Finds documents with both search terms in any word order, permitting "n" words as a maximum distance between them. Best choose between 15 and 30 (e.g. NEAR(recruit, professionals, 20)).
Finds documents with the search term in word versions or composites. The asterisk * marks whether you wish them BEFORE, BEHIND, or BEFORE and BEHIND the search term (e.g. lightweight*, *lightweight, *lightweight*).
This chapter presents the results of a comprehensive survey conducted between June and August 2024 on digital platform work in the Republic of Moldova. The survey covers over 90 localities, both urban and rural, and provides insights into the demographics, education levels, and professional occupations of platform workers. Key findings include the significant presence of middle-aged workers, a relatively balanced gender distribution, and a clear skew towards urban respondents. The educational profile of respondents shows a high level of academic achievement, with a diverse range of formal education levels. The occupational data reveals the diversity of professional involvement among platform workers, with salaried employees, freelancers, and managers or entrepreneurs being the most prominent categories. The survey also explores the perceptions of digital labor platforms, the types of activities carried out, and the reasons for engaging in platform work. Additionally, it highlights the challenges faced by platform workers, including the lack of social protection, unofficial work, and the absence of paid leave. The chapter concludes by discussing the factors that contribute to the exploitation of workers through digital labor platforms and the major issues regarding the terms of legal agreements proposed by digital platforms. This detailed analysis offers a comprehensive overview of the digital platform work landscape in Moldova, providing valuable insights into the impact of digitalization on labor markets and the need for legal and social protections.
AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
Abstract
This chapter provides an in-depth analysis of digital platform work in the Republic of Moldova, based on a comprehensive national survey conducted between June and August 2024. The study examines the demographic composition, educational attainment, occupational diversity, and geographic distribution of platform workers, while also assessing their motivations, working conditions, and perceived vulnerabilities in the emerging platform economy. Using a mixed-methods approach with CATI and CAWI instruments, the survey collected responses from 846 individuals in urban and rural regions. The findings reveal a complex interplay between flexibility, autonomy, and income supplementation, juxtaposed with widespread informality, lack of legal protection, and precarious working conditions. Particular attention is paid to gender and age disparities, the role of platform work as a primary and supplementary source of income, and the implications for social justice and labor market inclusion. Comparative references to global literature contextualize Moldova’s position within broader platform work dynamics, highlighting both convergences and local specificities. The chapter concludes with policy-oriented reflections on the regulation of platform-mediated work, highlighting the urgent need to reconcile digital innovation with fair labor standards and comprehensive social protection frameworks.
This chapter presents the results of a comprehensive survey conducted between June and August 2024 on the topic of digital platform work in the Republic of Moldova. The purpose of the survey was to understand the demographics, education levels, and professional occupations of platform workers and their perspectives on working conditions, challenges, and potential improvements. The survey was conducted across more than 90 localities in Moldova, covering both urban and rural environments.
The digital economy has grown significantly over the past decade, reshaping traditional labor markets and creating new opportunities for work. Moldova is no exception, as digital platforms increasingly play a role in providing flexible employment options. However, these opportunities come with challenges, particularly concerning labor conditions, legal definitions of workers’ status, and social protection.
Advertisement
Moldova was selected as a case study due to its uniquely illustrative regulatory, economic and social context, the scarcity of existing research and the quality and significance of our original empirical data. It is both methodologically justified and crucially enhances the scholarly coherence and practical value of the entire work to maintain this Chapter as a distinct section within the book.
As a non-EU post-Soviet country, Moldova does not apply EU labour directives, which results in a high level of legal ambiguity regarding platform work. At the same time, the country is undergoing rapid alignment with EU standards, which makes the current transitional stage especially relevant for empirical analysis. Furthermore, the lack of existing national research and data on digital platform work highlights the added value of this original survey. The nationally representative data collected using a robust methodology allows for an in-depth exploration of how digitalisation is shaping labour market dynamics in a country with limited institutional capacity and growing integration ambitions. The Moldovan case offers insights not only into national specificities but also into broader regional trends and methodological pathways for future studies in similar non-EU contexts.
6.1 Methodology and Data Collection
Data for this study were collected through a comprehensive questionnaire using both the CATI (Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing) and CAWI (Computer-Assisted Web Interviewing) methods. The questionnaire was developed in both Romanian and Russian, utilizing the data collection software provided by Imaps Expert Ltd. And IDATA Ltd. It underwent thorough testing, including technical assessments, to ensure proper functionality, including skip logic (routing), filters, and other programmed checks.
The survey targeted a sample of 1,000 platform workers across both urban and rural settings in Moldova. Of these, 846 respondents provided valid interviews, yielding a valid completion rate of 84.6% relative to the targeted sample. The participants included employees, freelancers, and independent contractors across different age groups and gender categories. The survey questions covered various topics, such as working conditions, social protection, legal status, and the balance between professional and personal life.
Advertisement
Data analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics to identify trends and significant areas of concern within the platform labor market. The results of the questionnaire are available in percentage form, presented in tables, and disaggregated by larger respondent categories (e.g., employment status, gender, age group, urban vs. rural) for more detailed analysis.
6.2 Sample Description
In the annexes at the end of the study, the data collected through the questionnaire is presented in detail. Comprehensive tables display the percentage outcomes, along with disaggregated data, allowing for an in-depth examination of the findings across different respondent categories. The annexes provide a clear and accessible structure for further reference, ensuring transparency in both the methodology and the results. This structure facilitates a deeper understanding of the study’s conclusions and offers clarity on the specific trends related to platform work in Moldova, particularly in terms of working conditions and the social and legal challenges faced by workers.
6.2.1 Demographic Distribution
Age Distribution
The age distribution of the respondents reveals a significant presence of middle-aged workers, with the majority falling between 25 and 54 years old (see Fig. 6.1).
Fig. 6.1
Age distribution of respondents. Source: compiled by the authors
This indicates that digital platform work attracts a broad range of participants, with the highest concentration in the mid-career group (35–54 years). Younger workers also represent a significant portion, demonstrating that platform work is appealing to early-career professionals as well.
Gender Distribution
The gender distribution among respondents shows a relatively balanced participation, though there is a slight male predominance (see Fig. 6.2).
Fig. 6.2
Gender distribution of respondents. Source: compiled by the authors
This highlights the inclusivity of platform work across genders, though the slightly higher male participation may reflect sector-specific trends, particularly in fields traditionally dominated by male workers, such as logistics and transport.
Geographical Distribution (Urban vs. Rural)
There is a clear skew towards urban respondents:
83.9% of respondents are from urban areas,
16.1% are from rural areas.
This reflects the concentration of digital platform work opportunities in urban centers, where infrastructure and connectivity are more developed. The rural participation, while lower, highlights potential gaps in digital access and employment opportunities for rural populations in Moldova.
Education Levels
The educational profile of respondents shows a high level of academic achievement, which is characteristic of the platform workforce:
39.7% of respondents have a higher education degree or are in the process of completing higher education,
13.8% have completed vocational college studies,
11.7% have professional school qualifications.
Additionally, respondents hold advanced degrees or specialized education as follows:
11.5% have completed a master’s degree,
10.4% have some incomplete secondary education,
9% have completed high school,
2.1% have obtained a Ph.D. or equivalent.
This diverse educational background highlights that digital platform work in Moldova attracts individuals with varying levels of formal education, including both entry-level workers and highly educated professionals. The significant share of respondents with higher education suggests that platform work can serve as a flexible or supplementary income source for those with academic qualifications.
Occupational Distribution
The occupational data reveals the diversity of professional involvement among platform workers in Moldova:
37.5% of respondents are salaried employees,
20.8% identify as freelancers,
14.5% are managers or entrepreneurs.
Other notable occupational categories include:
11.7% are students,
6.6% are unemployed,
5.4% are homemakers.
This distribution suggests that platform work serves different functions depending on the respondent’s primary occupation. For salaried employees and freelancers, it may provide additional income or flexibility, while for students and unemployed individuals, platform work may represent a primary or transitional source of income.
6.3 Results and Discussion
Question 1
Which of the following definitions do you believe best explains what digital labor platforms are? (please check one or more answers that reflect your point of view)
The perception of digital labor platforms in Moldova aligns with global trends, where platforms are predominantly seen as intermediaries that connect clients with service providers, a role extensively documented in existing literature (see Fig. 6.3). This intermediary role is well-documented in the literature, with Chin and Yean Chin and Yean (2021) emphasizing how digital platforms facilitate transactions in labor markets, effectively reducing transaction costs and enhancing flexibility for both workers and clients. In Moldova, survey result indicates that 49.4% of respondents view these platforms as intermediaries, particularly in urban settings, which reflects the broader global understanding of the platforms’ primary function in linking labor supply with demand (Au-Yeung and Qiu 2022).
Fig. 6.3
Distribution of perception of definition of digital platforms by demographics and professional status of respondents. Source: compiled by the authors
However, as in many other countries, there is also a substantial group (35.9%) that views platforms primarily as tools for executing transactions and managing payments, mirroring global research on the transactional and economic nature of platforms as seen in work by Daramola and Etim (Daramola and Etim 2022), who discuss the transactional dominance in platform-mediated work. Furthermore, the notion of platforms as part of a broader economic system for distributing tasks among freelancers (30.3%) parallels findings in De Stefano’s (2016) research, which highlights platforms’ role in facilitating gig work and freelancing across different sectors globally.
Interestingly, the lower emphasis on platforms as business models (26.4%) or legal frameworks (21.4%) in Moldova contrasts with findings from more developed economies. For instance, Berg et al. Daramola and Etim (2022) highlight that in developed contexts, there is a heightened concern regarding worker classification and legal protections. This suggests that Moldova’s platform economy may still be in an earlier stage of formalization, where issues of legal frameworks and worker protections are not yet as pronounced. This comparison underscores the shared characteristics of Moldova’s platform economy with global trends while revealing unique local nuances, particularly the lesser focus on legal structures and protections for workers.
Question 2
What types of activities do you carry out on digital platforms? (please check one or more answers relevant to you)
Republic of Moldova, like many countries, is seeing a significant shift in the way labor markets function, with digital platforms facilitating diverse forms of employment, particularly in low- and middle-skilled sectors. The most prominent activity on these platforms, delivery services/food delivery, engages a substantial portion of the population, especially men, which reflects global tendencies observed in gig economies around the world. For instance, studies from Europe and North America have consistently shown that food delivery and courier services dominate the gig economy landscape, where men are overrepresented due to the physically demanding nature of the work (De Stefano 2015; Balaram et al. 2017). Moldova’s data reinforces this trend, with 28.6% of male respondents reporting engagement in food delivery compared to just 11.6% of women, illustrating how traditional gender roles may still influence labor market participation in this sector (see Fig. 6.4).
Fig. 6.4
Distribution of activities performed on digital platforms by respondents (%)
Moreover, home improvement and renovation services rank second in popularity, with a notable male dominance, as expected given the nature of the work. Globally, similar patterns have been observed, with platform-based services like TaskRabbit seeing higher male participation in jobs involving physical labor (Rosenblat and Stark 2016). In contrast, sectors like tutoring, translation, and other knowledge-based services have higher female participation, which is again consistent with global findings where women tend to dominate freelance work in education, translation, and content creation (Hunt et al. 2019). In Moldova, 15.9% of women participate in tutoring and 13.9% in translation services, indicating that digital platforms are providing women with avenues to monetize intellectual and service-based work, particularly in urban areas where access to these platforms is more prevalent.
However, the overall participation in higher-paying sectors such as IT and information services remains low across both genders. This points to a broader issue that Moldova faces regarding digital infrastructure and tech-sector development. While globally, IT services form a significant part of the gig economy, particularly in developed countries, Moldova’s lower engagement in this sector (3.3% overall, with men slightly outpacing women) highlights the country’s nascent tech ecosystem, which still lacks the scale and maturity seen in places like India or the United States, where freelance tech work is a major contributor to the gig economy (Berg et al. 2018). This trend suggests that Moldova has yet to fully harness the potential of digital platforms to foster high-skill, high-pay employment, leaving its digital workforce predominantly engaged in lower-skill sectors.
The gender disparity observed across sectors further emphasizes global inequalities reflected in Moldova’s platform economy. Women, while finding opportunities in caregiving, translation, and tutoring, remain largely underrepresented in technical fields such as IT, which globally offers higher wages and more significant growth potential (ILO 2021b). This mirrors findings from studies on platform economies in the Global South, where gender norms and unequal access to education continue to limit women’s participation in high-tech fields (Wood et al. 2019). In Moldova, this division is stark, with only 5.1% of women engaging in handmade product sales compared to 0.4% of men, and similarly high gender divides in fields like childcare, where women dominate. This reflects both the opportunities and constraints that digital platforms offer for women in the region. While platforms create income opportunities in traditionally unpaid or informal sectors like care work, they also perpetuate existing gender divisions, limiting women’s access to higher-skilled and better-paying jobs.
The reliance on platforms for low-wage, low-skill work in Moldova is particularly evident in the high engagement rates among NEET individuals, with 45.5% participating in food delivery services. Globally, NEETs are one of the most vulnerable groups in the labor market, often relying on gig work as their primary source of income due to the flexibility and low barriers to entry that platforms offer (Graham et al. 2017). However, this trend raises concerns about the sustainability of such work, as gig economy jobs often lack social protection, career progression, or opportunities for skill development, which are critical for long-term economic resilience. The reliance on gig work as a primary income source for Moldova’s youth mirrors broader global patterns where younger generations, especially in economically unstable regions, turn to platforms for immediate but unstable income (Friedman 2014).
Question 3
“Which of the reasons listed in the table below do you consider important for carrying out your activity through digital platforms?” (Life circumstances)
The data presented on the motivations and circumstances under which individuals engage in platform-based work in Moldova offer valuable insights into the interplay between economic necessity, flexibility, and social dynamics within the gig economy. When compared to global literature, it becomes evident that Moldova shares many characteristics with other regions but also presents unique patterns due to its socioeconomic and cultural landscape (Fig. 6.5).
Fig. 6.5
Overview of responses for working through digital platforms. Source: compiled by the authors
Question 3.1. Working through digital platforms is the main source of income
Question 3.2. Work through digital platforms is an additional source of income
Question 3.3. Work through digital platforms contributes to reducing commuting costs, lunch expenses, renting an apartment near the workplace, etc.
Question 3.4. I work on the digital platform unofficially to receive state benefits at the same time (e.g., unemployment benefits, etc.)
Question 3.5. I cannot find a job in the traditional labor market
Question 3.6. I have health issues that make it difficult to find another type of job
Question 3.7. Working on a digital platform allows me to balance my work time with caring for a family member (for example, children, elderly parents, or family members with disabilities)
One of the main findings of the data is the extent to which platform work serves as a primary or supplementary source of income. Approximately 28.6% of respondents indicate that platform work is their primary source of income, while 31.3% consider it a supplementary income. This dual role of platform work aligns with global trends, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where platform work offers immediate but often insufficient income. Studies from the International Labour Organization (ILO 2021b) have highlighted that platform work is increasingly becoming a primary income source for people in vulnerable economic conditions, especially for those who are unable to find traditional full-time jobs. The Moldovan case mirrors these findings, where 16.2% of respondents say they cannot find traditional employment, a reflection of both the limitations of the formal labor market and the accessibility of gig work. This finding is consistent with research in other Eastern European countries and globally, where gig work provides income to those marginalized from traditional labor markets, including NEETs (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) and freelancers (Berg et al. 2018).
A closer look at the data reveals that rural workers and those in specific age brackets are more likely to depend on platform work as their primary income source. For example, younger workers (15–24 years old) and those in rural areas are more likely to view platform work as a primary or supplementary income compared to their urban counterparts. This may indicate a greater reliance on platforms in regions with fewer traditional employment opportunities, as also observed in studies of gig economies in developing regions (Graham et al. 2017). Moldova’s rural-urban divide in employment opportunities likely pushes rural individuals towards gig work as a means of overcoming geographic and infrastructural barriers to formal employment.
Another key theme is the flexibility offered by platform work, which is essential for many workers, particularly women and individuals caring for dependents. The data show that 32.2% of respondents value platform work because it allows them to balance work with family care responsibilities, including childcare or caring for elderly parents. This finding resonates with global literature that highlights the role of platform work in providing flexibility, especially for women who often bear the brunt of caregiving responsibilities (Hunt et al. 2019). Globally, gig work is frequently cited for allowing workers to dictate their schedules, making it a popular choice for those needing to balance paid labor with unpaid care work. In Moldova, as in many parts of the world, this flexibility is crucial for workers in the informal economy, which lacks protections such as paid leave or maternity benefits.
The lack of social protection for platform workers is another area of concern reflected in the data. A significant portion of respondents (30.6%) strongly agree that platform work is associated with a lack of social protection benefits, such as unemployment insurance, paid leave, and health benefits. This is consistent with global literature that points to the precarious nature of platform work, where workers are typically classified as independent contractors, thus excluded from traditional labor protections (De Stefano 2016; Forde et al. 2017a, b). The Moldovan gig workers’ experience mirrors that of workers across Europe and North America, where platforms like Uber and Deliveroo have been criticized for exploiting legal loopholes to avoid providing employee benefits (Wood et al. 2019). This absence of protection further marginalizes already vulnerable workers, especially NEETs and those without access to formal employment.
Additionally, the circumstantial nature of platform work—where individuals are forced into the gig economy due to a lack of alternatives—plays a significant role. A substantial percentage (38.4%) of respondents indicated that they engage in platform work because they cannot find a job in the traditional labor market. This underscores the role of platforms as a fallback option in Moldova’s constrained labor market. Similar findings have been observed in regions experiencing economic hardship or high unemployment, where platform work serves as a last resort for many workers (Friedman 2014). For instance, in countries such as South Africa and Brazil, platform work often fills gaps left by inadequate formal employment, and workers turn to platforms not by choice but by necessity (Hunt et al. 2019).
Moreover, a notable percentage (37.5%) of respondents agree that the lack of job flexibility in traditional employment drives them towards platform work. The ability to avoid daily commuting costs, lunch expenses, and rent in urban centers is also a significant factor, with 38.5% of respondents acknowledging these savings as a motivation for their participation in platform work. This aligns with global observations where workers opt for remote or platform-based work to reduce the financial burdens associated with traditional employment settings.
Question 4
Which of the reasons listed in the table below do you consider important for carrying out your activity through digital platforms? (Personal priorities)
Figure 6.6 shows the most important personal priorities for working through digital platforms.
Fig. 6.6
Most important personal priorities for working through digital platforms (extremely important—5). Source: compiled by the authors
Question 4.1. Flexibility—I can freely choose the time, duration, location, and tools for my work.
Question 4.2. Autonomy—I can manage my own work activities, the process, and my career progression.
Question 4.3. I prefer to work outside the traditional environment, such as the typical office setting.
Question 4.4. Higher work efficiency—I can use my working time more efficiently and take fewer unproductive breaks.
Question 4.5. Anonymity—Working through a digital platform provides me with enhanced security, as I do not disclose my full personal details when registering on the platform (clients only see my registration number, country, and system rating).
The motivations for engaging in digital platform work in Moldova reflect broader global trends, which can be analyzed in the context of existing literature on the gig economy. Flexibility, autonomy, and efficiency are key drivers of platform work both in Moldova and globally, as evidenced by research from scholars such as De Stefano (2016) and Ravenelle (2019), who found that workers are often drawn to gig platforms because of the ability to choose when, where, and how they work. In Moldova, 61.9% of respondents emphasized flexibility as “extremely important”, particularly younger workers and women, which aligns with global findings that younger generations, especially Millennials and Gen Z, prioritize flexibility and work-life balance in choosing gig work over traditional employment.
Moreover, autonomy is another critical motivator. In Moldova, 56.2% of respondents ranked autonomy as “extremely important”, with younger individuals (15–24 years) showing an even higher preference (61.1%). This mirrors global research by Kalleberg (2009) and Schmidt (2017), which highlights how platform workers often seek independence from traditional hierarchical employment structures, allowing them to manage their own workloads, progression, and career trajectories. Freelancers and independent workers globally, as in Moldova, value this autonomy, seeing platform work as a means of bypassing rigid corporate environments.
The preference for working outside traditional environments was also strongly reflected in the Moldovan data, with 39.7% of respondents finding this “extremely important”. This is consistent with findings by Schor (2020) and Wood et al. (2019), who argue that platform work has redefined the work environment, offering an alternative to the traditional office setup. Particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic, remote work and non-office-based roles have become more desirable globally, with many workers opting for the flexibility that digital platforms offer, as indicated by the high percentage of women and older workers in Moldova seeking these alternatives.
Efficiency was another major factor, with 46.8% of Moldovan respondents citing it as “extremely important”. This motivation is aligned with global literature that discusses how gig platforms are perceived to offer more efficient ways of working, allowing workers to optimize their time and minimize unproductive hours. According to Muntaner (2018) and Huws et al. (2017), platform workers globally are motivated by the ability to manage their time more effectively, often citing fewer “inefficient breaks” and better time management compared to traditional 9-to-5 jobs. This finding is particularly true among women and older workers in Moldova, which parallels global research showing that platform work allows workers to be productive without being tied to rigid schedules.
In terms of anonymity and security, a notable portion of Moldovan respondents (33.7%) emphasized the importance of maintaining privacy and security when using platforms. This resonates with findings from Ravenelle (2019) and Srnicek (2017), who highlighted growing concerns about data privacy and the risks associated with gig work, particularly the exposure of personal information in digital marketplaces. Globally, workers are increasingly aware of the need for security, with platforms offering partial anonymity, such as using registration numbers or ratings instead of full names.
Figure 6.7 highlights gender differences in the “extremely important – 5” ratings for various personal priorities when working through digital platforms.
Fig. 6.7
Gender differences in personal priorities for working through digital platforms (extremely important—5). Source: compiled by the authors.
Question 5.1. Competence—when working through digital platforms, I feel professional and skilled, and the tasks are more interesting
Question 5.2. I communicate with clients; I feel useful to society
Question 5.3. Prevention of discrimination—working through digital platforms helps prevent discrimination based on nationality, gender, age, etc., because I can remain anonymous
Question 5.1
Competence—when working through digital platforms, I feel professional and skilled, and the tasks are more interesting.
In Moldova, 34.3% of respondents reported that working on digital platforms enhances their sense of professionalism, skill development, and task engagement. This sentiment is particularly pronounced among older workers, with 42.4% of respondents aged 55+ and above expressing strong professional satisfaction from platform work. These findings resonate with global research, where gig workers in higher-skilled sectors, such as digital marketing, information technology, and consultancy, often report a sense of competence and autonomy (Wood et al. 2019).
However, while platform work offers opportunities for the application of specialized skills, it simultaneously lacks formal career progression and recognition, as highlighted by studies like Graham et al. (2017). In Moldova, where traditional labor markets may not provide ample professional engagement opportunities, particularly for older individuals, platform work fills a gap, allowing for continued economic participation. This phenomenon reflects the broader structural challenges within the Moldovan labor market, where limited job mobility and formal employment opportunities compel many to seek fulfillment through less conventional employment pathways.
Question 5.2
I communicate with clients; I feel useful to society
A notable 45.7% of Moldovan respondents emphasized the importance of client interaction and the sense of contributing to society as key motivations for engaging in platform work. This finding is particularly significant among women (47.9%) and older individuals (66.6% of respondents aged 55 and above). The social dimension of platform work, often overlooked in economic analyses, has been explored in global studies by scholars like Schor (2020), who argue that gig work can provide a sense of purpose, particularly in service-oriented sectors such as education, personal care, and consulting.
In Moldova, where traditional employment avenues may offer limited opportunities for meaningful social engagement, platform work serves as a conduit for personal connection and societal contribution. This dynamic is consistent with findings in other emerging economies, where workers derive satisfaction not only from the financial benefits of gig work but also from the relational aspects of interacting with clients and communities (Friedman 2014). This is especially pertinent for women and older adults, who may find traditional jobs less accommodating to these social needs.
Question 5.3
Prevention of discrimination—working through digital platforms helps prevent discrimination based on nationality, gender, age, etc., because I can remain anonymous
A significant proportion of Moldovan respondents (28.9%) indicated that the anonymity provided by digital platforms helps mitigate discrimination based on nationality, gender, or age. This motivation was particularly emphasized by women (34%) and older workers (33.3%). Globally, research on platform work, such as that by Barratt (2019), has identified the potential of digital platforms to reduce discrimination by allowing workers to conceal personal characteristics that might otherwise subject them to bias in traditional employment settings.
In Moldova, where discrimination based on age and gender remains a persistent issue, the anonymity afforded by platform work offers an opportunity for marginalized groups to participate in the labor market on more equitable terms. While this potential benefit is acknowledged in global discourse, it is important to note that anonymity alone does not eliminate structural inequalities. Workers may still face challenges such as wage disparities and biased treatment by clients, even if their personal details are concealed (Hunt et al. 2019).
Global studies, such as those by Schmidt (2017) and De Stefano (2016), highlight flexibility and autonomy as primary motivators for platform work. Moldova reflects these trends, with respondents consistently prioritizing the ability to control working hours, location, and workload. In line with global research, platform work in Moldova functions as a critical alternative to traditional employment, particularly for those encountering barriers to accessing the formal labor market.
However, Moldovan respondents exhibit heightened motivations regarding social interaction, societal contribution, and the prevention of discrimination, which appear more pronounced than in higher-income Western economies. This suggests that platform work in Moldova serves not only as an economic lifeline but also as a means of addressing broader social and professional needs. The differences between Moldova and wealthier nations may stem from the more constrained structure of the Moldovan labor market, where traditional employment opportunities are fewer, particularly for women, older workers, and individuals facing discrimination.
Question 6
In your opinion, which of the factors listed in the table below contribute to the exploitation of workers through digital labor platforms?
Figure 6.9 summarizes the key factors contributing to the exploitation of workers on digital platforms, based on the percentage of respondents who “strongly agree” with each factor.
Fig. 6.9
Factors contributing to exploitation on digital labor platforms (strongly agree—5) (%). Source: compiled by the authors
Question 6.1. When working through digital platforms, I do not have social protection, and I cannot receive insurance or social assistance (such as sickness benefits, maternity leave, unemployment benefits, etc.)
Question 6.2. I work more unofficially through digital platforms.
Question 6.3. I am not guaranteed the minimum wage.
Question 6.4. When I work through digital platforms, I do not have the right to paid leave, vacation time, or other types of leave.
Question 6.5. Lack of flexibility—I have to constantly monitor the internet or mobile applications because tasks do not come regularly.
Question 6.6. Lack of autonomy—I cannot significantly influence the nature and variety of tasks, and I am not free to select working methods.
Question 6.7. Irregular working hours, unequal workload, and spending unpaid time waiting for tasks.
Question 6.8. There is no communication between workers, clients, and the organizers/owners of the platforms, and workers’ activities are essentially self-managed.
Question 6.9. Limited opportunities for skills development and career progression - repetitive tasks requiring minimal training.
Question 6.1
When working through digital platforms, I do not have social protection, and I cannot receive insurance or social assistance (such as sickness benefits, maternity leave, unemployment benefits, etc.)
A significant portion (30.6%) of respondents strongly agree that workers on digital platforms face exploitation due to the lack of social protection protections, with the sentiment being particularly strong among older age groups (35–54 years) and among those classified as freelancers or contract workers (31.8% and 37%, respectively).
Globally, this concern mirrors findings from research on the gig economy. For instance, Schmidt (2017) and De Stefano (2016) argue that platform workers worldwide often face precarious working conditions, where the lack of social protection, health benefits, and job stability is a primary issue. Studies in the United States, Europe, and emerging markets alike reveal that workers in the gig economy are frequently denied benefits typically provided to traditional employees, such as unemployment insurance, paid sick leave, and maternity benefits. This contributes to a growing divide between “standard” and “non-standard” employment.
The Moldovan data reflects these global trends, with 29.8% of male respondents and 31.6% of female respondents agreeing that this is a serious issue. This can be explained by the fact that, as in many parts of the world, Moldovan labor laws were designed for traditional employment structures and struggle to accommodate the evolving dynamics of the digital economy. Freelancers and contract workers, who make up a large part of the platform workforce, are particularly vulnerable in this respect, as highlighted by Huws et al. (2017), who emphasize that self-employed workers in the gig economy often fall outside the protections offered by national labor laws.
Interestingly, the younger respondents (aged 15–24) are less likely to strongly agree that a lack of social protection constitutes exploitation, possibly reflecting a short-term view of platform work as a means of earning supplementary income. Conversely, older respondents (particularly those aged 35–54) express higher levels of concern, possibly due to their greater reliance on these protections as they balance work with personal responsibilities such as health and family care.
This trend aligns with findings from Muntaner (2018), which suggest that younger workers are often more tolerant of precarious conditions, viewing gig work as flexible and temporary, while older workers may see it as a necessary source of stable income, especially when they struggle to find traditional employment.
In Moldova, the lack of adequate social protection for gig workers is exacerbated by a relatively underdeveloped welfare state compared to Western countries. Moldova’s labor market, much like that of other Eastern European countries, has been slow to adapt to the gig economy, and the gap between traditional employment benefits and platform work is widening. This contrasts with countries like Germany or the Netherlands, where discussions around extending social protections to gig workers are more advanced, with proposals for platform-specific regulations being discussed.
However, Moldova is not alone in this struggle. Many emerging economies, particularly in Southeast Asia and Latin America, face similar challenges in updating labor laws to cover non-standard workers. In these regions, gig workers often operate in legal grey zones, which leaves them without access to labor rights, as explored by Kalleberg (2009) and Schor (2020).
Question 6.2
I work more unofficially through digital platforms
The survey shows that 27.4% of respondents strongly agree that they work more unofficially through digital platforms. This trend is particularly strong among freelancers, individuals aged 25–34 years, and workers without formal employment contracts, such as those classified as NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training). This aligns with global observations that platform work often exists in a legally grey area, where workers are not fully integrated into formal employment frameworks (De Stefano 2016).
Globally, gig work is often categorized as informal or unofficial, particularly in regions with less robust labor regulations. For example, in countries like India or Brazil, platform workers frequently operate outside of formal labor protections and without official contracts, making it difficult for authorities to track their employment status or ensure fair labor conditions (Graham et al. 2017). This unofficial status may be a result of both workers’ desire to avoid formal employment taxes or restrictions and platforms’ reluctance to provide the benefits typically associated with formal employment.
The data reveals that urban respondents are more likely to agree that they work unofficially on platforms than rural respondents. This urban bias may be attributed to higher internet penetration, access to technology, and the availability of digital platforms in cities compared to rural areas. Rural workers may face additional barriers to accessing platform work, such as poor infrastructure, but they may also engage in traditional, non-digital forms of informal work (ILO 2021a, b).
The finding that urban areas see a higher prevalence of unofficial work also mirrors global trends. In high-income countries like the United States, gig workers in urban centers often take on platform work to supplement their income or as their primary job, but without formal recognition or benefits (Ravenelle 2019). This urban concentration of gig work is seen worldwide, where access to gig platforms is predominantly concentrated in areas with better technological infrastructure.
Female respondents reported engaging in unofficial work through digital platforms slightly more than their male counterparts (29.4% vs. 25.7%). This difference highlights the role digital platforms play in offering flexible work options for women, who may face traditional labor market barriers or prefer gig work to balance other responsibilities, such as childcare or household duties.
This pattern is consistent with global findings that women often use platform work to reconcile paid employment with unpaid care responsibilities (Hunt et al. 2019).
In many countries, women are overrepresented in platform work, particularly in sectors like freelancing, domestic work, and online tutoring, where flexibility is key. However, because many women engage in this work unofficially, they lack access to social protection, job stability, or formal labor protections, deepening gender disparities in the workforce.
The data shows that workers aged 25–34 years and freelancers are among the most likely to agree that they work unofficially on platforms, at 28.5% and 30.3%, respectively. This suggests that younger workers, especially freelancers, are more willing to engage in unofficial platform work to navigate the current labor market. Freelancers, in particular, may choose platform work due to the flexibility and autonomy it offers, but this often comes at the cost of lacking formal contracts and social protections.
Younger workers globally, particularly Millennials and Gen Z, have shown a strong preference for gig and freelance work over traditional employment. This is often due to the flexibility it provides, even though it typically comes with less stability (Schor 2020). These workers may be less concerned about traditional employment benefits like pensions or health insurance but more focused on flexibility and income generation. However, the trade-off is often precarious employment, as shown in the Moldovan data.
Freelancers (30.3%) and NEET respondents (47.6%) are significantly more likely to engage in unofficial work on platforms. Freelancers are typically hired on a per-task basis, without formal contracts or employment protections, which places them in a vulnerable position. NEETs, meanwhile, may resort to platform work as a stopgap solution in the absence of traditional employment opportunities, further reinforcing their exclusion from the formal labor market. This mirrors trends observed in studies by the ILO, which show that digital platform work can offer short-term income solutions for those marginalized from the labor market, such as NEETs, but often without the stability or long-term prospects that formal employment provides. In countries like Spain and Italy, platform work has been shown to be a significant source of income for NEETs, but it does little to improve their long-term employment outcomes (Friedman 2014).
Question 6.3
I am not guaranteed the minimum wage
In Moldova, 32.7% of respondents strongly agreed that they are not guaranteed a minimum wage when working through digital platforms. This concern is particularly pronounced among freelancers (34.4%) and rural workers (21.3%). This aligns with global trends where workers in the gig economy often operate without the protections typically afforded by traditional employment, including minimum wage guarantees. Globally, platform work has been criticized for its lack of wage security. Research by De Stefano (2016) shows that gig workers are often paid per task, meaning their earnings fluctuate based on demand, task availability, and platform algorithms. In the U.S., for instance, Uber and Lyft drivers have reported earning below minimum wage after deducting expenses such as fuel and vehicle maintenance.
In Moldova, rural workers may be especially vulnerable due to fewer employment opportunities outside of platform work. The digital platform’s promise of flexibility and earnings potential is undermined by this lack of wage security. Europe has taken some steps toward addressing these issues, as seen in countries like Spain, where recent regulations now classify some platform workers as employees, ensuring access to minimum wage and other benefits (European Commission 2021a, b, c). However, in countries like Moldova, such protections are still largely absent, leaving workers to fend for themselves in an uncertain labor market.
Question 6.4
When I work through digital platforms, I do not have the right to paid leave, vacation time, or other types of leave
The absence of paid leave is a major concern for platform workers in Moldova, with 37.5% of respondents strongly agreeing that they do not have access to paid vacation, sick leave, or other types of leave. This finding is consistent with global research, where platform workers frequently lack the basic employment benefits that are provided in traditional jobs (Huws et al. 2017). For example, in Canada and Germany, gig workers have raised similar concerns, noting that the flexibility of gig work comes at the expense of job security and benefits like paid leave and healthcare. Women and older workers in Moldova are particularly affected by this issue, which is not surprising given that these groups are often more reliant on consistent benefits like paid leave due to caregiving responsibilities or health concerns. Globally, studies have shown that the lack of paid leave in the gig economy exacerbates inequalities, particularly for workers from lower-income backgrounds who are less able to afford time off without pay (Ravenelle 2019). In Moldova, this issue is compounded by the country’s weaker social safety net, making it difficult for platform workers to access paid leave or government assistance when needed.
Question 6.5
Lack of flexibility—I have to constantly monitor the internet or mobile applications because tasks do not come regularly
Contrary to the perception that platform work offers unparalleled flexibility, 22.6% of Moldovan respondents reported that they must constantly monitor the internet or mobile applications because tasks do not come regularly. This reflects a global issue in platform work, where “algorithmic control” reduces the actual flexibility available to workers (Wood et al. 2019). While platforms like Uber, Deliveroo, or TaskRabbit market themselves as providing flexibility, in practice, workers often have to remain available for long periods to ensure they receive tasks.
In Moldova, younger workers (15–24 years) are particularly affected by this issue, as their lack of job experience may push them into platform work, where they feel compelled to constantly monitor platforms for new assignments. Globally, the literature shows that gig workers frequently experience stress and burnout due to the unpredictability of task allocation, which leads to extended periods of unpaid waiting time (Schor 2020). In countries like India and Brazil, where platform work has become a significant source of income for millions, workers have reported similar frustrations, stating that they are forced to be “always on” to secure enough tasks to earn a livable income (Graham et al. 2017).
Question 6.6
Lack of autonomy—I cannot significantly influence the nature and variety of tasks, and I am not free to select working methods
In the Moldovan survey, 14.2% of respondents strongly agreed that they lack autonomy in their work, unable to influence the nature and variety of tasks or select their working methods. This reflects a common issue in the gig economy: despite being marketed as offering freedom and autonomy, platform work often operates under significant algorithmic control. Workers on platforms such as Amazon Mechanical Turk, Upwork, or Uber are subject to algorithmic systems that determine task allocation, worker ratings, and compensation (Rosenblat and Stark 2016).
In Western economies, autonomy has been a key selling point for platform work, but global research shows that this autonomy is often illusory. For example, workers in ride-hailing and food delivery services frequently find themselves with little control over the hours they work or the types of jobs they perform (Graham et al. 2017). In Moldova, the lack of autonomy may be exacerbated by the limited availability of traditional employment, forcing workers to accept platform work despite its constraints. This is particularly concerning for younger workers and those in rural areas, where job opportunities outside of digital platforms are scarce.
Question 6.7
Irregular working hours, unequal workload, and spending unpaid time waiting for tasks
About 19.7% of Moldovan respondents strongly agreed that irregular work hours and unpaid waiting time are major issues. This mirrors global concerns about the “gig economy trap”, where workers face unpredictable schedules and are not compensated for the time spent waiting between tasks (Schor 2020). For instance, delivery workers in urban areas, such as those working for DoorDash or Postmates in the United States, often report long periods of unpaid time while waiting for orders, leading to significant undercompensation when compared to traditional hourly employment. In Moldova, this issue is particularly problematic for women and older workers, who may have caregiving responsibilities that make irregular work hours especially challenging. The unpredictability of platform work can disrupt family life and create stress, which is not compensated by the flexibility that platforms claim to offer. Globally, this issue is not limited to gig workers in high-income countries; platform workers in Africa and Southeast Asia also report similar concerns, particularly regarding the lack of paid waiting time and the stress of managing irregular workloads.
Question 6.8
There is no communication between workers, clients, and the organizers/owners of the platforms, and workers’ activities are essentially self-managed
Moldovan respondents (18.9%) indicated a lack of communication between workers, clients, and platform organizers, leading to self-managed activities. This reflects a broader trend in platform work, where workers often feel isolated due to the lack of interaction with supervisors or peers (Srnicek 2017). In ride-hailing or gig delivery services, for instance, workers are often left to manage their own schedules and deal with customer issues independently, with little to no support from platform operators. This lack of communication can lead to feelings of isolation and disempowerment, especially in jobs that require direct interaction with customers but offer little managerial oversight (Barratt, 2019). In Moldova, the isolation experienced by platform workers may be exacerbated by the country’s smaller and less-developed digital economy, which provides fewer opportunities for networking or collaboration. This isolation is also seen globally in platform-based sectors such as domestic work, where workers report feeling disconnected from both clients and platform operators, leading to a lack of accountability and support (Graham et al. 2017).
Question 6.9
Limited opportunities for skills development and career progression - repetitive tasks requiring minimal training
A notable 18.7% of Moldovan workers strongly agreed that there are limited opportunities for skill development and career progression on digital platforms. Globally, this is a key issue in low-skill sectors of the gig economy, where platform jobs tend to be repetitive and require minimal training. For instance, workers in cleaning services or ride-hailing often find themselves stuck in entry-level positions with no opportunities for advancement, regardless of how long they have been working for the platform (Graham et al. 2017). In Moldova, the lack of career progression is particularly concerning for younger workers and freelancers, who may enter platform work hoping for professional growth but find that their tasks are limited to low-skill, repetitive jobs. This issue is compounded in countries like Moldova, where the overall job market offers few opportunities for advancement, making platform work one of the only available options for many workers. In high-income countries, such as the UK or Germany, similar concerns have been raised by platform workers who feel that they are trapped in “dead-end” jobs with no clear path to career development (Huws et al. 2017).
Question 6.10
There is no clear boundary between work and personal life, with technology invading personal time
With 18.4% of respondents agreeing that there is no clear boundary between work and personal life due to technology, the issue of “techno-stress” emerges as a significant concern. Globally, gig workers report that the constant connectivity required by digital platforms invades their personal lives, making it difficult to disconnect from work (Ravenelle 2019). For instance, workers on platforms like Uber or Lyft often feel compelled to remain online and available for tasks, even during their personal time, to maximize their earnings (Schor 2020). In Moldova, younger workers are particularly affected by this issue, likely due to their greater reliance on smartphones and digital platforms for work. Globally, this blurring of the lines between work and personal life is a well-documented issue in platform work, with workers in India and Brazil reporting similar challenges. The constant availability required by gig platforms contributes to high levels of stress and anxiety, particularly for workers who are juggling multiple jobs or caregiving responsibilities (Graham et al. 2017).
Question 6.11
Precarious working conditions and income instability reduce motivation and job satisfaction
Precarious working conditions and income instability significantly impact job satisfaction, with 17% of Moldovan respondents strongly agreeing that these factors reduce their motivation. This aligns with global research, which shows that platform workers are often subject to fluctuating income levels and insecure working conditions (Huws et al. 2017). For instance, workers on Amazon Mechanical Turk or TaskRabbit often report inconsistent pay and limited job security, which makes it difficult to plan for the future (Graham et al. 2017). In Moldova, this issue is particularly acute for freelancers and workers with service contracts, who are more likely to face income instability due to the project-based nature of their work. Globally, precariousness is a defining feature of the gig economy, with workers in Europe, North America, and Asia reporting similar dissatisfaction due to the volatile nature of their work. This instability is particularly damaging for workers in low-income countries like Moldova, where the social safety net is weaker, leaving platform workers vulnerable to financial insecurity (Srnicek 2017).
Question 7
In your opinion, which of the factors listed in the table below contribute to the exploitation of workers through digital labor platforms?
Figure 6.10 summarizes the key factors related to work on digital platforms, based on the percentage of respondents who “strongly agree”.
Fig. 6.10
Summary of factors related to work on digital labor platforms (strongly agree—5) (%). Source: compiled by the authors
Question 7.1. Precarious working conditions and income instability reduce motivation and job satisfaction.
Question 7.2. Social protection is sufficient, and I have access to social benefits.
Question 7.3. Technologies enhance the transparency of activities; everything is official.
Question 7.4. My income from working through digital platforms is quite high.
Question 7.5. I have a lot of flexibility in selecting tasks, working hours, intensity, and methods.
Question 7.6. I have a lot of freedom of action, and I can manage my career.
Question 7.7. My workweek is shorter than the usual 40-hour workweek; I have more time for family obligations and leisure.
Question 7.8. I am not subordinate to managers in traditional companies; I can create my own reputation.
Question 7.9. Working on digital platforms helps me learn foreign languages (e.g., English), master digital technologies, and acquire other skills.
Question 7.10. I feel less emotional stress; I experience a balance between professional and personal life.
Question 7.11. I feel satisfied.
Key Observations:
Not being subordinate to managers and freedom to manage career are the most agreed-upon benefits, with 49.5% and 45.0%, respectively.
Flexibility in selecting tasks and learning new skills (such as foreign languages and digital technologies) are also highly rated, with 43.3% and 41.6% agreement.
Work variety and comfort and less emotional stress are also important, showing high levels of satisfaction with the work-life balance.
Figure 6.11 highlights the gender differences in perceptions of various factors related to working on digital platforms. Key observations include:
Men rate technologies enhancing transparency and not being subordinate to managers higher than women, with 38.6% of men and 50.7% of men strongly agreeing, compared to 29.4% and 48.3% of women, respectively.
Women place greater emphasis on less emotional stress and work variety, comfort, with 40.3% and 45.3% strongly agreeing, compared to 36.8% and 36.2% of men.
Both genders strongly agree on flexibility in selecting tasks and freedom to manage career, though men slightly edge out women in these categories.
Fig. 6.11
Gender differences in benefits of working on digital labor platforms (strongly agree—5) (%). Source: compiled by the authors
Precarious working conditions and income instability reduce motivation and job satisfaction
A significant 17% of respondents in Moldova strongly agreed that precarious working conditions and income instability lead to a reduction in motivation and job satisfaction. This finding is consistent with global research that identifies precariousness as a core issue for platform workers. Studies by Huws et al. (2017) and Schor (2020) demonstrate that irregular pay and lack of benefits, which are typical in platform-based work, contribute to heightened worker dissatisfaction, especially in low-income settings.
In a global context, research shows that platform workers—especially those engaged in low-wage sectors such as food delivery and ride-hailing—often struggle with unpredictable incomes and insufficient social protections (De Stefano 2016). For instance, platform workers in countries like India or Brazil face instability similar to that described by Moldovan respondents, as they must navigate irregular demand and opaque pay structures. Moldovan workers, like their counterparts globally, face challenges related to financial unpredictability, which fundamentally affects job satisfaction and personal well-being.
Question 7.2
Social protection is sufficient, and I have access to social benefits
With only 22.5% of respondents strongly agreeing that they have sufficient social protection, this result reflects a broader issue seen across gig economies worldwide. In most gig work settings, workers are classified as independent contractors, which excludes them from access to benefits like health insurance, unemployment insurance, and pension plans. This lack of security was a key issue raised in the European Parliament’s resolution on working conditions for digital platform workers (European Commission 2021a, b, c).
The challenge in Moldova mirrors global trends, particularly in developing countries where labor laws and protections for gig workers are even more underdeveloped. The absence of social protections in countries such as Nigeria or Pakistan leaves platform workers especially vulnerable to economic shocks, with very few avenues to seek compensation or assistance during times of need (Graham et al. 2017). In Moldova, where formal employment opportunities may also lack adequate social benefits, the situation is even more precarious, intensifying the need for social reforms to extend protections to gig workers.
Question 7.3
Technologies enhance the transparency of activities; everything is official
A notable 34.3% of Moldovan respondents strongly agreed that digital platforms enhance transparency, making everything official. This perspective reflects the broader global enthusiasm for digital platforms as tools for formalizing informal labor, particularly in emerging economies. Platforms such as Upwork or Freelancer enable workers to track hours, payments, and client feedback, adding a layer of transparency to otherwise informal or freelance work.
However, despite the perceived transparency, there is a growing body of critical research questioning the genuine openness of these systems. For example, Barratt (2019) argues that while platforms create an appearance of fairness and transparency, the algorithmic management of work distribution and compensation often lacks real accountability. Workers may not have visibility into how tasks are allocated or why their earnings fluctuate, leading to frustration and a sense of powerlessness. In Moldova, this technological transparency may be a double-edged sword: while it increases formality, it also amplifies the algorithmic control that limits worker autonomy.
Question 7.4
My income from working through digital platforms is quite high
Only 16.3% of Moldovan respondents strongly agreed that their income from digital platforms is high, suggesting a disconnect between the promise of platform work and its economic reality. This finding resonates with global reports of low earnings for platform workers, particularly in developing economies. Research by Schor (2020) and De Stefano (2016) reveals that gig work, while flexible, often results in lower earnings than traditional employment, especially when accounting for work-related expenses such as internet access, equipment, or transportation.
For instance, platform drivers in countries like South Africa and Mexico often report that after covering their expenses, their effective hourly wage is well below the minimum wage. This pattern holds in Moldova, where gig workers likely struggle to achieve a sustainable income, particularly in sectors like ride-hailing or delivery, which have thin profit margins and intense competition.
Question 7.5
I have a lot of flexibility in selecting tasks, working hours, intensity, and methods
Flexibility is often cited as one of the key advantages of gig work, and in Moldova, 43.3% of respondents strongly agreed that they have significant flexibility in choosing tasks, hours, and working methods. This echoes findings from global studies which show that workers are drawn to the flexibility offered by platforms, especially when compared to the rigid structures of traditional employment (Wood et al. 2019). For workers in countries like Germany or the United States, the ability to control one’s work schedule is particularly valued by those balancing multiple jobs, education, or caregiving responsibilities.
However, the illusion of flexibility has been a subject of criticism in academic literature. Although workers have nominal control over them when they work, platform algorithms often nudge them towards working at peak hours or accepting lower-paying tasks to maintain their ratings (Rosenblat and Stark 2016). In Moldova, this flexibility may be particularly attractive to young workers (15–24 years), but it also comes with trade-offs, such as inconsistent income and the pressure to be available whenever tasks are offered.
Question 7.6
I have a lot of freedom of action, and I can manage my career
The survey results show that 45% of respondents strongly agreed that they have the freedom to manage their career and reputation, a figure that aligns with global perceptions of autonomy in gig work. Platforms like Fiverr or Upwork empower workers to build personal brands and attract clients without the need for traditional gatekeepers (Wood et al. 2019). In countries like Indonesia and Philippines, digital platforms have provided unprecedented opportunities for freelancers to access international markets and grow their careers.
However, Graham et al. (2017) warn that this autonomy is often curtailed by the design of platform systems, which exert significant control through ratings, task allocation, and pay scales. In Moldova, where the formal labor market may offer fewer opportunities for career advancement, platform work might seem like a liberating alternative. But like workers globally, Moldovans are still subject to the same invisible forces of algorithmic control, which limit their actual career management and earning potential.
Question 7.7
My workweek is shorter than the usual 40-hour workweek; I have more time for family obligations and leisure
The idea that platform work offers more personal time is supported by 35.8% of respondents in Moldova who agree that their workweek is shorter than the traditional 40-hour week. This mirrors the global perception that gig work can offer a better work-life balance, particularly for those who prioritize family time or personal interests (Schor 2020). In countries like France or Italy, many platform workers engage in part-time gigs to supplement their primary income or to accommodate other commitments.
However, research from Ravenelle (2019) and others has shown that this shorter workweek often comes at the expense of financial stability. Workers who reduce their hours typically earn less and may find it difficult to make ends meet. In Moldova, the lower cost of living might make shorter hours more feasible, but for many workers, especially those with family obligations, the lack of a reliable income may overshadow the perceived benefits of reduced working hours.
Question 7.8
I am not subordinate to managers in traditional companies; I can create my own reputation
A strong sense of independence is evident in the 49.5% of Moldovan respondents who agreed that they are not subordinate to traditional managers. This desire for autonomy is consistent with global trends, where workers seek to escape the hierarchies and rigid structures of traditional employment. Platforms like TaskRabbit or Etsy are popular in countries like the United States for precisely this reason, allowing workers to operate outside of traditional management systems.
Nevertheless, Barratt (2019) and De Stefano (2016) caution that this independence is often illusory. While workers may not have a boss in the traditional sense, they are still subject to the dictates of platform algorithms, which control access to work, determine pay, and enforce rules. In Moldova, this sense of independence might be more pronounced due to the lack of opportunities in the formal job market, making platform work appear more attractive despite its inherent limitations.
Question 8
Did you enter into a legal agreement (e.g., employment contract, etc.) or sign another type of document for work through the digital platform? (Please select a relevant response).
The data you have presented provides a comprehensive overview of the engagement with legal agreements among workers in Moldova’s gig economy. The majority of respondents (65.7%) have not entered into formal legal agreements, a trend that aligns with the global state of digital platform work, where informality is a persistent issue. However, this dataset reveals key insights into the specific demographic, geographic, and gender differences that further complicate the labor landscape in Moldova.
Overall Trends in Informality
65.7% of respondents report not having formal legal agreements (e.g., employment contracts) when working through digital platforms, highlighting the informal nature of this sector. The high prevalence of informal work agreements is consistent with global patterns. In countries with nascent digital economies, like Moldova, gig work often bypasses traditional regulatory frameworks (Fig. 6.12).
Fig. 6.12
Responses to entering a legal agreement for work on digital platforms (%). Source: compiled by the authors
The International Labour Organization (ILO) and researchers such as Berg et al. (2018) have pointed out that the majority of platform workers globally lack formal employment contracts, leaving them without access to fundamental labor rights like social protection, paid leave, and minimum wage protections.
Men (30.8%) are more likely than women (21.5%) to have formal legal agreements. This significant gender gap is concerning as it mirrors global trends in the gig economy, where women often occupy roles that are lower-paying and less formalized.
Research by De Stefano (2016) has shown that women in the gig economy are often confined to roles with lower barriers to entry, such as care work or micro-tasks, which offer fewer opportunities for formal contracts. This reflects the same gendered inequalities found in Moldova’s platform economy, suggesting that women’s roles in the gig economy need closer regulatory attention to ensure equality in legal protections.
Urban vs. Rural Differences
A key distinction in the data is the difference between urban and rural workers, with rural workers being more likely (69.9%) to lack formal legal agreements compared to urban workers (64.9%). This rural-urban divide suggests that geographical access to formal work arrangements and legal awareness may be contributing factors to the disparity (Fig. 6.13).
Fig. 6.13
Regional responses to entering a legal agreement for work on digital platforms (%). Source: compiled by the authors
In rural areas, access to legal support and awareness of workers’ rights may be lower, leading to higher levels of informality. Similar trends are seen in countries like South Africa where rural gig workers are less protected compared to their urban counterparts (Graham et al. 2017). This highlights a need for targeted interventions in Moldova to educate rural workers about their rights and formalize their employment status.
Age Group Dynamics
Figure 6.14 gives an overview of age-based responses to entering a legal agreement for work. Workers in the 25–34 and 35–54 age groups are the most likely to have formal agreements (27.4% and 27.8%, respectively), while both the youngest (15–24) and oldest (55+) workers are more likely to lack formal agreements. This pattern is consistent with global trends where younger workers, particularly those in entry-level positions, are less likely to seek or receive formal contracts.
Fig. 6.14
Age—based responses to entering a legal agreement for work. Source: compiled by the authors
In the case of younger workers (64.4% lacking agreements), they often enter platform work as a steppingstone to more traditional forms of employment, a pattern observed globally (Wood et al. 2019). Meanwhile, older workers (66.1% without agreements) may engage in platform work as supplementary income, reflecting the casualization of work for this age group.
Employment Status and Legal Clarity
Formal employees and freelancers have a higher likelihood of having legal agreements (28.2% and 27%, respectively). This suggests that individuals who rely more on structured and continuous forms of digital work, or those who view it as their primary employment, are more aware of the need for legal formalization.
NEET (Not in Employment, Education, or Training) individuals are the least likely to have formal agreements (only 9.5%), indicating extreme vulnerability in this demographic. Globally, NEET individuals are among the most marginalized in the labor market, and in Moldova, their lack of formal agreements places them at even greater risk of exploitation.
Uncertainty in Legal Status
7.8% of respondents were unsure of whether they had a formal agreement, with rural respondents (11%) and younger workers (11.3%) being the most uncertain. This reflects a significant gap in understanding legal obligations and rights, which is a common issue in the platform economy.
This uncertainty is reflected globally, where workers often unknowingly accept terms and conditions without understanding their legal implications. Barratt (2019) highlights how platform companies use complex legal language that makes it difficult for workers to fully comprehend the nature of their agreement, exacerbating legal uncertainty.
Moldova’s gig economy reflects many of the global challenges facing platform workers. Studies by Berg et al. (2018) and Wood et al. (2019) demonstrate that gig workers globally often work without formal legal protection. This lack of legal status results in precarious working conditions, lower job security, and exclusion from benefits typically afforded to formal employees.
The gender gap observed in Moldova is consistent with global data, where women in the gig economy are often underpaid and under-protected. Moreover, the informality in rural areas is reflective of broader global issues where rural workers are typically more vulnerable and less likely to benefit from the protections available to their urban counterparts.
Question 9
What major issues have you noticed regarding the terms of the legal agreement (e.g., employment contract) proposed through the digital platform? (Please select one or more relevant responses).
The data provided offers critical insights into the nature of legal agreements for digital platform workers in Moldova, reflecting broader challenges observed globally in the platform economy. The issues identified in this dataset—ranging from unclear legal frameworks to imbalanced contracts—underscore the need for legal reform and worker protection measures in this rapidly growing sector (Fig. 6.15).
Fig. 6.15
Major issues in legal agreements proposed by digital platforms (%). Source: compiled by the authors
A significant 26.3% of respondents indicate uncertainty regarding which laws—national or international—apply when working through digital platforms. This uncertainty is particularly pronounced among men (28.1%) and the 55+ age group (36.4%), suggesting that older and more experienced workers might face heightened confusion when navigating these complex legal frameworks.
This finding is consistent with global observations, where cross-border digital labor often leads to jurisdictional ambiguities. As noted by Vallas and Schor (2020), digital platforms blur the lines of employment law, creating confusion about which national legal frameworks apply. This trend is even more relevant in Moldova, where national labor laws may not yet be fully adapted to the realities of platform work, further complicating workers’ understanding of their rights.
Imbalance in Legal Terms Favoring Platform Owners
The data shows that 21% of respondents feel that the legal terms primarily favor platform owners, leaving freelancers and independent workers at a disadvantage. This perception is stronger among urban respondents (20.7%), freelancers (27.4%), and workers aged 55+ (18.2%).
This imbalance reflects the broader dynamics of power in the platform economy, where platforms often hold the upper hand in dictating contractual terms. Adams-Prassl (2018) highlights that platforms frequently impose one-sided contracts, limiting workers’ ability to negotiate fairer terms. In Moldova, this imbalance may be exacerbated by the lack of robust legal protections for platform workers, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation.
Complexity of Legal Language
A notable 19.6% of respondents report that the language of legal agreements is too complex and difficult to understand, with this issue being particularly prevalent among older respondents (45.5%) and freelancers. The use of overly technical or legalistic language in contracts can lead to misunderstandings or, worse, uninformed consent to terms that are not in the workers’ favor.
Aloisi (2019) points out that such complexity is a deliberate strategy used by platforms to obscure the rights and obligations of workers. The lack of legal clarity in these agreements places Moldovan workers at a disadvantage, especially those with limited access to legal support or expertise, such as rural workers or freelancers.
Unilateral Updates to Agreements
The fact that 27.2% of respondents highlight the ability of platforms to unilaterally modify contract terms without notifying workers is deeply concerning. This practice erodes trust between workers and platforms and reinforces the power imbalance inherent in the gig economy. Freelancers (30.5%) and older workers (27.3%) are particularly vulnerable to these unilateral changes.
Globally, this issue has prompted regulatory responses, particularly in the European Union, where directives are being introduced to ensure that workers are notified and consulted before any changes are made to their contracts. Aloisi and De Stefano (2020) argue that such measures are essential to protect workers from the arbitrary exercise of power by platforms.
Lack of Negotiation Opportunities
Twenty-one percent of respondents express concern that the digital acceptance of work offers (via “click-to-accept” buttons) eliminates the possibility of negotiation or expressing opinions. This issue is particularly significant for those aged 55+ (45.5%) and workers on service contracts (23.1%). This trend points to the increasing automation of labor relations in the platform economy, where human negotiation is replaced by algorithmic decision-making.
The lack of negotiation opportunities for Moldovan workers reflects a broader trend in the global gig economy, where platforms dictate terms and limit worker input. Wood et al. (2019) have highlighted the rise of algorithmic control in the gig economy, where workers are subjected to the terms and conditions set by platforms without any room for negotiation.
Document Complexity
Although only 5.8% of respondents mentioned the complexity of legal documents with numerous annexes and indirect references, this issue remains significant. Legal agreements that are difficult to navigate can further alienate workers from understanding their rights and responsibilities, particularly in situations where annexes contain key legal details.
Such complexity is often used to obfuscate the true nature of the agreement and the obligations imposed on workers, as highlighted by Adams-Prassl (2018). Ensuring that contracts are straightforward and easy to understand is crucial to promoting transparency and fairness in platform work.
Platform Rules vs. National Laws
A concerning 19.6% of respondents feel that platform rules sometimes override national legislation. This sentiment is particularly prevalent in urban areas (21.2%) and among freelancers (21.4%), indicating that platform workers in Moldova feel increasingly disconnected from the protections offered by national labor laws.
Globally, platforms often operate in a legal gray area, where the transnational nature of their operations allows them to bypass local labor laws. As noted by Kenney and Zysman (2016), platforms frequently create their own regulatory frameworks, leading to conflicts with national labor regulations. This trend is particularly problematic in Moldova, where labor laws are still evolving to accommodate the realities of platform work.
Figure 6.16 compares how different employment groups (Employees, Freelancers, Workers with service contracts, and NEETs) perceive key issues in legal agreements proposed by digital platforms:
Freelancers and workers with service contracts are most concerned about unilateral contract modifications (30.5% and 30.8%, respectively).
Freelancers also face significant issues with document updates without notification (28.8%) and lack of negotiation in digital consent (25.4%).
NEETs focus on terms favoring platform owners and lack of negotiation, with 50% noting these as major issues. These issues are not unique to Moldova but are reflective of global challenges in the platform economy. Studies by Berg et al. (2018) and De Stefano (2016) highlight the precarity of platform work, where workers often lack formal legal protection and are subject to unilateral changes in contractual terms. The power imbalance between platforms and workers is a consistent theme, with platforms holding most of the bargaining power.
Fig. 6.16
Legal issues in agreements by employment tatus (%). Source: compiled by the authors
The EU has recognized these challenges and is moving towards implementing regulations that protect gig economy workers by ensuring greater transparency, legal clarity, and worker rights. Moldova can draw lessons from these initiatives to better protect its platform workers, ensuring that national labor laws are enforced and that platform rules do not override state legislation.
Question 10
In your opinion, which of the factors listed in the table below determine or hinder sustainable development in the European Union? (Economic Factors).
Figure 6.17 summarizes the economic factors influencing sustainable development in the European Union, based on respondents’ perceptions:
22.6% strongly agree that digital platforms cannot replace the traditional labor market, while 14.1% strongly disagree.
14.8% strongly agree that real labor relations are distorted, with a similar 13.6% strongly disagreeing.
16.5% strongly agree that intense competition reduces workers’ ability to negotiate wages, while 16.1% strongly disagree.
13.8% strongly agree that there is exploitation of platform workers and unfair profit distribution, with a higher 17.6% strongly disagreeing.
This comparison highlights the mixed views on how digital platforms impact labor markets and workers’ conditions in the EU.
Fig. 6.17
Economic factors impacting sustainable development in the EU (%). Source: compiled by the authors
Question 10.1. Digital platforms cannot replace the traditional labor market.
Question 10.2. Real labor relations are distorted.
Question 10.3. Intense competition reduces my ability as a worker to negotiate wages.
Question 10.4. Exploitation of platform workers, unfair distribution of profits.
The responses reveal key economic concerns that either promote or hinder sustainable development, reflecting on factors such as labor market dynamics, competition, wage negotiation, and profit distribution.
Question 10.1
Digital platforms cannot replace the traditional labor market
22.6% strongly agree that digital platforms cannot fully replace the traditional labor market, while 26.5% are neutral, suggesting a significant divide in perceptions.
This sentiment is more pronounced among rural workers (33.1%) and men (24.8%), reflecting concerns that digital platforms are not seen as comprehensive alternatives to traditional employment. This is echoed by older respondents (55+ years) who strongly agree (31.5%), potentially indicating skepticism regarding the scalability and security of platform work for long-term career sustainability.
Globally, the debate around digital platforms replacing traditional labor markets is ongoing. Studies by Kenney and Zysman (2016) argue that while platforms offer flexibility, they do not provide the stability, benefits, or long-term growth associated with traditional jobs, particularly in rural or less economically developed areas, as seen in Moldova’s data.
Question 10.2
Real labor relations are distorted
Thirty one percent of respondents agree that real labor relations are distorted by platform work, with 14.8% strongly agreeing. Notably, younger workers (15–24 years) and freelancers perceive this distortion more than other groups, with 36.1% of the younger demographic agreeing. This reflects growing concerns about the lack of traditional labor protections—such as collective bargaining rights and job security—within digital platform work. The EU has recognized these distortions, with the European Commission exploring policy frameworks to address the labor rights of gig workers. Wood et al. (2019) suggest that platform work often blurs the lines between employer and worker, leading to uncertain labor relations and precarious working conditions.
Question 10.3
Intense competition reduces my ability as a worker to negotiate wages
24.5% of respondents agree that intense competition in the platform economy reduces their ability to negotiate wages, with 16.5% strongly agreeing.
Figure 6.18 illustrates how different age groups perceive the impact of intense competition on their ability to negotiate wages:
Younger respondents (15–24 years) are more likely to feel neutral or uncertain, with 27.7% choosing “Neutral” and 9.6% responding “I don’t know”.
Older respondents (55+ years) show a stronger belief that competition reduces wage negotiation, with 20.4% strongly agreeing and a relatively high percentage (16.7%) uncertain.
Middle-aged respondents (25–34 and 35–54 years) tend to agree more with the statement, particularly in the 25–34 age group, where 18.5% strongly agree.
This analysis shows that perceptions of competition affecting wage negotiation vary across age groups, with younger respondents expressing more uncertainty and older respondents leaning more toward agreement.
Fig. 6.18
Age-based responses to intense competition reducing wage negociation (%). Source: compiled by the authors
Figure 6.19 compares how urban and rural respondents perceive the impact of intense competition on wage negotiation:
Both urban and rural respondents have similar perceptions, with around 16% strongly agreeing that competition reduces their ability to negotiate wages.
Rural respondents show more uncertainty, with 16.2% responding “I don’t know”, compared to just 6.6% of urban respondents.
Urban respondents tend to express more neutrality, with 25.3% selecting “Neutral”, compared to 20.6% of rural respondents.
This shows that while the overall perception is quite similar, rural respondents are more uncertain about the impact of competition on wage negotiation. Freelancers and service contract workers report the highest levels of concern, as platform models inherently promote competition among workers, which drives down wages. This sentiment is reflected globally, where platforms operate under algorithmic management, often leading to wage suppression as workers are pitted against each other for tasks. Aloisi and De Stefano (2020) argue that the lack of collective bargaining in platform work exacerbates wage inequality, a trend that is clearly reflected in Moldova’s data. This competitive pressure threatens sustainable economic development by creating a race to the bottom for wages.
Fig. 6.19
Urban vs. Rural responses to intense competition reducing wage negociation (%). Source: compiled by the authors
Exploitation of platform workers, unfair distribution of profits
24.2% of respondents agree that there is an exploitation of platform workers, with 13.8% strongly agreeing. Interestingly, 26.2% of women and younger workers (25–34 years) are more likely to perceive this issue, highlighting concerns that profits generated by platform work disproportionately benefit platform owners rather than workers. This aligns with global research that shows how platforms extract surplus value from workers, keeping the majority of profits while providing minimal protection or benefits to their labor force (Adams-Prassl 2018). This dynamic has led to calls for the redistribution of profits and better wage protections for platform workers, as seen in movements for fairer pay in the gig economy in countries like the UK and USA.
Question 11
In your opinion, which of the factors listed in the table determine or hinder sustainable development in the European Union? (Social factors).
Figure 6.20 provides an all-in-one overview of the responses to Question 11, which covers various social factors that determine or hinder sustainable development in the European Union. It compares perceptions of platform workers on issues like:
Automated algorithms imposing control
Inadequate social protection
Exploitative or abusive working conditions
Flexibility leading to uncertainty
Irregular working hours
Intense competition increasing vulnerability
Salary instability
Anonymity and discrimination
Each response category (strongly disagree to I don’t know) is represented for all the listed factors, allowing for a comprehensive view of how respondents feel about each social issue.
Fig. 6.20
Overview of question 11: factors affecting sustainable development of the EU (Social Factors) (%). Source: compiled by the authors
Question 11.1. Automated algorithms impose too much control over platform workers.
Question 11.2. Inadequate social protection systems for platform workers.
Question 11.3. Exploitative/abusive working conditions.
Question 11.4. Flexibility and autonomy actually mean uncertainty and insecure working conditions.
Question 11.5. Irregular and long working hours generate overtime and pose health risks for platform workers.
Question 11.6. Intense competition increases the psychological and social vulnerability of platform workers
Question 11.7. Salary instability generates financial insecurity for platform workers.
Question 11.8. Anonymity when working through digital platforms does not protect against discrimination.
The results highlight key challenges that platform workers face, particularly in relation to autonomy, social protection, and fairness.
Question 11.1
Automated algorithms impose too much control over platform workers
18.3% of respondents agree that automated algorithms control platform workers too heavily, while 15.5% strongly agree. This concern is more pronounced among workers (25–34 years) and employees, reflecting their vulnerability to algorithmic control. Algorithms dictate work availability, which can lead to over-monitoring and limit worker autonomy. Research by Wood et al. (2019) also indicates that algorithmic control in the platform economy reduces workers’ ability to exercise choice, contributing to psychological strain and reducing job satisfaction.
Question 11.2
Inadequate social protection systems for platform workers
19.4% agree that social protection systems are inadequate for platform workers, with 17.4% strongly agreeing. Male respondents (20.4%) expressed greater concern about social protection compared to females (13.9%). Inadequate social protection is a global issue in the platform economy. Berg et al. (2018) highlights that most platform workers operate outside formal employment structures, leading to significant gaps in social protections, such as health care and unemployment insurance.
Question 11.3
Exploitative/abusive working conditions
31.6% of respondents strongly disagreed that their working conditions were exploitative, while 12.6% agreed with this statement. Urban workers seem more divided, with 13.1% agreeing that exploitative conditions exist, while a substantial portion (31%) disagreed. This highlights a split in perception, likely driven by differences in how platform work is structured between urban and rural settings. This issue aligns with global observations of platform economies, where workers often report exploitative conditions due to the lack of formal employment protections. Kenney and Zysman (2016) argue that platforms have normalized precarious labor, particularly by shifting risks (e.g., job insecurity, lack of benefits) onto workers.
Question 11.4
Flexibility and autonomy actually mean uncertainty and insecure working conditions
17.7% of respondents agreed that flexibility in platform work actually results in insecurity, with 21.7% strongly disagree. Interestingly, freelancers (16.0%) and those working under service contracts (26.1%) were more likely to agree, reflecting their firsthand experience with the downside of flexible arrangements, which can translate into irregular hours and income instability. While flexibility is marketed as a benefit of platform work, Aloisi (2019) points out that it often results in insecure conditions, where workers bear the full burden of financial risk and unpredictable schedules.
Question 11.5
Irregular and long working hours generate overtime and pose health risks for platform workers
21.1% strongly agree that long hours of platform work led to overtime and health risks, with 19.5% agreeing. Older workers (55+ years) were particularly concerned about this, with 27.7% strongly agreeing, indicating that the physical toll of long hours may disproportionately affect older workers. The EU has acknowledged the health risks associated with platform work and is working on policies aimed at reducing these risks. The Moldovan data reflects the broader trend of health concerns caused by overwork and irregular hours, which are common in the gig economy.
Question 11.6
Intense competition increases the psychological and social vulnerability of platform workers
24.3% agree that competition in the platform economy increases psychological and social vulnerability, with 16.8% strongly agreeing. Freelancers (24.5% agree) and NEET individuals (28.7% agree) are particularly vulnerable to this competitive pressure, as they lack the protection and bargaining power that formal employees might have. Younger workers (23.2%) also reported heightened vulnerability, as they often enter the platform economy with fewer resources and networks. This finding echoes Vallas and Schor (2020), who argue that competition in the gig economy exacerbates worker insecurity, as the oversupply of labor on platforms creates downward pressure on wages and job stability.
Question 11.7
Salary instability generates financial insecurity for platform workers
26.6% of respondents strongly agree that salary instability creates financial insecurity, with 25.3% agreeing. Financial insecurity is more prominent among freelancers (27.5%) and NEET individuals (54.5%), groups that typically face more precarious working conditions. De Stefano (2016) highlights that wage instability is one of the biggest challenges facing gig workers globally. In Moldova, platform workers are similarly affected by the lack of consistent income, which hinders their ability to plan for the future and secure their financial wellbeing.
Question 11.8
Anonymity when working through digital platforms does not protect against discrimination
16.7% strongly agree that anonymity in platform work does not protect against discrimination, while 16.0% agree. Interestingly, older respondents (55+ years) are more likely to express concern about discrimination, with 24.0% strongly agreeing that anonymity fails to offer protection. Kenney and Zysman (2016) argue that while platforms often promote themselves as meritocratic, they can also perpetuate discrimination through algorithms that inadvertently reflect biases. This aligns with Moldova’s data, where discrimination continues to be a concern despite the anonymity provided by digital platforms.
Question 11
In your opinion, which of the factors listed in the table below determine or hinder sustainable development in the European Union? (Environmental factors).
Figure 6.21 displays the responses to Question 12 across different environmental factors, broken down by gender. Each subplot represents one of the factors, with the responses grouped into categories such as “Strongly Disagree”, “Disagree”, “Neutral”, “Agree”, “Strongly Agree” and “Don’t Know”.
Fig. 6.21
Responses by gender (Environmental factors) (%). Source: compiled by the authors
Internet traffic and servers require a lot of energy
Additional Questions:
Question 12.1. Lower prices for goods and services promote excessive consumption.
Question 12.2. Phones and computers consume a large amount of electricity.
Question 12.3. Electronic devices have a relatively short lifespan (life cycle)
Question 12.4. Internet traffic and servers require a lot of energy.
The European Union (EU) has long been at the forefront of global efforts to achieve sustainable development, with policies such as the European Green Deal aimed at making Europe climate-neutral by 2050. However, the success of such initiatives depends not only on top-down policies but also on public attitudes and behaviors. Understanding how various demographic groups perceive environmental challenges is essential to implementing effective solutions. This chapter explores the attitudes of EU citizens toward four key environmental issues—consumption, electronic waste, energy use in digital technologies, and the environmental footprint of internet infrastructure—and compares these findings with global trends and scholarly research.
Question 12.1
Lower prices for goods and services promote excessive consumption
A substantial proportion of respondents (26.9%) strongly agree that lower prices for goods and services promote excessive consumption, with 23% moderately agreeing. This concern is more prevalent among older respondents (25–34 years, 29.6% strongly agree) and women (26.3%).
The relationship between lower prices and overconsumption is well-documented in the literature. Jackson (2016) describes how consumer-driven economies, particularly in high-income regions like Europe and North America, encourage unsustainable consumption patterns, often referred to as the “consumer trap”. This is consistent with findings from the World Bank, which show that high-income countries generate over 34% of global waste, disproportionately high relative to their population share.
Recent initiatives like true-cost accounting, which advocates for integrating environmental and social costs into pricing, aim to address this issue globally. The EU’s Circular Economy Action Plan, for example, promotes this approach by encouraging producers to design longer lasting and more sustainable products.
The EU public’s awareness of the negative impact of lower prices on consumption mirrors global trends and scholarly discourse on the need for sustainable consumption practices. The findings suggest that policies promoting sustainable pricing strategies, such as eco-taxes or incentives for buying durable goods, could find public support, especially among older demographics. Given the public’s recognition of overconsumption, the EU’s focus on circular economy models is well-aligned with both domestic and global priorities for reducing waste and promoting sustainability.
Question 12.2
Phones and computers consume a large amount of electricity
Opinions on the energy consumption of personal electronic devices were divided, with 23.4% strongly disagreeing and 21.3% strongly agreeing that phones and computers consume large amounts of electricity. Rural respondents (25% strongly agree) and women (22.8%) were more concerned about this issue compared to their urban and male counterparts.
Globally, the energy consumption of personal electronics is a growing concern. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), digital technologies—including phones, computers, and data centers—currently consume around 1% of the world’s electricity, but this is expected to rise significantly with the expansion of cloud services, 5G, and artificial intelligence. A study by Andrae and Edler (2015) projects that global energy use by information and communications technology (ICT) could account for as much as 8% of total electricity demand by 2030 if current trends continue.
The public’s concern about the energy consumption of personal devices reflects broader awareness of this issue, yet there remains a knowledge gap, particularly in urban areas where the effects of energy use may be less visible. This is consistent with findings by Bieser and Hilty (2018), who argue that urban populations are often less aware of the energy implications of their digital consumption due to the indirect nature of cloud services.
The results highlight an opportunity to raise awareness, especially in urban areas, about the environmental impact of digital technologies. Public education campaigns could focus on promoting energy-efficient devices and encouraging behavioral changes, such as reducing screen time and opting for low-energy modes. Additionally, the EU’s push for green digital infrastructure, as outlined in the European Green Deal, could help mitigate these concerns by promoting energy-efficient data centers and devices.
Question 12.3
Electronic devices have a relatively short lifespan (life cycle)
A majority of respondents (26.7% strongly agree, 17.5% agree) believe that electronic devices have short lifespans. This concern is particularly pronounced among older respondents, with 31.3% of those aged 35–54 and above strongly agreeing.
The issue of planned obsolescence, where manufacturers deliberately limit the lifespan of products to encourage frequent replacements, has been widely criticized for contributing to the global e-waste crisis. According to the Global E-waste Monitor (2020), the world generated 53.6 million metric tons of e-waste in 2019, with Europe having one of the highest per capita generation rates. The short lifespan of consumer electronics is a major driver of this crisis.
The Right to Repair movement has gained traction globally, advocating for policies that allow consumers to repair their own devices and reduce the environmental impact of frequent replacements. In response, the EU introduced the Circular Electronics Initiative as part of its Circular Economy Action Plan, which encourages the design of longer lasting and repairable electronics.
The widespread concern about the short lifespan of electronics in the EU echoes global trends. Public support for policies promoting repairability and extended warranties suggests a potential pathway for reducing e-waste and promoting sustainable consumption. Given the alignment with EU policy initiatives, this presents a unique opportunity to lead in the global effort to curb electronic waste.
Question 12.4
Internet traffic and servers require a lot of energy
A significant portion of respondents (25.3%) strongly agree that internet traffic and server infrastructure require substantial amounts of energy. Older individuals (33.3% of those aged 55+ and above) expressed the highest levels of concern.
The energy demands of the digital economy are expected to rise as internet traffic and data storage needs increase. According to the IEA, data centers and digital infrastructure could account for up to 10% of global electricity use by 2030 if efficiency measures are not adopted. Initiatives like green data centers, which use renewable energy to power cloud services, have been proposed as solutions to this challenge.
Globally, large technology companies like Google and Microsoft have committed to powering their data centers entirely with renewable energy by the mid-2030s. In Europe, the European Green Deal and Digital Strategy include specific provisions aimed at reducing the carbon footprint of the digital sector through efficiency improvements and the promotion of clean energy.
The concern expressed by older EU citizens about the energy demands of the internet reflects growing awareness of the environmental impact of the digital economy. The EU’s leadership in promoting green digital infrastructure, including energy-efficient data centers, is well-positioned to address this issue. Public support for these initiatives may encourage further investments in renewable-powered digital technologies.
Question 13
In your opinion, which of the measures listed below would be the most useful to improve working conditions through digital platforms? (Please select one or more relevant responses.)
Approximately 45.7% of respondents identified increasing social protection for digital platform workers as the most effective measure. Women (51.4%) were more likely to select this option compared to men (40.8%), and urban respondents (47.3%) showed more support than those in rural areas (37.5%). Older respondents (55+ years) showed the highest level of concern (50%).
This finding aligns with existing literature, which emphasizes that digital platform workers often lack adequate social protection, such as health insurance, pensions, and paid leave. The International Labour Organization (ILO) has highlighted similar challenges regarding access to social protection for platform workers as a global concern (ILO 2021b).
Improving work-life balance was identified by 41.5% of respondents as a critical measure. Both men and women supported this measure in nearly equal proportions, and respondents across all age groups expressed concern for this issue. However, temporary contract workers and those in the NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) category showed heightened interest in improving work-life balance.
This perception is reinforced by research showing that platform workers often struggle with fragmented work hours and the lack of clear boundaries between work and personal time. The flexibility offered by platforms frequently leads to irregular work patterns and overwork, as highlighted by Berg (2016) and Schmidt (2017), who propose that regulating working hours and rest periods could be essential for these workers.
A clear legal definition of the status of platform workers was selected by 36.8% of respondents as a priority measure. Female respondents (41.8%) and younger respondents (15–24 years, 39%) particularly emphasized the need for clarification on this issue. Many platform workers are classified as freelancers, which limits their access to benefits and labor rights.
This result is consistent with global debates on the ambiguous legal status of platform workers. In many countries, they are categorized as independent contractors, which reduces their protection. De Stefano (2016) emphasizes that clear legal definitions are crucial for ensuring equal rights and access to social protections for all workers.
Improving the representation of workers’ interests was selected by 35.5% of respondents, with higher support among younger respondents (40.1%). The lack of unions or other forms of worker organization represents a significant challenge for platform workers, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation and poor working conditions.
Research supports this finding, noting that weak representation makes platform workers more susceptible to precarious employment conditions. Heeks (2017) and other scholars argue that the formation of worker unions or associations could significantly improve platform workers’ ability to defend their rights and negotiate better working conditions.
About 35.5% of respondents also emphasized the need for greater control over data and algorithms as a key measure for improving working conditions. This concern was particularly prominent among respondents aged 35–54 and female workers. The control over the algorithms that allocate tasks and determine income is a critical issue in the digital economy, where platform algorithms are often opaque and may lead to inequalities.
This issue has been well-documented in academic literature, with algorithms identified as a key factor in shaping the working conditions of platform workers. Studies suggest the need for greater transparency and accountability in the way algorithms are designed and used to manage labor. The concept of “algorithmic accountability” is emerging as an important discussion point in research on platform economies (Binns 2018).
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Adams-Prassl J (2018) Humans as a service: the promise and perils of work in the gig economy (introduction). Oxford University Press, Oxford. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3167329CrossRef
Aloisi A (2019) Negotiating the digital transformation of work: Non-standard workers’ voice, collective rights and mobilisation practices in the platform economy (EUI Working Paper MWP 2019/03). SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3404990
Aloisi A, De Stefano V (2020). Regulation and the future of work: the employment relationship as an innovation facilitator. International Labour Review. Special Issue: Future of work (Part II). Rethinking Institutions for Social Justice, 159(1), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/ilr.12160
Au-Yeung TC, Qiu JL (2022) Institutions, occupations and connectivity: the embeddedness of gig work and platform-mediated labour market in Hong Kong. Crit Sociol 48(7–8):1169–1187. https://doi.org/10.1177/08969205221090581CrossRef
Barratt T (2019). Alex Rosenblat, Uberland: How algorithms are rewriting the rules of work. Journal of Industrial Relations, 62(1), 157–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185619875363
Berg J (2016) Income security in the on-demand economy: findings and policy lessons from a survey of Crowdworkers (March 1, 2016). Comp Labor Law Policy J 37(3):2016. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2740940
Berg J, Furrer M, Harmon E, Rani U, Silberman MS (2018) Digital labour platforms and the future of work: Towards decent work in the online world. International Labour Organization (September 20, 2018). (1) (PDF) Digital labour platforms and the future of work: Towards decent work in the online world. Retrieved from: https://www.ilo.org/publications/digital-labour-platforms-and-future-work-towards-decent-work-online-world
Bieser JCT, Hilty LM (2018) Assessing indirect environmental effects of information and communication technology (ICT): a systematic literature review. Sustainability 10(8):2662. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082662CrossRef
Chin TL, Yean TF (2021) Digital platform workers: setting the hrm research agenda. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Entrepreneurship and Business Management (ICEBM 2020). https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.210507.013
Daramola O, Etim E (2022) Affordances of digital platforms insub-saharanafrica: an analytical review. Electronic J Information Syst Developing Countries 88(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12213
De Stefano V (2015) The Rise of the 'Just-in-Time Workforce': On-Demand Work, Crowd Work and Labour Protection in the 'Gig-Economy' (October 28, 2015). Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, Forthcoming, Bocconi Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2682602, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2682602 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2682602
De Stefano V (2016) The rise of the “just-in-time workforce”: on-demand work, crowdwork, and labour protection in the “gig-economy.”. Comp Labor Law Policy J 37(3):471–504
European Commission (2021a) Platform work and the future of employment in Europe. The future of work—European Commission (europa.eu)
Forde C, Stuart M, Joyce S, Oliver L, Valizade D, Alberti G, Hardy K, Trappmann V, Umney C, Carson C (2017b) The social protection of workers in the platform economy. European Parliament. The Social Protection of Workers in the Platform Economy. Retrieved from: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/IPOL_STU(2017)614184
Friedman G (2014) Workers without employers: shadow corporations and the rise of the gig economy. Review of Keynesian. Economics 2(2):171–188. Retrieved Sep 29, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.4337/roke.2014.02.03
Heeks R (2017) Decent Work and the Digital Gig Economy: A Developing Country Perspective on Employment Impacts and Standards in Online Outsourcing, Crowdwork, Etc (August 2, 2017). Development Informatics Working Paper no. 71, 2017, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3431033 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3431033
Muntaner C (2018) Digital platforms, gig economy, precarious employment, and the invisible hand of social class. Int J Health Serv 48(4):597–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020731418801413. PMID: 30213247CrossRef
Ravenelle AJ (2019) Hustle and gig: struggling and surviving in the sharing economy (1st ed.). (PDF) hustle and gig: struggling and surviving in the sharing economy. By Alexandrea J. Ravenelle. University of California Press, Oakland. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvcwp0kcCrossRef
Rosenblat A, Stark L (2016) Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: a case study of Uber’s drivers (July 30, 2016). Int J Commun 10:27. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2686227 or /link?doi=10.2139/ssrn.2686227
Schmidt FA (2017) Digital labour market in the platform economy: mapping the political challenges of crowd work and gig work. Retrieved from: https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/wiso/13164.pdf
Schor JB (2020) After the gig: how the sharing economy got hijacked and how to win it back. University of California Press, Oakland. ISBN: 9780520385672CrossRef
Srnicek N (2017) Platform capitalism. Polity Press, Cambridge. ISBN: 1509504907
Vallas S, Schor JB (2020) What do platforms do? Understanding the gig economy. Annu Rev Sociol 46:273–294. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3670075 or /link?doi=10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054857CrossRef
Wood AJ, Graham M, Lehdonvirta V, Hjorth I (2019) Good gig, bad gig: autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work Employ Soc 33(1):56–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017018785616CrossRef
