In recent months, the debate about reducing working hours has gained momentum in Brazil. Proposals that involve the end of the 6×1 scale (six days of work for one day of rest) and the adoption of models such as 4×3 or 5×2 mobilized Congress, companies, unions and public opinion. They brought to light relevant, and often conflicting, arguments about productivity, well-being and competitiveness.
Outside organizations, the discussion tends to be anchored in this dilemma. There are studies and institutions that point to gains in health, engagement and quality of life, in addition to experiences that suggest increased productivity in certain contexts. On the other hand, entities such as CNI, FIESP, Fecomercio and industrial federations have highlighted concerns about increased costs, loss of competitiveness and risks to formal employment, especially in more labor-intensive sectors.
This contrast is legitimate and real. The impact of any change will certainly not be the same for everyone. Labor-intensive companies, continuous operations, retail, health, security, logistics, restaurants and in-person services tend to feel more. Companies with greater automation, operational flexibility or delivery work can absorb better.
Continues after advertising
But, within companies, the practical question is not whether the end of the 6×1 journey is better or worse in abstract terms. The central question becomes how to operate under new rules without compromising the sustainability of the business.
The domino effect: a company-wide change
One of the biggest mistakes in companies is treating working hours as a topic restricted to a single organizational dimension. In practice, we are talking about a chain of effects that crosses practically all areas of the company.
In the field of Human Resources, it will be necessary to redesign working hours, review time bank policies, recalibrate goals and deal with effects on engagement, turnover and attracting talent. In Finance, the impact falls on cost, margin and budget planning, especially in structures with high dependence on labor.
Continues after advertising
From a legal point of view, the change brings new interpretative challenges, contractual adjustments and potential risks of labor liabilities, especially in regulatory transition scenarios. In the Operations area, the challenge lies in how to maintain service levels, service scale and coverage, productivity with less available hours, and deliveries within the agreed SLAs.
Technology, in turn, becomes an enabling element for this transition, whether through journey control systems or due to the need for automation and better use of data and time.
Transversal to all of this is organizational culture, which absorbs the most sensitive effects of change: perception of justice, pressure for results, leadership preparation and the risk of silent intensification of work.
Continues after advertising
The journey structures the way work happens within the organization. Therefore, any reduction in working hours cannot be interpreted as a one-off adjustment. This is an operational redesign. Economic studies already indicate that changes in this field tend to alter the cost of work, albeit unevenly between sectors.
At the same time, practical experiences show that productivity gains can, in some cases, offset part of this impact, as long as there is a reorganization of processes, a review of priorities and management maturity.
The critical point is not the change itself, but the company’s ability to respond in a coordinated way. And who supports this coordination within the corporate environment? The GRC.
Continues after advertising
The biggest risk: disconnected decisions
Despite the complexity involved, the initial reaction of many organizations may be to simplify, delegating the issue to HR, treating it as a legal issue or postponing actions until there is greater regulatory clarity.
This approach, although understandable, creates relevant risk zones. Decisions made in silos generate side effects that are difficult to anticipate. An adjustment driven exclusively by cost can compromise culture and engagement. An operational solution oriented exclusively by results can generate legal exposure. And an excessively conservative reading can, in turn, compromise competitiveness and innovation.
The risk, in this scenario, is not only in the content of the decision, but in the lack of coordination between the areas involved, because when each part of the organization responds in isolation, the company loses the ability to adequately calibrate its choices.
Continues after advertising
More than reacting, GRC allows the organization to simulate scenarios, identify vulnerabilities and make decisions based on evidence, and not just under pressure or uncertainty. In an environment of change, this role stops being support and becomes decision infrastructure.
On this topic, complying with the law will only be the starting point. GRC does not and will not define which journey the company should adopt, but it plays an essential role in connecting the different dimensions involved in the decision. Acts as a translator of regulatory change into the operational context, integrating areas, anticipating impacts and structuring more sustainable, consistent and coherent responses.
GRC as a bridge between regulation and business
If the working day stops being just a time rule and starts to change the company’s operating logic, GRC’s actions also need to leave the generic field of “adequacy” and enter the concrete terrain of change management. It is not enough to follow the proposal’s progress or wait for the legal department to translate the final text of the law.
The role of GRC, in this case, is to organize the response: map risks, review controls, test scenarios, ensure a decision-making path, monitor indicators and provoke senior leadership when necessary.
This means bringing together HR, legal, finance, operations, technology, audit and leadership to answer simple but uncomfortable questions: Which areas depend on continuous scale? Which contracts have SLAs linked to the availability of people? Which units would see an immediate increase in cost? Where is there a risk of hidden overtime, poorly controlled time banks or informal pressure for availability outside of work hours?
Furthermore, journey control is not just a working point system. It is a clear policy, reliable record, trained leadership and indicators capable of showing whether the new rule is being complied with without creating distortions.
In reduced models, one of the quietest risks will be the intensification of work: the company reduces hours on paper, but maintains the same delivery load without redesigning processes. In this scenario, labor risk may even appear to be controlled in the system, but cultural risk tends to grow in the corridor (far from formal indicators).
International experience with four-day weeks shows that positive results often depend on planning, redesigning priorities, redistributing tasks and monitoring productivity, and not just formally reducing days or hours.
It is also up to the GRC to support the construction of scenarios. There is no single possible answer for every business. Operational, industrial, administrative, commercial and support areas do not suffer the same impact when faced with a possible change in the work model. Therefore, the question should not be “how to comply with the new rule?”, but “which operating models are possible, what risks does each one generate and which one is compatible with our risk appetite?”.
This analysis may include additional hiring scenarios, shift redistribution, automation, contract renegotiation, review of goals, changes to time bank policies and changes in productivity indicators.
The practical performance of the GRC also involves decision governance. If the company decides to absorb costs, reduce service, automate processes, renegotiate contracts or redesign schedules, these choices need to be documented, justified and aligned with the strategy. It’s not bureaucracy. It is a decision-making path.
In a sensitive topic, with an impact on people, costs and reputation, the absence of registration can transform a legitimate choice into an apparent improvisation.
Another important point is the integration between compliance and organizational culture. I often say that compliance is based on three pillars: prevention, detection and remediation. Reducing litigation, strengthening governance, protecting reputation and creating safer and more productive work environments are part of the prevention pillar. But to do this, the company needs to measure more than formal compliance.
Need to monitor absenteeism, turnoverovertime, absences, complaints, climate, productivity, labor complaints and perception of fairness between teams. If the change in journey stabilizes legal indicators, improves mental health, but worsens engagement, performance and trust in leadership, the risk has simply moved off the shelf.
Ultimately, the discussion can take hours, but it requires creativity and a search for efficiency. In day-to-day corporate life, it will test something deeper: the ability of companies to make decisions in the face of structural changes. And as every decision of this nature involves risk, I hope that GRC is not left out of this process in your company.
