Too Hot to Work? Sri Lanka and Maldives Face 147,000 Full-Time Job Equivalents in Lost Working Hours by 2040

Rising workplace heat stress could cost Sri Lanka and the Maldives a combined USD 26.6 billion annually and reduce working time by the equivalent of 147,000 full-time jobs by 2040, according to ILO projections. With productivity losses already evident, the findings expose how rising temperatures are becoming a direct economic threat, intensifying pressure on governments and employers to protect workers without undermining livelihoods.

Rising temperatures are creating an increasingly costly economic problem for Sri Lanka and the Maldives, where heat exposure is already reducing working hours and productivity. New International Labour Organization (ILO) studies project that the combined annual economic losses could reach approximately USD 26.6 billion by 2040, even under a low-emissions pathway, raising difficult questions about how economies can sustain employment and output as working conditions become hotter.

The projections reveal a form of climate-related economic damage that can accumulate without factories shutting down, infrastructure collapsing or businesses ceasing operations. When excessive heat limits the time employees can work safely, the consequences extend from individual earnings and enterprise productivity to national economic performance.

The hidden economic cost of working in a hotter climate

The ILO estimates that rising workplace heat stress could reduce productive working time by the equivalent of approximately 147,000 full-time jobs across Sri Lanka and the Maldives by 2040. Sri Lanka accounts for around 145,000 full-time job equivalents, while the Maldives accounts for approximately 2,400 under the same low-emissions scenario.

These figures do not represent a prediction of direct job losses. Instead, they translate the expected reduction in working hours into full-time employment equivalents, illustrating how an economy can lose substantial productive capacity even when workers remain employed and enterprises continue operating.

The projected GDP consequences are similarly uneven in absolute terms. Sri Lanka could experience annual losses of approximately USD 26 billion by 2040, compared with around USD 576 million in the Maldives. Together, the losses amount to roughly USD 26.6 billion annually relative to the historical reference period.

The difference in monetary losses should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that one country faces a proportionately greater economic burden. Absolute GDP estimates capture the scale of projected output losses, but they do not independently establish how severely each economy would be affected relative to its size.

More immediately, the research indicates that these pressures have already entered economic activity. In 2023, climate-driven increases in workplace heat stress caused additional losses of working time and GDP in both countries compared with the 1985–2014 historical reference period.

The significance lies in the gradual nature of the disruption. Unlike sudden economic shocks, heat-related productivity losses can emerge through shorter working periods and increasingly difficult occupational conditions. The resulting economic costs may grow even without a single event severe enough to interrupt an entire industry.

Why farms, construction sites and service industries face different risks

The distribution of projected heat-related losses highlights an important distinction between the two countries. In Sri Lanka, agriculture faces the greatest expected impact, followed by services, manufacturing and construction. In the Maldives, services and construction emerge as the most affected sectors.

These differences indicate that workplace heat stress is not confined to a particular occupation or production system. Its economic consequences extend across activities with different working arrangements, operational requirements and opportunities to modify working conditions.

Agriculture's prominence in Sri Lanka places particular attention on the relationship between working schedules and exposure to high temperatures. Meanwhile, the projected pressures on services and construction in the Maldives show that heat-related productivity constraints can extend across several components of economic activity.

Sectoral differences also complicate the design of protective measures. Adjusting working hours may be feasible in some occupational settings but more difficult in others, depending on how tasks are organised. Appropriate responses thus require consideration of working conditions rather than reliance on a uniform national intervention.

The findings expose another economic tension: maintaining working hours does not necessarily mean maintaining productivity. If temperatures increasingly restrict the amount of work that can be performed safely, preserving existing schedules without sufficient protection may leave the underlying problem unresolved.

Equally, reducing working time without addressing income security can transfer part of the economic burden directly to workers. The challenge is particularly acute for those who cannot afford to sacrifice essential earnings, even when shorter exposure would reduce heat-related risks.

The ILO consequently identifies social protection as an important component of workplace adaptation. Income security and occupational safety are closely connected when workers face a choice between limiting heat exposure and preserving the earnings needed for daily living.

Can workplace protection prevent heat from becoming a deeper economic constraint?

The ILO recommends several measures intended to reduce occupational heat exposure, including revised working hours, structured work-rest cycles, access to shade, adequate hydration and cooling facilities. Stronger workplace monitoring, improved awareness and occupational safety standards are also identified as necessary responses.

Such interventions raise practical questions for employers and governments. Workplace adjustments may require changes in operating schedules, facilities and safety procedures, while effective protection also depends on how measures are implemented across different sectors.

Joni Simpson, ILO Country Director for Sri Lanka and the Maldives, has called for worker protection to become part of occupational safety, climate adaptation and economic resilience strategies. Simpson also emphasised cooperation among governments, employers and workers in developing solutions that safeguard livelihoods while sustaining productive enterprises.

The emphasis on social dialogue reflects the competing considerations involved. Employers must manage operational requirements, workers need protection without unacceptable income losses, and governments face the task of linking labour safeguards with broader climate and economic policies.

Crucially, the projected losses arise even under a low-emissions pathway. Lower emissions alone therefore do not remove the need for workplace adaptation. Economic resilience will also depend on how effectively countries respond to heat exposure within existing employment and production arrangements.

The studies form part of a six-country ILO research initiative also covering Ethiopia, Ghana, Lebanon and Senegal, supported by the Climate Vulnerable Forum and Vulnerable 20 Finance Ministers and funded through the CVF-V20 Joint Multi-Donor Fund.

For Sri Lanka and the Maldives, the next test will be whether the identified risks translate into practical workplace protections. Government responses, employer adoption of preventive measures, occupational heat monitoring and social protection arrangements will determine how comprehensively the challenge is addressed.