustain car dependence (Mattioli et al., 2020).
437 Additionally, a strong increase in air transport for leisure purposes adds to emissions both
438 through long distances and its relatively high emission-intensity. This strong increase of private air travel
439 emissions (+66%) highlights the importance of policy measures to tackle the highly unequal contribution
440 of different socio-economic groups to this fast growing source of emissions (Mattioli et al., 2023). This
441 indicates that demand-side measures to shift mobility towards more climate-friendly modes and away
442 from fossil fueled cars and planes, e.g. via infrastructural, institutional or behavioral measures, is
443 urgently necessary to counteract these growth dynamics and tackle a key challenge for European climate
444 targets (Ivanova et al., 2020; Lamb et al., 2021b).
445 Regarding working time, total hours worked in Germany increased due to a steady full-time
446 segment and an expanding part-time sector, resulting in a slight reduction of average working hours per
447 capita of the economically active population. Part-time marginal employment and the rapid growth in
448 the number of persons with multiple part-time jobs, although still at low levels, indicate that not all
449 decreases of per capita WT might be socially beneficial or desirable (Nachtwey, 2016). In the Kaya
450 framework, growing income per hour is a clear driver of GHG emissions footprints. The growth of total
451 hours worked by an increasing number of economically active persons drives up GHG emissions, while
452 decreasing average working time per person decreases GHG emission footprints. This shows the
453 complexity of the relationship between WT and emissions (see Section 4.2) and raises questions about
454 the feasibility of halting income growth, especially in high-income groups.
455 This increase of total hours, given the influence of the other Kaya factors, would have
456 contributed a small increase in mobility footprints. Regarding WT effects on mobility, a closer
457 understanding of specific WTR schemes and specific mobility patterns is therefore required, because
458 work-related travel and their emissions are partially attributed to supply chains and partially to
459 household direct emissions in this analysis using a consumption-based approach. Interactions through
460 time use also deserve attention (as detailed in Section 4.2).
461
462 4.2. Limitations and next steps
463 Some important caveats for this analysis and next steps should be mentioned. Decomposition analysis
464 by definition of the method yields complete “ideal” results, which means that no residual term is left
465 (Ang, 2015, 2004). Therefore, the equation to be decomposed has to be accepted as plausible and
466 sufficiently detailed approximation of the investigated relationships. Similarly, the utilized socio-

20 / 29
467 economic data is a national level aggregation of a myriad of individual working time arrangements and
468 their implications for private time use, mobility and consumption. A disaggregated investigation is out
469 of scope here, as it would require detailed panel data that is not currently available. This means that
470 conclusions only apply to the aggregate national level. Focused investigations of different socio-
471 economic groups and individual households and their working time arrangements linked to their
472 household footprints therefore constitutes an important next step for a deeper understanding of causal
473 mechanisms.
474 Assembling a consistent socio-economic dataset for this analysis was challenging, because
475 while most national statistical sources are generally compatible and representative, in practice they are
476 reported with varying system boundaries and categories, requiring careful and time-consuming
477 harmonization and re-estimations to develop a consistent dataset across all indicators. Especially for
478 information on paid working time arrangements, the estimation of aggregate WT is quite complex, in
479 particular, self-employed persons (including farmers) are rarely covered in time use and income surveys.
480 Because self-employed persons make up a significant share of both work and consumption, they were
481 however included here and gaps in the time series were approximated (see supplementary information
482 section SI-1.1-2). For a desirable differentiation of part-time jobs and marginal employment, data
483 limitations across sources become substantial. Regarding mobility, information on distances and
484 purposes from delivery services and taxis are excluded in the utilized statistical sources, which could
485 also affect the estimates for work-related trips. The energy and emissions implications of these trips are
486 however included in the indirect footprint estimates, at least for those pertaining to German household
487 consumption.
488 Regarding energy and emissions footprint indicators, which are consumption-based and
489 household-focused, herein the footprint of government consumption, including the services directly and
490 indirectly supplied by government, are not included – this applies for example to health services,
491 infrastructure, public transport, etc. Similarly, the footprints of investments were excluded. Both issues
492 are out of scope here, and are well-known challenges in input-output analysis (Inomata and Owen, 2014;
493 Lenzen, 2011; Miller and Blair, 2009).
494 Finally, we note a few interesting emerging hypotheses for further work. One might speculate
495 that the type of work arrangements especially in the lower paid sectors and the shift to fewer working
496 hours distributed across more employees might result in more trips to work. Secondly, work-related
497 mobility is increasing substantially, which deserves future attention regarding the spatial organization
498 of work and potential shifts of emissions from household consumption to the production-sphere. Thirdly,
499 the number of persons with multiple jobs – which usually results from insufficient opportunities – is
500 increasing rapidly (2% of all hours, but 10% of jobs in 2019). If such arrangements around multiple
501 part-time jobs continue, this could easily result in a reinforcing feedback loop of increased inequality
502 and expansion of low-wage jobs, driving up the number of people holding multiple jobs and
503 subsequently growing mobility between jobs, with potentially negative social side-effects of having to

21 / 29
504 work multiple jobs for a sufficient income. It will be very interesting to investigate these issues with
505 newer data also covering the COVID-19 restrictions and the subsequent structural changes in
506 production, consumption, working arrangements and lifestyles.

507 4.3. Implications for research on working time and the environment
508 This analysis did not aim to find causal relationships between aggregate WT and GHG
509 emissions. The Kaya approach is not suitable for this as a causal interpretation of the equations would
510 require factors in the decomposition to be independent from each other. This is often not the case because
511 changes in average WT per capita may influence other factors in the decomposition, notably incomes
512 per hour (e.g., when a reduction in WT does not imply a proportional reduction in pay) and the emission
513 intensity of expenditures (e.g., when changes in time use affect expenditure structures). An alternative,
514 causal interpretation would require more detailed datasets and causal inference methods, involving
515 considerable complexity in bridging technical methods and domain expertise, as well as considerably
516 higher resolution data (Runge et al., 2023; Shojaie and Fox, 2022). Nevertheless, the present study has
517 several implications for research on the environmental effects of changing WT (Antal et al., 2021).
518 In the concrete situation studied here, WT and incomes were likely proportional in most cases,
519 as it normally happens in part-time work. Since changes in the volume of expenditures are thought to
520 impact emissions more than changes in expenditure structures due to a time use effect (Knight et al.,
521 2013; Nässén and Larsson, 2015), it is not unreasonable to believe that growing aggregate WT reduced
522 the speed of emissions reductions in a causal sense through the work-income-expenditure-emissions
523 causal chain. In other words, the Kaya assumptions applied here do not look more unrealistic than widely
524 used decompositions in which there are interdependencies between the GDP, energy intensity and
525 carbon intensity. Even if the relationship between WT and emissions is complex, the economy vs.
526 environment dilemma likely exists if more WT increases aggregate consumption.
527 Furthermore, patterns of average per capita WT and changes in the employed population call
528 attention to interactions between these variables. In the case of Germany, the growth of employed
529 population and the fall of average WT per capita can be attributed to the same change: people who did
530 not previously work in Germany because of their age, place of residence, unemployment, or economic
531 inactivity, started to work, often part-time. In this case, a superficial assessment would attribute
532 environmental advantages to falling per capita WT, even if this reduction is the consequence of a broader
533 trend whose impacts can be expected to be negative for the environment, as more total WT translates
534 into more available income and subsequently consumption. This indicates an important caveat for
535 country-level studies on the WT-environment relationship, as population, the employed population ratio,
536 and average WT are not independent in a causal-theoretical sense but rather interact, which complex
537 statistical methods are aiming to correct for but do not directly quantify (Knight et al., 2013; Shao and
538 Rodríguez-Labajos, 2016). Similarly, Fitzgerald et al. (2022) include an interaction term between WT
539 and the top 10% income group, however not addressing overall interactions.

22 / 29
540 Finally, the complex relationships between WT and the environment might be investigated
541 along other causal pathways and at various levels and scopes of analysis. For example, instead of linking
542 up work-income-expenditures-emissions, one could ask what is being produced during work and how
543 incomes are earned, which would constitute an extraction-based or income-based responsibility
544 approach (Marques et al., 2012; Steininger et al., 2015). Many other avenues for future research exist,
545 such as case studies focused on specific households, longitudinal research using household-level data,
546 as well as qualitative work, which all are crucial for a deeper understanding on this topic which still is
547 in its infancy (Antal et al., 2021; Hanbury et al., 2023).

548 Conclusions
549 Understanding which factors drive or hinder declining household footprints is a crucial
550 prerequisite to develop further supply- and demand-side climate change mitigation measures. Herein,
551 the case of Germany between 2000 – 2019 was investigated, which is an interesting case as it is an
552 affluent, although unequal society and a pioneer of policy-driven decarbonization with declining
553 household emissions footprints. It also implemented substantial structural reforms of its labor market
554 and social security rules in the last decades.
555 Methodologically, including WT next to established drivers of energy and GHG household
556 footprints in a consistent framework is challenging but possible at the national level. For an analysis of
557 specific social groups and specific WT arrangements, a similar analysis however is unfeasible without
558 primary data collection, even in countries with high quality data like Germany. This means that bridging
559 the micro and macro levels when it comes to the environmental effects of WTRs would require more
560 detailed statistical data and more consistent classifications in these datasets.
561 Empirically, income and consumption growth remain major drivers of consumption emissions,
562 while accelerating energy efficiency gains and reductions in emissions intensity along supply chains
563 managed to overcompensate these drivers, especially since ~2010. This results in household GHG
564 footprints declining at an average of -1% per year between 2000-2019. In line with the literature (Lamb
565 et al., 2021a), we conclude that the observed emissions reductions are not deep and rapid enough to
566 achieve net-zero emissions in the next decades, making further mitigation measures necessary.
567 Based on the Kaya-Decompositions it is found that household GHG emission footprints were
568 influenced in opposite directions by changes driving aggregate WT. Falling average per capita WT
569 appears to be reducing GHG emissions in the decomposition, but this fall is part of a broader trend in
570 which the number of part-time workers grows while full-time employment is unchanged, which likely
571 increases GHG emissions through increasing aggregate WT. The main condition is that income and
572 expenditure trajectories are not strongly influenced by these changes in WT.
573 Overall, these findings indicate that aggregate working time reduction through part-time work
574 – for which the assumptions of the Kaya Decomposition look most realistic – might be a relevant piece
575 of a policy mix aiming at societal and lifestyle transformations. However, potentially negative side
576 effects as well as co-benefits across socio-economic groups need to be understood more clearly. Social
23 / 29
577 implications of part-time job arrangements and macro-economic feedbacks deserve critical attention.
578 This includes the role of changing employment patterns and working time for growing inequality, as
579 well as potentially problematic work conditions for those outside of well protected and often unionized
580 full-time jobs (Krause et al., 2017; Nachtwey, 2016). Different but complementary study designs,
581 methods and empirical cases, especially considering the structural changes induced by the COVID-19
582 pandemic period are required, to draw directly policy-relevant and context-specific conclusions on the
583 potentials of changing working arrangements and patterns as well as working time reductions.

24 / 29
584 Author contribution statement:

585 D.W.: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, writing – original draft, visualization,
586 supervision, validation, project administration, funding acquisition. B.P.: conceptualization,
587 methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing – original draft; visualization.
588 M.A.: conceptualization, supervision, writing – review & editing; funding acquisition.

589

590 Acknowledgements:

591 We thank Thiago Guimarães for helpful comments and Mareo Perkovic for his support in screening
592 and collecting data. This publication is part of the project "28hours per week: the mobility and energy
593 implications of working time reduction in Germany", which is funded and scientifically supervised by
594 the Mobile Lives Forum, as part of its research program on the mobility transition. The Mobile Lives
595 is a research and prospective institute created by SNCF. D.W. also received funding from the “Energy
596 Demand changes Induced by Technological and Social innovations” (EDITS) project, which is
597 coordinated by the Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE) and the
598 International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), funded by the Ministry of Economy,
599 Trade, and Industry (METI), Japan.

600

25 / 29
601 References
602 Ang, B.W., 2015. LMDI decomposition approach: A guide for implementation. Energy Policy 86, 233–
603 238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.07.007
604 Ang, B.W., 2004. Decomposition analysis for policymaking in energy:: which is the preferred method?
605 Energy Policy 32, 1131–1139. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00076-4
606 Antal, M., 2014. Green goals and full employment: Are they compatible? Ecol. Econ. 107, 276–286.
607 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.014
608 Antal, M., Plank, B., Mokos, J., Wiedenhofer, D., 2021. Is working less really good for the environment?
609 A systematic review of the empirical evidence for resource use, greenhouse gas emissions and
610 the ecological footprint. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 013002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-
611 9326/abceec
612 Apostolakis, B.E., 1990. Energy—capital substitutability/ complementarity: The dichotomy. Energy
613 Econ. 12, 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-9883(90)90007-3
614 BMWK, 2022. Klimaschutzbericht 2022. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz,
615 Deutschland.
616 Chapman, A., Karmaker, S.C., Shigetomi, Y., 2023. Investigating the impact of working arrangements
617 and lifestyle factor importance on environmental consciousness. Environ. Res. Commun. 5,
618 065010. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/acddbd
619 Destatis, 2021a. Volkswirtschaftliche Gesamtrechnung. Erwerbslosenstatistik nach dem ILO-Konzept.
620 Statistisches Bundesamt.
621 Destatis, 2021b. Volkswirtschaftliche Gesamtrechnung. Population: Germany, reference date, age.
622 Statistisches Bundesamt.
623 Destatis, 2020a. Einkommens- und Verbrauchsstichprobe. Einnahmen und Ausgaben privater Haushalte
624 – Fachserie 15 Heft 4. Statistisches Bundesamt.
625 Destatis, 2020b. Volkswirtschaftliche Gesamtrechnung, Verdienste und Arbeitskosten,
626 Arbeitnehmerverdienste, Fachserie 16 Reihe 2.3 (2007-2019). Statistisches Bundesamt.
627 Destatis, 2019a. Volkswirtschaftliche Gesamtrechnung, Inlandsproduktberechnung, detaillierte
628 Jahresergebnisse, Fachserie 18, Reihe 1.4. Statistisches Bundesamt.
629 Destatis, 2019b. Laufende Wirtschaftsrechnungen Einkommen, Einnahmen und Ausgaben privater
630 Haushalte 2019. Statistisches Bundesamt.
631 DIW Berlin & DLR, 2019. Recherche, Berechnung und Zusammenstellung von Daten für das
632 Taschenbuch “Verkehr in Zahlen” (ViZ). Statistisches Bundesamt.
633 Druckman, A., Buck, I., Hayward, B., Jackson, T., 2012. Time, gender and carbon: A study of the carbon
634 implications of British adults’ use of time. Ecol. Econ., The Economics of Degrowth 84, 153–
635 163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.09.008
636 Fitzgerald, J.B., 2022. Working time, inequality and carbon emissions in the United States: A multi-
637 dividend approach to climate change mitigation. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 84, 102385.
638 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102385
639 Flanagan, F., Goods, C., 2022. Climate change and industrial relations: Reflections on an emerging field.
640 J. Ind. Relat. 64, 479–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/00221856221117441
641 Fremstad, A., Paul, M., Underwood, A., 2019. Work Hours and CO 2 Emissions: Evidence from U.S.
642 Households. Rev. Polit. Econ. 31, 42–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/09538259.2019.1592950
643 Gerold, S., Hoffmann, M., Aigner, E., 2023. Towards a critical understanding of work in ecological
644 economics: A postwork perspective. Ecol. Econ. 212, 107935.
645 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107935
646 Gill, B., Moeller, S., 2018. GHG Emissions and the Rural-Urban Divide. A Carbon Footprint Analysis
647 Based on the German Official Income and Expenditure Survey. Ecol. Econ. 145, 160–169.
648 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.09.004
649 Hanbury, H., Bader, C., Moser, S., 2019. Reducing Working Hours as a Means to Foster Low(er)-
650 Carbon Lifestyles? An Exploratory Study on Swiss Employees. Sustainability 11, 2024.
651 https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072024
652 Hanbury, H., Illien, P., Ming, E., Moser, S., Bader, C., Neubert, S., 2023. Working less for more? A
653 systematic review of the social, economic, and ecological effects of working time reduction
654 policies in the global North. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 19, 2222595.
655 https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2023.2222595
26 / 29
656 IAB, 2021. IAB-Working Time Measurement Concept. Average working hours and their components.
657 Institute for Employment Research (IAB).
658 ILO, 2019. Work for a brighter future – Global Commission on the Future of Work.
659 Inomata, S., Owen, A., 2014. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF MRIO DATABASES. Econ. Syst.
660 Res. 26, 239–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/09535314.2014.940856
661 Ivanova, D., Barrett, J., Wiedenhofer, D., Macura, B., Callaghan, M., Creutzig, F., 2020. Quantifying
662 the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption options. Environ. Res. Lett. 15,
663 093001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8589
664 Ivanova, D., Stadler, K., Steen-Olsen, K., Wood, R., Vita, G., Tukker, A., Hertwich, E.G., 2015.
665 Environmental Impact Assessment of Household Consumption. J. Ind. Ecol. 20, 526–536.
666 https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12371
667 Jackson, T., Victor, P., 2011. Productivity and work in the ‘green economy.’ Environ. Innov. Soc.
668 Transit. 1, 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.04.005
669 Kaya, Y., Yokobori, K., 1998. Environment, energy and economy: Strategies for sustainability. Aspen
670 Inst.
671 Keil, A.K., Kreinin, H., 2022. Slowing the treadmill for a good life for All? German trade union
672 narratives and social-ecological transformation. J. Ind. Relat. 64, 564–584.
673 https://doi.org/10.1177/00221856221087413
674 Knight, K.W., Rosa, E.A., Schor, J.B., 2013. Could working less reduce pressures on the environment?
675 A cross-national panel analysis of OECD countries, 1970–2007. Glob. Environ. Change 23,
676 691–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.017
677 Krause, P., Franz, C., Fratzscher, M., 2017. Einkommensschichten und Erwerbsformen seit 1995. DIW
678 Wochenber. 84, 551–563.
679 Lamb, W.F., Grubb, M., Diluiso, F., Minx, J.C., 2021a. Countries with sustained greenhouse gas
680 emissions reductions: an analysis of trends and progress by sector. Clim. Policy 1–17.
681 https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2021.1990831
682 Lamb, W.F., Wiedmann, T., Pongratz, J., Andrew, R., Crippa, M., Olivier, J.G.J., Wiedenhofer, D.,
683 Mattioli, G., Al Khourdajie, A., House, J., Pachauri, S., Figueroa, M., Saheb, Y., Slade, R.,
684 Hubacek, K., Sun, L., Ribeiro, S.K., Khennas, S., de la Rue du Can, S., Chapungu, L., Davis,
685 S.J., Bashmakov, I., Dai, H., Dhakal, S., Tan, X., Geng, Y., Gu, B., Minx, J.C., 2021b. A review
686 of trends and drivers of greenhouse gas emissions by sector from 1990 to 2018. Environ. Res.
687 Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abee4e
688 Le Quéré, C., Korsbakken, J.I., Wilson, C., Tosun, J., Andrew, R., Andres, R.J., Canadell, J.G., Jordan,
689 A., Peters, G.P., van Vuuren, D.P., 2019. Drivers of declining CO2 emissions in 18 developed
690 economies. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 213–217. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0419-7
691 Lee, J., Shigetomi, Y., Kanemoto, K., 2023. Drivers of household carbon footprints across EU regions,
692 from 2010 to 2015. Environ. Res. Lett. 18, 044043. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acc95e
693 Lenzen, M., 2016. Structural analyses of energy use and carbon emissions – an overview. Econ. Syst.
694 Res. 28, 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/09535314.2016.1170991
695 Lenzen, M., 2011. AGGREGATION VERSUS DISAGGREGATION IN INPUT–OUTPUT
696 ANALYSIS OF THE ENVIRONMENT. Econ. Syst. Res. 23, 73–89.
697 https://doi.org/10.1080/09535314.2010.548793
698 Madsen, S.T., Weidema, B.P., 2023. Input–output modelling for household activity-level environmental
699 footprints: a systematic literature review. Environ. Res. Lett. 18, 043003.
700 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acc59c
701 Marques, A., Rodrigues, J., Lenzen, M., Domingos, T., 2012. Income-based environmental
702 responsibility. Ecol. Econ. 84, 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.09.010
703 Mattioli, G., Büchs, M., Scheiner, J., 2023. Who flies but never drives? Highlighting diversity among
704 high emitters for passenger transport in England. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 99, 103057.
705 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103057
706 Mattioli, G., Roberts, C., Steinberger, J.K., Brown, A., 2020. The political economy of car dependence:
707 A systems of provision approach. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 66, 101486.
708 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101486
709 Miller, Blair, 2009. Input-output analysis : foundations and extensions. Cambridge University Press.
710 Nachtwey, O., 2016. Die Abstiegsgesellschaft: über das Aufbegehren in der regressiven Moderne,
711 Originalausgabe, Erste Auflage. ed, Edition Suhrkamp. Suhrkamp, Berlin.
27 / 29
712 Nässén, J., Larsson, J., 2015. Would shorter working time reduce greenhouse gas emissions? An analysis
713 of time use and consumption in Swedish households. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2015 33,
714 726–745. https://doi.org/10.1068%2Fc12239
715 Neubert, S., Bader, C., Hanbury, H., Moser, S., 2022. Free days for future? Longitudinal effects of
716 working time reductions on individual well-being and environmental behaviour. J. Environ.
717 Psychol. 82, 101849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101849
718 Ottelin, J., Ala-Mantila, S., Heinonen, J., Wiedmann, T., Clarke, J., Junnila, S., 2019. What can we learn
719 from consumption-based carbon footprints at different spatial scales? Review of policy
720 implications. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 093001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab2212
721 Pottier, A., 2022. Expenditure elasticity and income elasticity of GHG emissions: A survey of literature
722 on household carbon footprint. Ecol. Econ. 192, 107251.
723 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107251
724 Pullinger, M., 2014. Working time reduction policy in a sustainable economy: Criteria and options for
725 its design. Ecol. Econ. 103, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.009
726 Runge, J., Gerhardus, A., Varando, G., Eyring, V., Camps-Valls, G., 2023. Causal inference for time
727 series. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 4, 487–505. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-023-00431-y
728 Schor, J.B., 1992. The overworked American: The unexpected decline of leisure. Basic Books, New
729 York.
730 Shao, Q., Rodríguez-Labajos, B., 2016. Does decreasing working time reduce environmental pressures?
731 New evidence based on dynamic panel approach. J. Clean. Prod. 125, 227–235.
732 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.037
733 Shojaie, A., Fox, E.B., 2022. Granger Causality: A Review and Recent Advances. Annu. Rev. Stat. Its
734 Appl. 9, 289–319. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-040120-010930
735 Smetschka, B., Wiedenhofer, D., Egger, C., Haselsteiner, E., Moran, D., Gaube, V., 2019. Time Matters:
736 The Carbon Footprint of Everyday Activities in Austria. Ecol. Econ. 164, 106357.
737 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106357
738 Song, K., Baiocchi, G., Feng, K., Hubacek, K., Sun, L., 2022. Unequal household carbon footprints in
739 the peak-and-decline pattern of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. J. Clean. Prod. 368, 132650.
740 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132650
741 Stadler, K., Wood, R., Bulavskaya, T., Södersten, C.-J., Simas, M., Schmidt, S., Usubiaga, A., Acosta‐
742 Fernández, J., Kuenen, J., Bruckner, M., Giljum, S., Lutter, S., Merciai, S., Schmidt, J.H.,
743 Theurl, M.C., Plutzar, C., Kastner, T., Eisenmenger, N., Erb, K.-H., Koning, A. de, Tukker, A.,
744 2021. EXIOBASE 3 (3.8.1) [WWW Document]. Zenodo. URL
745 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4588235
746 Steininger, K.W., Lininger, C., Meyer, L.H., Muñoz, P., Schinko, T., 2015. Multiple carbon accounting
747 to support just and effective climate policies. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 35–41.
748 https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2867
749 Umweltbundesamt, 2022. Nationaler Inventarbericht. Zum Deutschen Treibhausgasinventar 1990 –
750 2020.
751 UNFCCC, 2015. Paris Agreement.
752 Usubiaga, A., Acosta-Fernández, J., 2015. Carbon Emission Accounting in Mrio Models: The Territory
753 Vs. the Residence Principle. Econ. Syst. Res. 27, 458–477.
754 https://doi.org/10.1080/09535314.2015.1049126
755 Usubiaga-Liaño, A., Arto, I., Acosta-Fernández, J., 2021. Double accounting in energy footprint and
756 related assessments: How common is it and what are the consequences? Energy 222, 119891.
757 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.119891
758 Wanger, S., Weigand, R., Zapf, I., 2016. Measuring hours worked in Germany – Contents, data and
759 methodological essentials of the IAB working time measurement concept. J. Labour Mark. Res.
760 49, 213–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12651-016-0206-0
761 Wiedenhofer, D., Smetschka, B., Akenji, L., Jalas, M., Haberl, H., 2018. Household time use, carbon
762 footprints, and urban form: a review of the potential contributions of everyday living to the
763 1.5 °C climate target. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 30, 7–17.
764 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.02.007
765 Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., 2018. Environmental and social footprints of international trade. Nat.
766 Geosci. 11, 314–321. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0113-9

28 / 29
767 Wood, R., Stadler, K., Simas, M., Bulavskaya, T., Giljum, S., Lutter, S., Tukker, A., 2018. Growth in
768 Environmental Footprints and Environmental Impacts Embodied in Trade: Resource Efficiency
769 Indicators from EXIOBASE3. J. Ind. Ecol. 22, 553–564. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12735
770 Zhang, J., Zhu, L., Liu, J., Yu, B., Yu, S., 2023. How ageing shapes the relationship between working
771 time and carbon dioxide emissions: Evidence from Chinese households. Environ. Impact
772 Assess. Rev. 98, 106974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106974
773

29 / 29