Chapter 1
Introduction

While work is key to good health and well-being (ILO, n.d.; WHO, 2017), it can also be dangerous. According to the ILO’s estimates, work-related factors led to the death of 2.93 million workers and non-fatal injuries in 395 million workers across the world in 2019 (ILO, 2023; Takala et al., 2023). Regulating how work is conducted is therefore essential in social systems based on the buying and selling of labour power (Abrams, 2001). Risks, working environment challenges and occupational safety and health hazards vary across different types of work, labour processes, organizations, work arrangements and forms of employment. Hence, new forms of work, new technologies, new business models and new ways of organizing work might create new occupational safety and health risks for workers, as well as regulatory challenges for lawmakers (Foldal et al., 2023; Nielsen et al., 2022; Papadopoulos et al., 2009). 

In the current debates on the “future of work”, much attention has been paid to how technologies such as automation, robotization and artificial intelligence will affect the demand for labour power and how they will affect the occupational structure (see for example Frey and Osborne, 2017).

For a discussion of these debates and the “automation discourse”, see Benanav (2019a, b).

Technology, however, is only one of multiple factors that affect the future of work and labour markets (Rolandsson and Dølvik, 2021). It also interacts with and is contingent on the legal and regulatory, social, cultural and economic conditions under which it is implemented. It is therefore important to examine both how the quantitative effects of technology on work vary across countries and industries and the qualitative effects of technology on how work is conducted and organized (Rolandsson et al., 2019). This is also the case for the future of occupational safety and health at work (Foldal et al., 2023). 

To this end, this report explores risks and working environment challenges associated with the digitalization of work across different forms of employment. We look specifically at the interaction between digitalization and workers’ employment status, areas that have been identified as a particular challenge for the Nordic labour market models (Nordic Council of Ministers for Labour, 2023). The research project and this report bring together researchers and cases from Denmark, Finland and Norway to study digitalized work arrangements in different industries, discussing “analogue” as well as “digital” occupational health and safety hazards. We are particularly interested in platform-mediated gig work as a digitalized form of work often involving non-standard forms of employment (van Doorn, 2017; Woodcock and Graham, 2020). While platform-mediated gig work remains relatively marginal in the Nordic countries at the aggregate level of the labour market (Alsos et al., 2017; Jesnes and Oppegaard, 2020; Kristiansen et al., 2023), this form of work has become a key actor in certain service industries in the Nordic countries, in particular the food delivery, domestic cleaning and taxi industries (Alasoini et al. 2023; Andersen and Spanger 2024; Hau and Savage 2023; Ilsøe and Söderqvist 2023; Jesnes and Oppegaard, 2020, 2023; Mbare 2023; Newlands 2021; Valestrand and Oppegaard, 2022).

In some cases, new technologies can contribute to improving safety and health at work (see Christensen et al., 2020). From an OSH perspective, such potential is important and must be monitored. This project, however, aims solely to explore and identify potential OSH risk factors associated with digitalization across different forms of employment. We do this through three analytical strategies. First, we have conducted a scoping review of the existing literature on work environment challenges associated with digitalization and non-standard work (Bråten and Thorbjørnsen, 2023). Second, we have conducted five empirical case studies of digitalized work arrangements in the cleaning industry and food delivery industry in Finland, Denmark and Norway. These case studies advance our empirical knowledge of the effects of new technologies, new work arrangements and different forms of employment on OSH. Third, based on previous research and our own empirical case studies, we have developed a risk factor framework (Thorbjørnsen and Oppegaard, Chapter 7). This framework identifies occupational safety and health risk factors associated with the digitalization of work across different forms of employment. In addition, we organized two project workshops where we presented and discussed our findings and analysis with representatives from the Nordic labour inspectorates. The project has been funded by the Nordic Working Environment Committee under the Nordic Council of Ministers and coordinated by Fafo Institute for Labour and Social Research. 

This report is concerned with the last two analytical strategies, namely the five empirical case studies and the risk factor framework. It proceeds as follows: In the next chapter, Chapter 2, Sigurd M. Nordli Oppegaard (Fafo, Norway) and Mona Bråten (Fafo, Norway) discuss theoretical and regulatory approaches to occupational safety and health. The chapter looks specifically at OSH challenges associated with atypical forms of employment and digitalization, reviewing the literature on field technologies, non-standard forms of employment and platform-mediated gig work. The chapter shows that there are important work environment challenges associated with all three reviewed aspects of the future of work. These risk factors are linked to new forms of control, managerial systems characterized by opacity and unpredictability and inadequate OSH regulations and enforcement. Nonetheless, the OSH hazards workers face cannot be viewed solely as a result of new technologies or non-standard forms of employment; labour process– and industry-specific features remain important, although such risks can be heightened by the introduction of new technologies. 

In Chapter 3, Johanne Stenseth Huseby (Fafo, Norway) explores platform-based services in the Norwegian private cleaning industry. The chapter uses a desk study and qualitative interviews with cleaners, representatives of unions organizing cleaners, a safety representative and a representative from the industry’s tripartite sector programme to map working environment challenges associated with digitalized work arrangements in the Norwegian cleaning industry. Huseby investigates the platform company Vaskehjelp in particular, differentiating the platform model in the cleaning industry from other established work arrangements such as traditional cleaning companies, independent and self-employed cleaners and “hybrid” cleaning companies. The analysis shows several things: First, the platform model, which gives significant power to customers through the rating system, creates unpredictability in terms of work opportunities for cleaners. Second, time management and stress are important work environment challenges for cleaners, who must complete the tasks they are allocated within a time frame set by the customer, whose assessment can have significant impact on the cleaners’ future income. Third, cleaners working for digital platforms are still exposed to the OSH challenges that characterize the traditional cleaning industry, such as lone work and chemical and ergonomic work environment hazards. Since cleaners working for the platform companies might not be required to go through the same training as traditional cleaners, these risks might be exacerbated by the platform model. Fourth, since the cleaners working for the platforms tend to be classified as self-employed contractors, they are generally not covered by the rights and protections that usually follow an employment relationship. This can be an OSH risk factor – heightened by the industry’s reliance on foreign-born and migrant workers who might lack knowledge about the industry and the legal and economic consequences of self-employment. Thus, Huseby’s chapter shows that cleaners working for platform companies are not only exposed to the work environment hazards that long have characterized the cleaning industry, but also face additional risks that follow from digitalized work arrangements and non-standard forms of employment.

Similarly, Stine Rasmussen (Aalborg University, Denmark) analyses the case of Happy Helper, a domestic cleaning platform in Denmark, in Chapter 4. The analysis is based on interviews with cleaners and management representatives, as well as additional information drawn from the company’s website, company reports and news articles. Rasmussen finds that working for cleaning platforms in Denmark, like other types of platform-mediated gig work, can be economically insecure, physically demanding and mentally stressful. As Huseby also emphasizes, cleaners working for digital platforms are exposed to both industry-specific OSH challenges and challenges created by a digitalized work environment. While platform-based domestic cleaners in Denmark have a significant amount of flexibility, their working environment is characterized by insecure and unpredictable earnings. The cleaners are also exposed to substantial time pressure and often work overtime since the platform’s algorithms determine how much time they are allocated for completing each task and they depend on favourable ratings and assessments from customers. Being dependent on positive customer reviews, furthermore, makes it difficult for cleaners to require that the customer provide them with sufficient equipment. This can create work environment hazards. Rasmussen’s analysis also shows that cleaners can feel isolated and invisible, inhibiting collective mobilization.

Chapter 5, written by Kristin Jesnes (Fafo, Norway) and Stine Rasmussen (Aalborg University, Denmark), is a comparative analysis of the food delivery industries in Denmark and Norway. It explores the cases of Foodora in Norway, Just Eat in Denmark and Wolt in both countries, investigating the working environment challenges facing app-based food couriers. Drawing on an analytical framework proposed by Ropponen et al. (2019), the analysis pays particular attention to the ways in which the food delivery platforms control their couriers through algorithmic management and the effects of this form of control on the workers’ occupational safety and health. Jesnes and Rasmussen find that in addition to being physically demanding and mentally exhausting, the couriers’ working environment is characterized by three main OSH risks: job and income insecurity, waiting time and time pressure, and harassment and unfair treatment. These jobs characteristics, they argue, are largely a result of the food delivery platforms’ algorithmic management and intraplatform algorithmic change. However, the effects of algorithmic management are conditioned by the couriers’ employment model, and Jesnes and Rasmussen find that compared to freelance models, employment relationships and collective agreements can mitigate the OSH challenges to some extent.

Chapter 6, by Laura Seppänen (Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Finland), continues the analysis of platform-based food delivery. Exploring the Finnish case and drawing on qualitative interviews with platform-based food couriers from 2017 and 2022, this chapter analyses transparency, opaqueness, autonomy and agency as key features of platform-mediated gig work and platform workers’ work environment. Autonomy is often seen as a feature of a good work environment, and this chapter investigates how couriers’ autonomy and agency are affected by the transparency, or lack thereof, of platforms’ digitalized work arrangements. While couriers are attracted to platforms by the flexibility and autonomy these work arrangements offer, they are also monitored and evaluated by the platforms – practices that limits their actual flexibility and autonomy. Furthermore, Seppänen shows how the couriers’ autonomy and agency is both enabled and inhibited by the transparency and opaqueness of the platforms’ arrangements: Certain aspects of the operation are made visible to the workers, allowing them to make informed and autonomous decisions, while other aspects remain opaque, creating both unpredictability and stress. The chapter thus illustrates that the digitalization of work does not necessarily and always entail opaque forms of control but can also, under certain conditions, enable increased transparency. Furthermore, the analysis shows that while the platforms’ operations might appear opaque, workers do develop an understanding of how they function, enhancing their agency. Still, Seppänen highlights how, in the case of food delivery platforms in Finland, particular aspects of the platforms’ practices remain opaque, giving rise to complex and important dynamics of transparency, opacity, autonomy and control. 

In the concluding chapter, Chapter 7, Sondre Thorbjørnsen (Fafo, Norway) and Sigurd M. N. Oppegaard (Fafo, Norway) develop and present a risk factor framework for occupational safety and health, digitalization and forms of employment. This framework is based on the scoping review published at an earlier stage of this project (Bråten and Thorbjørnsen, 2023), relevant international research literature, the empirical case studies in the earlier chapters and the workshops with the Nordic labour inspectorates. The aim of the framework is to show how OSH risks can be articulated through digitalization and across different forms of employment. It identifies and discusses seven risk factors: isolation, deskilling, worker turnover, piece-rate precarity and stress, reduced autonomy, control and surveillance and increased OSH fragmentation. The chapter also highlights regulatory challenges associated with occupational safety and health for the future of work in the Nordic countries.

This report and our overall analysis are based on a case approach, situating work environment challenges and OSH risks in the future of work in the Nordic countries through an exploration primarily of platform-mediated gig work. Still, the tendencies and challenges we identify and highlight can be relevant for a number of other industries and cases where digital technologies are combined with non-standard forms of employment. More research is nonetheless required to assess the working environment of the future in the Nordic countries. One important avenue for further research is analysing how new technologies can be used to improve workers’ occupational safety and health. While previous research has argued that the digitalization of work has the potential to improve working environments, less is known about how and under what conditions this potential can be actualized (Christensen et al., 2020). It is also important to thoroughly investigate how digitalization can affect the working environment in manual occupations and traditional employment relationships, two types of cases that exhibit dynamics which our approach – aimed primarily at exploring the effects of digitalization on the working environment in non-standard forms of employment and based on empirical analyses of service work – does not capture.

There is also a need for comprehensive and comparative research on how the regulatory framework of the Nordic labour market model can manage the OSH risks associated with digitalization and new work arrangements. This report has primarily been oriented toward exploring digitalization and working environment challenges in non-standard forms of employment at the level of the labour process and the workplace and not toward how these questions arise and are handled at the institutional level. The Nordic labour market model is often presented as a regulatory framework that generally provides workers with stable jobs and decent and safe working conditions (Nordic Council of Ministers for Labour, 2023). However, it is nonetheless an institutional arrangement characterized by significant tensions (Oppegaard and Nosrati, 2024) and with highly variable effects in different segments of the labour market (Valestrand and Oppegaard, 2022). Furthermore, the Nordic labour market model has undergone critical changes over the last decades, in parallel with broader social and economic transformations (Alfonsson, 2024). This highlights the importance of examining how labour market institutions in the Nordic countries today can deal with the challenges brought on by the future of work – for working environments and the labour market more broadly.

Abrams, H. K. (2001). A short history of occupational health. Journal of Public Health Policy, 22(1), 34–80.

Alasoini, T., Immonen, J., Seppänen, L., & Känsälä, M. (2023). Platform workers and digital agency: Making out on three types of labor platforms. Frontiers in Sociology 8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2023.1063613.

Alfonsson, J. (2024). Dismantling employeesʼ power resources in the Swedish labour market. An ideological theoretical approach. Nordisk välfärdsforskning | Nordic Welfare Research, 9(1), 28–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18261/nwr.9.1.3.

Alsos, K., Jesnes, K., Øistad, B. S., & Nesheim, T. (2017). Når Sjefen Er En App. Fafo Report 2017:41. Fafo.

Andersen, M., & Spanger, M. (2024). Oversete platformsarbejdere: Migration, metodologisk nationalisme og dansk arbejdsmarkedsforskning i en brydningstid. Norsk Sosiologisk Tidsskrift, 8(1), 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18261/nost.8.1.3.

Benanav, A. (2019a). Automation and the future of work – 1. New Left Review, 119, 5–38.

Benanav, A. (2019b). Automation and the future of work – 2. New Left Review, 120, 117–146.

Bråten, M., & Thorbjørnsen, S. (2023). Arbeidsmiljøutfordringer ved digital arbeidsorganisering utenfor fast arbeidssted. Fafo note 2023:05. Fafo.

Christensen, J. O., Finne, L. B., Garde, A. H. Nielsen, M. B., Sørensen, K., & Vleeshouwes, J. (2020). The influence of digitalization and new technologies on psychosocial work environment and employee health: A literature review. STAMI report 2. National Institute of Occupational Health, Norway (STAMI).

Foldal, V. S., Husberg, W., Einarsson, S., Kalliolinna, H., Rajamaki, R., Kundsen, A., Falk, M., & Samant, Y. (2023). Work today and in the future. Part two: A synthesis of recommendations by and for the Nordic labour inspectorates. The Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority.

Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254–280. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-103030.

Hau, M. F., & Savage, O. G. (2023). Building coalitions on Facebook: ‘Social media unionism’ among Danish bike couriers. New Technology, Work and Employment, 38(3), 529–47. DOI: 10.1111/ntwe.12261.

ILO. (2023). A call for safer and healthier working environments. International Labour Organization.

ILO. (No date). Occupational Health. International Labour Organization. Accessed from https://www.ilo.org/safework/areasofwork/occupational-health/lang--en/index.htm, 16 June 2023.

Ilsøe, A., & Söderqvist, C. F. (2023). Will there be a Nordic model in the platform economy? Evasive and integrative platform strategies in Denmark and Sweden. Regulation & Governance, 17(3), 608–26. DOI: 10.1111/rego.12465.

Jesnes, K., & Oppegaard, S. M. N. (Eds.) (2020). Platform work in the Nordic models. Issues, cases and responses. TemaNord 2020:513. Nordisk ministerråd.

Jesnes, K., & Oppegaard, S. M. N. (2023). Plattformmediert gigarbeid i Norge. Fleksibilitet, uforutsigbarhet og ulikhet. In T. Fløtten, HC. Kavli & SC Trygstad (Eds.) Ulikhetens drivere og dilemmaer, pp. 137–153. Universitetsforlaget. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18261/9788215065403-23-08.

Kristiansen, J. H., Larsen, T. P., & Ilsøe, A. (2023). Hybrid work patterns: A latent class analysis of platform workers in Denmark. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 13(S10), 55–76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18291/njwls.133721.

Mbare, B. (2023). Psychosocial work environment and mental wellbeing of food delivery platform workers in Helsinki, Finland: A qualitative study. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 18(1), 2173336. DOI: 10.1080/17482631.2023.2173336.

Newlands, G. (2021). Algorithmic surveillance in the gig economy: The organization of work through Lefebvrian conceived space. Organization Studies, 42(5), 719–37. DOI: 10.1177/0170840620937900.

Nielsen, M. L., Laursen, C. S., & Dyreborg, J. (2022). Who takes care of safety and health among young workers? Responsibilization of OSH in the platform economy. Safety Science, 149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105674.

Nordic Council of Ministers for Labour. (2023). Joint Nordic declaration from the Nordic Council of Ministers for Labour (MR-A) – A policy response to changing labour relations. Nordic Council of Ministers for Labour (MR-A). Accessed from https://www.norden.org/da/node/85192, 29 May 2024.

Oppegaard, S. M. N., & Nosrati, E. (2024). Capitalism and the Nordic model. Nordisk välfärdsforskning | Nordic Welfare Research, 9(1), 5–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18261/nwr.9.1.1.

Papadopoulos, G., Georgiadou, P. Papazoglou, C., & Michaliou, K. (2009). Occupational and public health and safety in a changing work environment: An integrated approach for risk assessment and prevention, Safety Science, 48, 943–949. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2009.11.002.

Rolandsson, B., & Dølvik, J. E. (2021). The impact of digitalization on employment and traditional jobs. In J. E. Dølvik, & K. Alsos (Eds.) The future of work in the Nordic countries. Opportunities and challenges for the Nordic working life models. Nordic Council of Ministers, pp. 25–32.

Rolandsson, B., Dølvik, J. E., Hedenus, A., Steen, J. R., Ilsøe, A., Larsen, T. P., Alasoini, T. & Hjelm, E. (2019). Digitalization in Nordic manufacturing: Some case-study illustrations. Nordic future of work project 2017–2020: Working paper 3. Fafo.

Ropponen, A., Hakanen, J. J., Hasu, M., & Seppänen, L. (2019). Workers’ health, wellbeing, and safety in the digitalizing platform economy. In S. Poutanen, A. Kovalainen, & P. Rouvinen (Eds.) Digital work and the platform economy: Understanding tasks, skills and capabilities in the new era, pp. 56–73. Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780429467929-4.

Takala, J., Hämäläinen, P., Sauni. R., Nygård, C-H., Gagliardi, D., & Neupane, S. (2023). Global-, regional- and country-level estimates of the work-related burden of diseases and accidents in 2019. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environmental & Health, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4132.

Valestrand, E. T., & Oppegaard, S. M. N. (2022). Framveksten av plattformmediert gigarbeid i Norge og den «norske arbeidslivsmodellen». En analyse av drosjenæringen og renholdsbransjen. Norsk Sosiologisk Tidsskrift, 6(5), 25–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18261/nost.6.5.3.

van Doorn, N. (2017). Platform labor: on the gendered and racialized exploitation of low-income service work in the ‘on-demand’ economy. Information, Communication & Society, 20(6), 898–914. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1294194.

WHO. (2017). Protecting workers’ health. World Health Organization. Accessed from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/protecting-workers'-health, 16 June 2023.

Woodcock, J., & Graham, M. (2020). The gig economy. A critical introduction. Polity.