crowd work in europe - university of...

CROWD WORK IN EUROPE

FEPSSTUDIESDecember2016

Preliminary results from a survey in the UK, Sweden, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands

Ursula Huws, Neil H. Spencer and Simon Joyce from University of Hertfordshire

CrowdworkinEurope,ExecutiveSummary i

ForewordAconnected‘DigitalSingleMarket’hasbeenlistedunderthetenprioritiesofthecurrentEuropeanCommissionandhasbeenamaintopicof interest intheEuropeanpolicyarena, inparticularsincethe launch of the Digital Single Market Agenda in May 2015. Digitalisation and the connectedtransitiontoIndustry4.0willcreateanewglobaldivisionoflabourasdigitalisationcompressestimeandspaceandintroducesnewrequirementsforasimultaneouslocalandglobalpresence.Previousanalyses conducted on the future world of work point in the direction of a hyper-mobile labourmarket,whereworkersshiftbetweenvariousformsofemploymentandwillattimeshavemultiple,simultaneousworkplaces.Thefirstsignsofahyper-mobilelabourmarketarereflectedintherecentemergenceof‘newformsofwork’organisedviaonlineplatforms.

This so-called collaborative economy, which is also known as the ‘gig economy’, covers varioussectorsand is rapidlyemergingacrossEuropeandbeyond.ThenewphenomenonopensupmanyopportunitieswithregardtoeconomicbenefitsfortheEuropeanUnion(EU) includingfor instancethe creation of new employment structures, an increase in productivity and the improvement ofconsumers’accesstogoodsandservices.Nonetheless,thesenewformsofworkalsoposeriskstoourworkingculture,threateningtocreateasecond(parallel)labourmarketwithpoorersocialandfundamentalrightsleadingtoahollowingoutofEurope’ssocialmodel.

Thepresent report ‘Crowdwork inEurope–Preliminary results fromasurvey in theUK,Sweden,Germany, Austria and the Netherlands’ briefly reviews the existing evidence on the extent andcharacteristics of ‘crowd work’ in general and presents the results of five surveys in theaforementioned Member States in particular. This joint research project is carried out by theUniversity of Hertfordshire and Ipsos MORI in association with the Foundation for EuropeanProgressiveStudies(FEPS)andUNIEuropa,theEuropeanservicesworkersunion.Inaddition,severalnational funding partners contributed to it, so that the project could leverage on their localknowledgeandexpertiseandensureabroaddisseminationofitsmainfindings.Thecurrentreportstrives to picture the digitalised labour market and the diversity of new forms of labour andassociatedlabourconditionsintheEU.Basedontheresultspresentedhereandinthesubsequentfinalreport,ourresearchprojectintendstoconcludewithconcretepolicyproposalsontheframingofalegallevelplayingfieldforcrowdworkers.

InthisreportUrsulaHuws,NeilH.SpencerandSimonJoycefirstly investigatehowcrowdworkersuseonlineplatformsinordertogenerateanincomeandsecondly,identifytheircharacteristics.Theanalysis shows that the gig economy is on the rise in the aforementioned five Member States,offeringnewemployment structures anddifferent typesofwork to various age groups. FEPS andUNIEuropaaswellastherespectiveco-funderspublishedtheresultsofeachcrowdworkingsurveyatpresseventsandontheirwebsites.Theresearchprojecthasattractedhighmediaattentionatthenational leveland the interestof severalEUofficialsandacademicsacrossEurope,underlying therelevanceandtheinnovativecharacterofthisproject.

In lightofthissuccess,ournextaimistoexpandthecoverageandconductfurthercrowdworkingsurveysinotherMemberStatesbeforebeingabletodrawaEuropeancomparison.Wewouldalsoliketoaddaglobaldimensiontothisproject,byexploringcountriesoutsidetheEUusingthesamemethodology.WehopethataEuropeancomparativeanalysissetwithinaglobalcontextmighthelpustodeveloppossiblescenariosandputforwardanactionplantopositivelyframeandshapeourfutureworldofwork.

CrowdworkinEurope,ExecutiveSummary ii

Acknowledgements

Wewouldliketothankeveryoneinvolvedinthisresearchproject,andespeciallyourlocalpartners,whosefinancialcontributionsaregreatlyacknowledged.Thecrowdworkingsurveyswereco-fundedbytheSwedishtradeunion‘Unionen’,theGermantradeunions‘IGMetall’and‘ver.di’,theAustrianChamberofLabourinViennaandtheindependentresearchorganisation‘TNONetherlands’.

OliverRöthig,RegionalSecretary,UNIEuropaandErnstStetter,SecretaryGeneral,FEPS.

CrowdworkinEurope,ExecutiveSummary i

ExecutiveSummary

IntroductionOneofthemostdramaticdevelopments inEuropean labourmarkets inrecentyearshasbeentheintroductionofonlineplatforms tomanagework, leading toanexplosivegrowth in ‘crowdwork’.Commissioned by FEPS and UNI-Europa from the University of Hertfordshire, this interim reportreviews theexistingevidenceon theextent and characteristicsof crowdworkbeforegoingon topresenttheresultsofaninnovativeseriesofsurveyswhich,forthefirsttime,givearepresentativeviewofcrowdworkinfiveEuropeancountries:Austria,Germany,Netherlands,SwedenandtheUK.

TheexistingevidenceIt is clear from the evidence that crowdwork is not only growing fast but spreading into diverseoccupationalareas.Therearecurrentlyfourbroadtypesofplatformthatmatchclientswithworkersfor paid labour. These encompass: first, relatively high-skill creative and IT tasks that can bedeliveredelectronically fromanywhere in theworld (Upwork isa typicalexample); second, lower-skillrepetitiveonline‘clickwork’thatcanalsobecarriedoutindependentlyoflocation(Clickworkeris a typical example); third, manual service work that is carried out on a customer’s premises(Taskrabbit is a typical example); and fourthlywork involvingdrivingor delivery (Uber is a typicalexample).However there isevidence that thismodel is spreading tootherdiverseareas includinghealthservices,teaching,legalservicesandawidevarietyofmanualandmaintenancetasks.

Anumberof studieshave lookedat thebusinessmodelsofonlineplatforms, theambiguous legalstatusoftheirworkersandthewaytheworkisorganised.Howevertodatethemajorityofstudiesofcrowdworkershavefocusedonparticularplatformsorgroupsofplatforms.NoEuropeanstudyup to now has attempted to survey the general prevalence of crowdwork or identify a randomsampleofcrowdworkersinordertoidentifytheircharacteristics.

TheHertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurveyInorder toaddress thisgap,FEPSandUNI-EuropacommissionedHertfordshireBusinessSchool todevelopanexperimentalpilot surveycovering theentireonlineadultpopulation.ThiswascarriedoutfirstintheUKandthenrepeatedinSweden,theNetherlands,AustriaandGermany.Thesurveymade it possible to investigate how people are using online platforms to generate an income,includingpaidcrowdwork,andtoidentifytheircharacteristics.Thesurveywascarriedoutbyaddingquestionstoexistingonlineomnibusgeneralpopulationsurveysintherespectivecountries,withasample stratified by gender, age, region and working status. In the UK, 2238 respondents wereinterviewed,with2146respondentsinSweden,2180RespondentsinGermany,1969respondentsinAustriaand2126respondentsintheNetherlands.Theresultswereweightedtoberepresentativeofthegeneralpopulation.

ParticipationintheonlineeconomyThe survey found significant participation in the online economy,with over half the respondentsengaging inpractices suchas selling theirpossessions inonlinemarketplaces.Between8% (in the

CrowdworkinEurope,ExecutiveSummary ii

Netherlands, Sweden and the UK) and 26% (in Austria) used online platforms for renting outaccommodation to paying guests. The proportionwho had ever carried out paid work via onlineplatformsworkwas9%intheUKandtheNetherlands,10%inSweden,12%inGermanyand19%inAustria.Howeverformanyoftheserespondentscrowdworkingseemstohavebeenanoccasionalexperiment.Theproportionreportingdoingsuchworkatleastonceaweekwasbetween5%and9%ofrespondents,with6%-13%doingsoonceamonth.

Crowd work is generally a small supplement to total income. For around 45% of crowd workingrespondents who answered this question (varying from 58% in Austria to 33% in Sweden) itconstitutesonly10%or lessofall income. It constitutesmore thanhalfofall income for2.4%ofrespondents in Austria, 2.6% in Germany, 1.7% in the Netherlands and 2.8% each in the UK andSweden.

DemographiccharacteristicsofcrowdworkersThere is little gender difference in the propensity to do crowd work. In the UK, women aresomewhat more likely to do so (at 52%) but in the other countries men dominate, constitutingbetween56%and62%ofthecrowdworkforce.Thosewhocrowdworkintensively(atleastweekly)showasimilarprofile,withmenforming59%to63%ofthetotaloutsidetheUKand47%intheUK.

Crowdworkersaremorelikelytobefromyoungeragegroups,especiallyinSweden,where57%ofcrowdworkersareagedunder35(comparedwith42%intheNetherlands,47% inAustria,51% inGermany and 50% in the UK). Nevertheless, crowdworkers can be found in all age groups, withbetween11%(inSweden)and17%(intheNetherlands)ofcrowdworkersaged55orover.

TypeofworkdonebycrowdworkersThe evidence from the survey suggests that most crowd workers are not narrowly focused onparticulartypesofcrowdworkbutareusingcrowdworkplatformsasameanstogenerateincomefrom whatever kind of work is available. Crowd workers are much more likely than non-crowdworkers tobeusing general job search sites aswell as onlineworkplatforms.General job searchsiteswereusedby33%-47%ofnon-crowdworkers,comparedwith86%-93%of thosewhocrowdwork at least once aweek and 78%-91%ofmore occasional crowdworkers. Furthermore, crowdworkers tend to offer their services quite indiscriminately. When asked to name which of threebroadtypesofcrowdworktheywerelookingfor(drivingwork,workthatcouldbedonefromtheirown homes, orwork that had to be carried out on customers’ premises), themajority of peopleseekingcrowdworknamedmorethanone(withanaveragerangingfrom1.9to2.1amongmenand1.7 to 1.8 among women). Those who had actually carried out crowd work were given a moredifferentiated list of eight different types ofwork to name. This provided even stronger evidencethattheyseemedtobepreparedtoacceptwhateverwasonoffer,withmennamingbetween4.4and 5.2 types of work on average, and women naming between 3.1 and 4.2. Among those whocarried out crowd work at least weekly, the diversity was even greater, ranging from 6.0 to 6.7amongmenand4.6to6.4amongwomen.

CrowdworkinEurope,ExecutiveSummary iii

Conclusion

Furtherresearchwillberequiredtoestablishtheextenttowhichtheresultsfromthisonlinesurveyreflect trends in the broader population. This will be investigated by means of offline surveys,currentlyunderdevelopmentinsomeoftheparticipatingcountries.

There isalsoaneedfor in-depthqualitativeresearchtoexplorethemotivationsofcrowdworkersand collect information on theirworking arrangements, employment status, and other aspects oftheirparticipationintheonlineeconomy.

On the basis of this first representative snapshot of crowd workers in Europe we can, however,concludethatcrowdworkisanimportantphenomenon,mostcruciallyinvolvingsome5%-9%oftheonlinepopulation.Thereisalsoevidencethat,forasmallbutimportantminority,itconstitutesthemajorpartoftheirincome.Thefactthatthemajorityofcrowdworkersengageinmultipletypesofcrowdwork, rather than specialising in a single form, and are also actively seekingmore regulartypesofwork,suggeststhattheyarechoosingitfromadesperationtofindanysourceof income,ratherthanasanactivecareerchoice.

CrowdworkinEurope,firstdraftreporttoFEPS/UNI-EuropafromHertfordshireBusinessSchoolPage1

TableofContents

_Toc463593275Introduction...........................................................................................................................................1

Crowdwork:anoverviewoftheevidence............................................................................................2

Towardsadefinitionofcrowdwork..................................................................................................2

Extentofcrowdwork.........................................................................................................................3

Characteristicsofcrowdworkers......................................................................................................8

Workingconditionsofcrowdworkers...............................................................................................9

Employmentstatusofcrowdworkers.............................................................................................14

Tax,insuranceandregulationofcrowdworkplatforms.................................................................17

Conclusions......................................................................................................................................18

TheHertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurvey.....................................................................19

ResearchQuestions.........................................................................................................................19

Surveydesign...................................................................................................................................19

Sampling..........................................................................................................................................20

Researchfindings.................................................................................................................................22

Thecontext:generalparticipationintheonlineeconomy..............................................................22

UseoftheInternettofindwork......................................................................................................24

Participationinpaidcrowdwork.....................................................................................................27

Genderofcrowdworkers................................................................................................................28

Ageofcrowdworkers......................................................................................................................36

Employmentstatusofcrowdworkers.............................................................................................40

Contributionofcrowdworktoincome...........................................................................................43

Personalincomesofcrowdworkers................................................................................................46

Typeofworkdone...........................................................................................................................49

Conclusions..........................................................................................................................................50


Introduction

InJanuary,2016,HertfordshireBusinessSchoolwascommissionedbytheEuropeanFoundationforProgressiveStudies(FEPS)andUNI-Europatocarryoutastudyoftheimpactoftherapidly-growingphenomenonofcrowdworkatthelevelofnationaleconomiesinEurope.

Crowdwork,definedbroadlyaspaidworkmanagedviaonlineplatforms,hasbeen the subjectofconsiderablepopularinterestinrecentmonthsbutasyetlittlehardevidenceexistedastoitsextentandcharacteristics.

Ourfirststepsinthisprojectwerethereforefirstlytocarryoutareviewoftheexistingevidenceandsecondly, based on the gaps identified in this review, to carry out an experimental exploratorysurvey in order to estimate the prevalence of crowd work. The pilot survey, developed at theUniversityofHertfordshireandcarriedoutbyIpsosMORIintheUKinJanuary2016,revealedresultsthat were in some respects surprising, prompting a decision to repeat it, using the samemethodology,infourotherEuropeancountries:Sweden,Germany,AustriaandtheNetherlands.

Additionalco-fundingwasprovidedinthesecountriesbyUnioneninSweden,IGMetallandver.diinGermany,theViennaChamberofLabour(AKWien)inAustriaandtheNetherlandsOrganisationforAppliedScientificResearch(TNO)intheNetherlands.

This interim report summarises themain results of the literature review1 and exploratory onlinesurveys.

Itisanticipatedthatitwillbesupplemented,astheprojectprogresses,byfurtherquantitativeandqualitativeresearch,extendedtootherEuropeancountries.

1Thisliteraturereviewdrawsonanearlierreviewoftheliteratureoncrowdsourcingcommissionedin2015fromUrsulaHuwsbytheEuropeanAgencyforSafetyandHealthatWork(EU-OSHA)andavailableonlineat:https://oshwiki.eu/wiki/A_review_on_the_future_of_work:_online_labour_exchanges_or_crowdsourcing


Crowdwork:anoverviewoftheevidenceTherecentemergenceofapparentlynewformsofworkorganisedviaonlineplatformshasattractedconsiderableattentioninthemediaand,morerecently,amongpolicymakers,butsofartheseriousacademicliteratureonthetopicisrathersparse.

This chapter summarises the available literature. The first section looks at previous attempts toestimate the overall scale of, and participation in, crowdwork, and the second section examinesaspectsofworkingconditionsforworkersengagedincrowdwork.Subsequentsectionsdiscussthequestions relating to the employment status of crowd workers and a range of regulatory issues.includingthecollectiverightsofworkersengagedinthistypeofwork.

TowardsadefinitionofcrowdworkAstheauthorshavenotedelsewhere2thereiscurrentlynosingledefinitionof‘crowdwork’.Workthat is organised via online platforms covers a wide range of different variables, many of whichoverlapwithothercategoriesofwork.Itmaybepaidorunpaid,asolesourceofincomeorcarriedout in addition to another job, carried out online or offline (albeit managed by online means),carriedoutontheworker’sownpremises,onaclient’spremisesorinapublicspace,orproducingaserviceforamemberofthegeneralpublicorforacorporateclient.Furthermore,theworkermayberegarded as employed, self-employed, an independent contractor or some other employmentstatus.

Nevertheless, for the purposes of carrying out this research, it was useful to have a workingdefinitionandtypology,evenintheknowledgethatsuchadefinitionmaynotbecompletelyprecise,orthetypologycomprehensive.Intherestofthisreportwethereforeusetheterm‘crowdwork’torefer to paid work that is organised by an online platform (in the knowledge that theremay besituations where payment is withheld by the client). This work includes work that falls into twobroadcategories:first,workthatisbothmanagedonlineandcarriedoutonline,andthuscapableofbeing delivered to clients anywhere in the world; and second, work that is managed online butcarried out offline, and therefore restricted to labourmarkets that are spatially accessible to theworker(althoughtheplatformitselfmaybelocatedremotely).

These two categoriesbroadly correspond tonon-manualwork, requiringdigital skills, andmanualwork,requiringtask-specificskills.Inbothcases,ofcourse,theworkersrequireaccesstoanonlinedevicesuchasasmartphone,tabletorlaptopthatenablesthemtobenotifiedofnewassignments,acceptorrejectthem,logtheirworkinghoursand/ortaskcompletionandrequestpayment.

Each category covers a very wide range of skills and types of activity, too heterogeneous tosummarise in full. For the purposes of this report we do, however, add one further level ofdifferentiation.Wedividethenon-manualonlineworkintotwobroadsub-categories:high-skillwork(for example providing creative or IT services, or professional services such as accountancy,consultancy or legal services) and low-skill work, involving short, repetitive routine tasks or ‘clickwork’.Themanualtasksarealsodivided intotwobroadsub-categories.Thefirstofthese involves

2Huws,U.(2016)AReviewontheFutureofWork:OnlineLabourExchanges,or‘Crowdsourcing’:ImplicationsforOccupationalSafetyandHealth,EuropeanAgencyforSafetyandHealthatWork,Bilbao.


drivingordeliveryworkinpublicspaces.Thesecondinvolvesprovidingservicesinpeople’shomesorbusinesspremises.

Thisleavesuswithfourbroadtypesofcrowdwork,correspondingtofourtypesofplatform.

1. Non-manualhigh-skillonlineworkers(workingforplatformslikeUpworkorPeoplePerHour)2. Non-manuallow-skillonlineworkers(workingforplatformslikeClickworker,Crowdfloweror

AmazonMechanicalTurk)3. Manual driving workers working offline but managed online (working for platforms like

Uber,BlablacarorLyft)4. Manual service /maintenance/construction workers working offline but managed online

(workingforplatformslikeTaskrabbit,HelplingorMyhammer)

ExtentofcrowdworkPreviousattemptstoestimatethescaleandextentofcrowdworkhavebeenbesetbyanumberofrecurring problems. It is evident that the crowd-workforce is both highly diverse and growingrapidly.Yet, it lackscleardefinitionsandrobust indicators.Consequently,thereisa lackofreliableevidence.Previousestimatesoftenrelyonanecdote,researchonparticularplatforms,orstatisticsproducedbytheplatformsthemselves.Suchfiguresaretypicallybasedonthenumberofworkersregistered on a particular site; but these are likely to be inaccurate for a number of reasons. Forinstance, people who register may be inactive, or may register on a site multiple times usingdifferentidentities,ormayregisteronmultiplesites.Consequently,attemptingtogenerateatotalfigureisproblematic.

Attemptstoestimatecrowdworkingataglobalscalearerare.Oneapproachstartsfromestimatesofmarket size.Elance/oDesk estimated the total value of themarket at $1.6 billion in 2013, andprojectedgrowthtobetween$16band$47billionby2020.3StaffingIndustryAnalystsestimatedthevalueofonlinecrowdwork tobe$1billion in2012,expecting it todoubleby2014and 'reach$5billion by 2018'.4 These estimates, however, appear to refer only to skilled professional freelancework.In2012,Massolutionsestimatedtheglobalnumberofcrowdworkerstobegrowingbymorethan 100% per year,with nearly US $300million of venture capital invested in 2011 alone. Theyreported,‘largeenterpriseswithrevenuesabove$1Bareearlyadoptersofcrowdsourcing;however,there is still significant untapped opportunity for crowdsourcing penetration across the board’.5Kaganeretal.estimatedthatyear-on-yeargrowthinglobalrevenueof‘humancloud’platformswas53%for2010and74%for2011,withthenumbersofplatformsgrowingrapidly.6Thereisnosimpleway,however,totranslatesuchestimatesofmarketsizeintonumbersofworkers.

3Hippler,K.(2014)‘Theonlineworkrevolution’,presentationtoDynamicsofVirtualWork(COSTActionIS1202)Meeting,UniversityofBucharest,28March,2014.4TheEconomist(2013)‘”Talentexchanges”onthewebarestartingtotransformtheworldofwork’,TheEconomistJune1.5Massolutions(2012)CrowdsourcingIndustryreport:Enterprisecrowdsourcing:marketproviderandworkertrends,http://www.massolution.com/6Kaganer,E.,Carmel,E.,Hirschheim,R.andOlsen,T.(2013)‘ManagingtheHumanCloud’MITSloanManagementReview,Winter.


Analternativeapproachcouldbebasedonanestimateofthenumberofplatforms,togetherwithan estimate of the number of workers per platform. Unfortunately, both components of such acalculationpresent significant difficulties. First, thenumberof platforms is very large. Exploratoryresearch in Europe7 found many platforms, serving local, regional or national markets.Crowdsourcing.orgprovidesadirectoryofsites8andclaimsto list '2,967crowdsourcingandcrowdfundingsites', including135 in thecategory ‘cloud labour’,mainly in theUSAbutsome in theUK.Yet, this list is far from complete – not least because a number of sites listed separately byCrowdsourcing.org under the category 'crowd creativity' (a category supposed to cover unpaidcrowdwork)plainlyalsooffertheservicesofpaidcrowdworkers.9

Second, while platforms organising online work often display a claimed number of registeredworkers,thesefiguresvaryconsiderably,anditisoftenunclearwhattheyreferto.Forinstance,inMarch 2016 Freelancer was advertising some 18.5 million 'registered users' and over 8.5 million'totaljobsposted'.10Elance,(whichmergedwithoDesk in2013toformthenewcompanyUpwork,with a claimed combined workforce of some 10 million11), has given more specific figures: over359,000programmersavailable,nearly50,000mobiledevelopers,over272,000designers,410,000writers, and 87,000 marketers. European-based platforms are often smaller: German-based ITplatformTwagoclaimsover569,000experts,over86,000projects,worth€450,435,050.12Atthetopend of the professional scale, numbers are far smaller. For instance, in the UK, Axiom offers theservices of 1,500 lawyers providing 'tech-enabled legal services',13 and Eden McCallum 500managementconsultants.14Clearly,thesesignificantvariationsinthenumbersofregisteredworkerspresentsmajordifficulties forestimatingoverallcrowdworkernumbersbyaveragingparticipationacrossplatforms.

Forplatformsthatorganiseofflinework,statisticsareevenhardertocomeby,partlybecausethelocalnatureofserviceprovisionreducestheneedforsitestoadvertiseanoverallworkforce.SomelargeUS-basedplatformsareexpandingaggressivelyaroundtheworld.Uber,forinstance,claimeditwould‘create50,000Europeanjobsin2015’.15WherethegeographicalexpansionofUScompaniesismore limited, other platformsmay occupy a similar niche. For example,whileTaskrabbit has a

7Green,A.,deHoyos,M.,Barnes,S-A.,Baldauf,B.andBehle,H.(2014)'ExploratoryResearchonInternet-enabledWorkExchangesandEmployability.Analysisandsynthesisofqualitativeevidenceoncrowdsourcingforwork,fundingandvolunteers',inEuropeanCommissionJointResearchCentreInstituteforProspectiveTechnologicalStudies,JRCScientificandPolicyReports;Mandl,I.,(2014)EuropeanFoundationfortheImprovementofLiving&WorkingConditions,‘StatusquoandfirstfindingsoncrowdemploymentandICTbased,mobilework’,presentationtoDynamicsofVirtualWork(COSTActionIS1202)Meeting,UniversityofBucharest,28March,2014.8http://www.crowdsourcing.org/directory(Accessed17March2016)9Forinstance,https://www.hiretheworld.com,http://99designs.co.uk.See:http://www.crowdsourcing.org/directory(Accessed17March2016)10http://www.freelancer.co.uk(Accessed14March2016)11TheEconomist(2015)‘Freelanceworkersavailableatamoment’snoticewillreshapethenatureofcompaniesandthestructureofcareers’,TheEconomist,January3.12http://www.twago.com/#sthash.iU4hWAjT.dpuf(Accessed14March2016)13http://www.axiomlaw.com/what-we-do/(Accessed14March2016)14TheEconomist(2015)‘Freelanceworkersavailableatamoment’snoticewillreshapethenatureofcompaniesandthestructureofcareers’,TheEconomist,January3.15Waters,R.&Mishkin,S.(2015),‘Uberpromisestocreate50,000Europeanjobsin2015’,FinancialTimes,January18.http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/489cf62a-9f2e-11e4-a849-00144feab7de.html#axzz3SUnYrJEm


presenceinonly18UScitiesandLondon,16Milahasbeendescribedas‘theTaskrabbitofEurope’17andYoudo ‘theTaskrabbitofRussia’.18Otheroffline-workplatformsaresmaller.Forexample,UK-based Taskpandas provides household services in London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds andGlasgow,claiming ‘over1,500activePandas looking toearnsomeextramoney in theseuncertaintimes’.19Growthforecastsforoffline-workplatformstendtobeconcealedwithinlargerestimatesofthe‘sharingeconomy’thatincludeotheractivities,suchasaccommodationrentals,crowdfunding,and car sharing. PriceWaterhouseCooper, for example,predicts thatby2025 thismarketwill beworth $335 billion globally.20 Again, these estimates exemplify problems caused by the varieddefinitionsinuse.

Anotherapproachtoestimatingthecrowdworkforcestartsfrompopulationstatistics.Oneattempt,by Oxford Economic Forecasting for Slivers-of-time21 (a UK-based platform which provided socialcare,retail,hospitalityandadministrativeservicesatshortnotice)estimatedapotentialworkforceof22millionpeopleintheUKwhocouldworkinthisway.22SuchafigurewouldindeedrepresentaveryconsiderableproportionoftheUKworkforce.Itisclear,however,thatonlyasmallfractionofthisnumberisactuallyworkinginthisway.

Attemptstoestimatethenumberofcrowdworkersbasedonofficialemploymentstatistics faceanumber of challenges. Not least among these is that existing official categories seem ill suited tocapturingcrowdwork.ThesedifficultiesrecentlyhelpedtogenerateasignificantdebateintheUSA.Startingfromofficialfiguresthatshownoincreaseinself-employmentinrecentyears,anarticleintheWallStreetJournal23questionedthecommonlyacceptedviewthattheonlineand‘gig’economyhas grown significantly. It quickly became apparent, though, that other official statistics told adifferent story, indicating growth in this area.24 This statistical uncertainty caused one analyst tocomment 'it seemsridiculous that ithasprovensodifficult to trackandcount these labormarkettrends'.25Ridiculousornot,thelackofofficialstatisticspresentssignificantobstaclesforresearchinthisarea.

Studiesaimingtomeasurethescaleofparticipationintheonlineeconomyacrosswholepopulationsin the USA have producedwidely disparate results. Katz and Kreuger conducted a version of theContingentWorkerSurveyaspartoftheRANDAmericanLifePanel(ALP)inlate2015andfoundthat

16Taskrabbit(2015)‘19citiesandcounting’.https://www.taskrabbit.co.uk/how-it-works17Fowler,N.(2013)‘Zurich’sMilaraises€2.5mforpeer-to-peermarketinEuropeandAsia’,http://venturevillage.eu/zurich-mila-fund-3m18Starkell,N.(2013)‘RussianequivalentofTaskRabbitYouDoraises$1MillionfromFlintCapital’,October3.http://goaleurope.com/2013/10/03/russian-equivalent-of-taskrabbit-youdo-raises-1-million-from-flint-capital/19http://www.taskpandas.com/about_us.php20TechUK(2014)‘NewPwCanalysispredictsdramaticriseofthesharingeconomyovernextdecade’.August19.https://www.techuk.org/insights/news/item/2041-new-pwc-analysis-predicts-dramatic-rise-of-the-sharing-economy-over-next-decade21http://www.sliversoftime.com/22http://modernmarketsforall.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/OEF_-_Slivers_of_Time_-_Making_the_Labour_Market_work_better.pdf23Zumbrun,J.andSussman,L.(2015),'Proofofa"GigEconomy"revolutionishardtofind',WallStreetJournal,July26,2015.Seealso,Zumbrun,J.(2015),'Anenduringmysteryofthe‘GigEconomy’:whyaresofewpeopleself-employed?'WallStreetJournal,October22,2015.24Hill,S.(2015),'HowBIGistheGIG(economy)',Medium,September9,2015.https://medium.com/the-wtf-economy/how-big-is-the-gig-economy-e674c7986a28#.q8j6v0zbf25Ibid.


‘about0.5percentofworkersindicatethattheyareworkingthroughanonlineintermediary,suchasUberorTaskRabbit’.26Theseworkerswereasub-categoryofamuchlargeramalgamatedcategoryofworkerswith ‘alternativeworkarrangements’ (temporaryhelpworker,on-callworker, contractcompanyworkers or an independent contractor or freelancer)which, the authors estimated, hadrisenfrom10.1%oftheworkforce in2005to17.2%in2015. It isnotcleartowhatextentthere isoverlapbetweenthesecategories,withincomefromonlineplatformsbeingusedtotopupearningsfrom other sources and therefore, perhaps, going unreported. Furthermore, the ALP study onlylookedatpeoplewhosaidthatworkmediatedviaanonlineplatformwastheirmainjob;whereasthereisalreadyevidencetosuggestthatformanycrowdworkisasupplementtoamainjob.FarrellandGreiganalyseddatafromthebankaccountsofarandomisedsampleof1millioncustomersofthe Chase bank to see who was receiving an income from one of 30 identified platforms. Thisincluded not only income derived from work but also from such activities as renting out roomsthrough Airbnb or selling items on eBay. However it also, of course, excluded any income fromorganisations other than the selected 30 platforms and, more importantly, did not considerremittances froma third party payment system, such as PayPal. They found that one per cent ofadultsearnedincomefromwhattheytermthe‘onlineplatformeconomy’ inagivenmonth,whileoverfourpercentparticipatedoverthefullthree-yearperiodfrom2012to201527.Anonlinesurveywas carried out by Penn Schoen Berland forTimemagazine (Steinmetz, 2016) exploring both thesupply and demand side of the ‘new’ or ‘gig’ economy, again defined broadly to includeaccommodation sharing, ride sharing, car rental and ‘service platforms’ (e.g. Handy, Care.com,Taskrabbit). They found that22%ofUSadultswere involvedas ‘offerers’, supplying such servicesand 42% as ‘users’.28 Other estimates for the USA have looked at Google searches.29 This widevariety of methodologies underlines the difficulties involved in empirical investigation of aconceptually ill-defined field. Some of these studies used relatively narrow definitions of crowdwork,andproducedwidelydisparateestimatesofparticipationincrowdwork.

Inpart,thesedifficultiesreflectamarkedgeographicalunevennessinthegrowthofcrowdworkintheUSA,withcitiessuchasSanFranciscoandAustin,Texas,emergingascentresofthesenewformsofworkorganisation,whilegrowthinotherareasisfarlesssignificant.30Furthermore,authorspointto problems of under-funding in government departments concerned with collecting such data.Perhapsmorefundamentally,though,thesenewformsofcrowdworkorganisationareoftenapoorfitwith theestablishedemployment andoccupational categoriesuponwhichofficial statistics are

26Katz.L.F.&Kreuger,A.B.(2016)TheRiseandNatureofAlternativeWorkArrangementsintheUnitedStates,1995,PrincetonUniversity.DownloadedonSeptember3,2016from:https://krueger.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/akrueger/files/katz_krueger_cws_-_march_29_20165.pdf-2015

27Farrell,D.&Greig,F.(2016)Paychecks,Paydays,andtheOnlinePlatformEconomy,NewYork:JPMorganChaseInstitute28Steinmetz,K.(2016)‘Exclusive:SeeHowBigtheGigEconomyReallyis’Time,January6.AccessedonSeptember3,2016from:http://time.com/4169532/sharing-economy-poll/29Harris,S.andKrueger,A.(2015),'AproposalformodernizingLaborLawsforTwenty-First-Centurywork:the"IndependentWorker”,'TheHamiltonProject,DiscussionPaper2015-10,Washington,DC,December2015.30Hathaway,I.(2015),'Thegigeconomyisrealifyouknowwheretolook',HarvardBusinessReview,August13,2015.


based:'Increasingly...moreandmoreworkersexistsimultaneouslyinmultipleworkercategories'.31Untilofficialstatisticscatchupwiththesechangingemploymentpractices,estimatesofthecrowdworkforcebasedonthesefigureswillcontinuetopresentproblems.

Wemust therefore conclude that, whilst there is clear evidence that crowd working exists on asignificantscale,andisgrowingrapidly,therearecurrentlynoreliableestimatesofitsextent.

31Hill,S.(2015),'HowBIGistheGIG(economy)',Medium,September9,2015.https://medium.com/the-wtf-economy/how-big-is-the-gig-economy-e674c7986a28#.q8j6v0zbf


CharacteristicsofcrowdworkersInformationaboutthecharacteristicsofthecrowdworkforceisevenscarcerthanontheirnumbers.Themost-studiedgroupare‘Turkers’workingforAmazonMechanicalTurk(AMT)intheUSAand,toa lesserextent, in India.Anearly study32 (in2010) found that they tended tobehighlyeducated,with 63% having college degrees, compared with the US national average of 25%. Turkers wereyoung,withamedianageof30,and69%were female.33Howeveras thepracticehasgrown, thedemographyhas changed.34 Turkers arenowconsidered representativeenoughof the generalUSpopulationtoberoutinelyusedasasampleforsurveys.35LillyIranireports, ‘[AMT]workersIhavemetincludelaid-offteachers,mobility-impairedprofessionals,militaryretirees,agoraphobicwriters,undersupported college students, stay-at-home parents and even Malaysian programmers-in-training’.36 A 2014 study of Turkers found that '52% of participants reported to be male'.37Nevertheless, Turkers remainedyoung (48%born in the1980s), collegeeducated (over90%),and'Internet-literate’.38AnotherstudyfoundthemeanageofAMTworkers in Indiawas27and intheUSA33,with27%oftheIndiansamplefemale,comparedwith58%intheUSA.39

Otherevidenceabout crowdworkers ismoreanecdotal.Newsmedia reporting tends to focusonindividuals,40oronaccountsofjournalistswhohaveenrolledoncrowdworkplatformstogainfirst-hand experience.41 These reports confirm the picture of a wide variety of platforms, difficulty inobtainingwork,extremelylowpay,haphazardorganisationalarrangements,absenceofguaranteesand lackof insurance.However,theseaccountsprovide littleevidenceaboutthecharacteristicsofcrowdworkers beyond emphasising their diversity. In the absence of survey evidence, journalismcanonlytellusthatthisworkforceis largeandheterogeneous,andincludespeopledriventoseekthiskindofworkfromeconomicdesperation.

InEurope there is some limitedcase studyevidence.One study42 lookedatPeople-per-hour43andfound that themajorityof itsusers (63.5%)werebased in theUK,with thenext largest shares in

32Ipeirotis,P.G.(2010b).‘AnalyzingtheAmazonMechanicalTurkmarketplace’.XRDS:Crossroads,TheACMMagazineforStudents,17(2),16-21.33Cushing,E.(2012)‘DawningoftheDigitalSweatshop’,EastBayExpress,August1.34Ross,J.,Irani,L.,Silberman,M.,Zaldivar,A.,&Tomlinson,B.(2010)‘Whoarethecrowdworkers?ShiftingdemographicsinMechanicalTurk’.Proceedingsofthe28thoftheinternationalconferenceextendedabstractsonHumanfactorsincomputingsystems,ACM.pp.2863-2872.35Zentz,D.(2015)‘IntellectualPiecework’,TheChronicleofHigherEducation,February16.36Irani,L.(2015)’DifferenceandDependenceamongDigitalWorkers’,SouthAtlanticQuarterly,January:231.37Marshall,C.C.andShipman,F.M.(2014)‘Whoownsyoursocialnetworks?’CenterfortheStudyofDigitalLibrariesandDepartmentofComputerScience,TexasA&MUniversity,February15-19.38Ibid.39Kittur,A.,Nickerson,J.V.,Bernstein,M.S.,Gerber,E.M..Shaw,A.,Zimmerman,J.Lease,M.andHorton,J.J.(2013)‘TheFutureofCrowdWork’,CSCW,February23-27.40DePillis,L.(2014)‘AttheUberforhomecleaning,workerspayapriceforconvenience’,WashingtonPost,September2014;Shontell,A.(2011),'MynightmareexperienceasaTaskRabbitdrone',BusinessInsider,7December2011.http://www.businessinsider.com/confessions-of-a-task-rabbit-2011-12?IR=T41Kessler,S.(2014),'Pixelanddimed',FastCompany,18March2014:http://www.fastcompany.com/3027355/pixel-and-dimed-on-not-getting-by-in-the-gig-economy;Rich,L.J.(2013),'Sohowmuchmoneycanyoumakecrowdworking?',BBCNews,7September2013:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23959890.42Green,A.deHoyos,M.,Barnes,S-A,Baldauf,B.andBehle,H.(2013)CrowdemployCrowdsourcingCaseStudies:anEmpiricalInvestigationintotheImpactofCrowdsourcingonEmployability,EuropeanCommissionJointResearchCentreInstituteforProspectiveTechnologicalStudies.


India(9.9%),theUSA(5.3%),Pakistan(2.6%),thePhilippines(2.0%),SouthAfrica(0.7%)andCanada(0.7%). IntheUK,47%ofuserswere inLondon.Justoverhalf (52%)werefemaleandtherewasawideagespread,butthemajoritywereintheir20sor30s.Fourofthesixpeopleinterviewedforthecase study said that their earnings from this sitewere a significant component of their freelanceincome.AnothercasestudyfocusedonSlivers-of-time,asitethatorganisesofflinework.Heretheage profile appeared to be significantly older. It is not clear how representative the intervieweeswereofthe65,000peoplereportedbythissocialenterprisetobeonitsdatabase,buttheyoungestwasinthe50-59agegroupandallbutonewerefemale.Again,surveyevidenceislacking.

WorkingconditionsofcrowdworkersThe conditions underwhich crowdwork is carried out have important implications for its overallimpact on theworld of work. However, the sheer variety of crowdwork oncemore complicatesanalysis. We focus separately here on online and offline workers, because their places of work(remoteversusface-to-face)andrelationshipswithclients(telemediatedversusdirect)createverydifferentpatternsofwork,exposingthemtodifferentrisks.

Workingconditionsforonlineworkincludeanumberofwell-establishedandsignificanthealthandsafetyissues,whichmustbetakenintoaccountinunderstandingtheimpactofthegrowthofcrowdwork.Thereisalargeliteratureontheergonomicsofofficeworkandthesafeuseofdisplayscreens(addressed inter alia in the EC Directive 90/270/EEC). Known risks of working with computersinclude visual fatigue, musculoskeletal problems, stress and other disorders. When such work isdone by employees, employers are advised (and often required) to carry out risk assessments,providefurniture,screensandkeyboardsthatmeetergonomicstandards,ensurethatlighting,noiselevels,temperature,humidityandairflowarecomfortable,andthatworkerstakeregularbreaks.44

Whenwork is classified as freelance, these obligations can be externalised to individualworkers.Although systematic survey evidence is lacking, it seemshighly likely that in crowdworkmanyofthesesafeguardsarebreached.Forinstance,workersmayuselaptopsorotherdevicesonwhichthescreen, keyboard and mouse do not meet ergonomic standards; they may work in domesticenvironments or public spaces (such as cafes) where seating and work surfaces require them toadoptpoorpostures, riskingmusculoskeletalproblems;andtheymaybeworking inenvironmentswhichare inappropriately lit, noisy, polluted,overcrowdedor toohotor too cold for comfortablework. Pressure to meet tight deadlines or work targets may force a rapid pace of work withoutbreaks, exacerbating visual and musculoskeletal strains. Workers may be unable to afford (orunawareoftheneedfor)eyetestsandtheuseofsuitablelensesforscreenwork,leadingtovisualstrain and problems such as headaches. All these factors, and their combination, and can beconsideredaspotentiallysignificanthealthandsocialcostsexternalisedbyemployerstoindividualsandwidersocietybycrowdworkingpractices.

Crowdworkcarriedoutofflinetakesplaceinspacesthatareevenhardertomap.Itsdiversityandgeographicalspreadfrequentlyplaceitinanambiguousterrainwhichmayberegulatedinapoorly-understood intersection between laws designed to protect workers, those designed to protectconsumers and those focused on public safety. Costs externalised to offline crowd workers may

43Acompanywhosewebsiteclaimedon22/02/2015thatithad40,000‘curatedfreelances’.44Seeforinstancehttps://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/e-facts/efact13


includehavingtoprovidetheirownworktools,materials,and/ortransport.Somecrowdworkisinoccupationsthatarenotoriouslydangerous.Oneexample isconstruction.TheUKsiteMybuilder,45for example, lists a wide range of ‘trades’ associated with above-average rates of accidents andinjurytoworkers,includinggarageandshedbuilders,treesurgeons,roofers,demolitioncontractors,groundworkers,windowfitters,fencersandstonemasons.Italsoincludesmanythataresubjecttoregulations designed to protect consumers, such as gas engineers, electricians and insulationinstallers.Taskrabbitoffers'Taskers'whocanbehiredtoassemblefurniture,removegardenwaste,'repair and replace most household items', or perform 'heavy lifting'.46 Needless to say, if theseactivities were conducted within a legally-constituted employment relationship, numerous dutieswouldbeplacedupon theemployer in relation to riskassessment, theprovisionanduseofworkequipment,personalprotectiveequipment,andsoon.47

Crowdworkcarriedoutinotherpeople'shomescanbeextremelyvaried.Alongsidethepotentialforaccidents,suchcrowdworkersmayperformemotionallabour,whichisknowntocarrypsychosocialrisks,48 although research has not been carried out specifically among crowdworkers. Suchworkmayalsoresultininter-personalviolenceorharassment,bothtoworkersandfromthem(includingtochildrenandelderlyorvulnerableadults).Risksmaybeexacerbatedby lackof training, lackofcertification, lack of knowledge or understanding of relevant regulations lack of clarity in workspecification,lackofsafetyequipmentandclothing,pressurefromtightdeadlines,interruptionsanddistractions leading to errors. While some distractions may be extraneous (e.g. caused by thepresence of children, pets, members of the public, etc.) others may be related to the nature ofcrowdwork;for instance,theneedtorespondtoalertssentbyonlineplatformsviamobilephoneapps(e.g.torespondtoanewrequestforworkorprovideanupdateontheprocessofajob).

Whenthecrowdworkactivityisdriving,suchrisksareparticularlyhighbecauseofthepotentialforaccidents tobeveryserious.Accidentsmayresult fromdistractionscausedbymessagesorphonecalls,orexhaustionduetolongandunregulatedworkinghours,whetherincurredinthecrowdworkor another job. Driving a taxi entails risks to drivers, customers, and other road users.Uber hasalreadybeensuedforwrongfuldeathbytheparentsofasix-year-oldchildkilledbyacarlinkedtothecompany.49TherehavebeencasesofUberdriversaccusedof rapebycustomers inChicago,50

45http://www.mybuilder.com46https://www.taskrabbit.co.uk/m/featured(Accessed16March2016)47Togiveoneexample,aTaskrabbitworkerisquotedassaying‘Ihadaclientacoupleofmonthsagowhowantedmetodohislaundry.Ididitandtherewassomethingkindofnastyonhisstuff.…Irealizedthisnastystuffwasactuallycatdiarrheaalloverhislaundry.…Thethirdtimethishappened,IactuallycalledTaskRabbitandIsaid,"Lookthisiswhat'shappening.PlusI'mallergictocatsanditactuallysaysthatinmyprofile."Isaid,"IthinkIshouldgetpaidmorethan$25fordoingthis."…IgotanemailfromTaskRabbitshortlythereafterthatIwasunprofessional.TheysaidifIdidthatagain,Iwasfired.’(http://www.businessinsider.com/confessions-of-a-task-rabbit-2011-12#ixzz3SxHiblS7).48Pugliesi,K.(1999)‘TheConsequencesofEmotionalLabour:EffectsonWorkStress,JobSatisfactionandWell-Being’,MotivationandEmotion,Vol23No2,49Gullo,K.(2014)‘UberSuedforWrongfulDeathOver6-Year-OldChild’,BloombergBusiness,January28.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-27/uber-sued-for-wrongful-death-over-6-year-old-child-killed50Collman,A.(2014)‘Uberdriver'raped22-year-oldpassengerhedrovehomedrunkfrombar',MailOnline,December30.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2891248/Uber-driver-court-allegedly-raping-22-year-old-passenger-drove-home-drunk-bar.html


Boston,51andDelhi,52aswellasnumerousotherseriousallegations.53Driversarealsovulnerabletoattackandharassmentbycustomers.FemaleUberdrivershavebeen trackeddownat theirhomeaddressesandharassedbyformerpassengersusingacombinationofUber’s‘lost-and-found’systemandApple’s ‘findmyiPhone’app.54Thevulnerabilityofwomendriversmaybeexacerbatedbytheuseofsexualisedadvertising inwhichwomendriversarepresented ineroticcostumesandposes,illustratedbythe‘Avionsdechasse’campaignorganisedbyUber’sLyonsofficeinFrance.55Lackofinsurance, or lack of clarity about who is responsible for insurance (the online platform, theemployer/clientortheworker),arelikelytoshapeworkingpracticesandthereportingofaccidents.Inthecaseofdrive-sharecompaniessuchasUber,BlablacarandLyft,externalisedcostsalsoincludethecostofpurchasingandmaintainingthevehicle.

Turning to issues common to many types of crowd work, one widespread feature is its oftenextreme precariousness.56 Many crowd workers face significant uncertainty over when they willhavework,whatitwillconsistof,andwhentheywillbepaid.Theinabilitytopredictworkinghoursmakes itdifficulttoplanahead,withconsequencesforpersonalandfamily life.Crowdworkoftenfeatures the requirement toworkat very shortnotice, and crowdworkersmaymiss a job if theyhesitateafewmomentsbeforeclickingto‘accept’atask.Uncertaintyisexacerbatedinmanycasesbytheknowledgethatnopaymentmaybereceivedatalliftheworkisdeemedunacceptablebytheclient.57Ratingsfromemployersorclientscandeterminewhethertheworkerreceivesfurtherwork,orisabletochargeareasonablerate,orevenwhethertheyremainonthedatabaseatall.Normallythereisnorightofappealagainstsuchdecisions,noranyproceduretoevaluatethequalityofthework independently. It is a common complaint of crowdworkers that failure topay is unjust andmaybeaformof‘scammingforfreework’.58Moreover,precariousemploymentisnotonlyfoundinwork that is formallydesignatedas freelance,butalsowherebona fideemployeeshavecontractswith unspecified numbers of hours.59 The precarious nature of crowd work is therefore directlylinkedwithincomeinsecurity.

51WBUR(2014)‘BostonDriverAccusedofRapingCustomer’,WBURNews,December18.http://www.wbur.org/2014/12/18/mass-uber-rape52BBC(2015)‘UberDelhi“rape”:Indiacourtbeginsdriver’strial’,BBCNewsIndia,15January.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-3082813253http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/rideshare-incidents(Accessed16March2016)54Bhuyian,J.(2015)‘MenAreUsingUber’sLost-And-FoundFeatureToHarassFemaleDrivers’,BuzzfeedNews,February10,http://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/faced-with-harassment-female-uber-drivers-often-left-to-fend#.qkvA5JmRy55Warzel,C.(2014)‘SexistFrenchUberPromotionPairsRiderswith“HotChick”Drivers’,BuzzfeedNews,October21.http://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/french-uber-bird-hunting-promotion-pairs-lyon-riders-with-a#.gyom0OL3V56Foradiscussionofthelinkbetweenprecariousnessandpsychosocialriskfactors,seeEurofound(2009)RiseinPsychosocialriskfactorsintheWorkplace.Dublin:EuropeanFoundationfortheImprovementofLivingandWorkingConditions.Availableat:http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/features/report/4732/my-gruelling-day-as-an-amazon-mechanical-turk/57ManyaccountsofAmazonMechanicalTurkdescribelargenumbersofrejections.Seeforinstance:http://www.cnet.com/news/amazons-mechanical-turk-lets-you-make-sort-of/andhttp://kernelmag.dailydot.com/features/report/4732/my-gruelling-day-as-an-amazon-mechanical-turk/58Seeforinstance,complaintsbyElanceusersonhttp://www.consumeraffairs.com/employment/elance.html59SeePennycook,M.,Cory,G.&Alakeson,V.(2013)AMatterofTime:Theriseofzero-hourcontracts,ResolutionFoundation.


Itseemslikelythatcrowdworkersarealsoaffectedbyemotionaldemands.Theliteratureonthisisscant,which is interestinggiven thatoneof the taskswidely regardedasmost suitable for crowdlabour is ‘affective computing’;60 a term which covers a number of different practices, includingcoding for ‘emotions’ expressed in photographs, socialmedia, and other digitised sources.Onlinecrowd workers, acting as ‘commercial content moderators’,61 are often asked to tag or assessoffensivecontent(includingimagesofbeheadings,bestialityandchildpornography)ontheInternetand decide whether it should be removed.While no research appears to have been carried outamong crowd workers, the adverse – indeed, often traumatic – effects of exposure to suchdisturbing media images are well documented among other workers exposed occupationally tothem.62

Inmany cases, the cost of insurance and the risk of ensuring safety is also externalised to crowdworkers. Sarah Kessler provides an illustration of this when reporting on her experience withPostmates, aNewYork-based companyproviding a crowd sourced courier service: ‘I askwhetherthereareanyhealthinsuranceorsafetypoliciesforcouriers.Hetellsmeinnouncertainterms,"YouarenotanemployeeofPostmates.Sowhenitcomestosafety,youareonyourown."(Iam,afterall, my own microbusiness.) When I later visit the web page that Postmates uses to recruitemployees,Ican'thelpbutnoticethatitboaststhatPostmatespays100%ofitsemployees'medical,dental,andvisioninsurancepremiums."Yourphysicalandmentalhealthisaprioritytous,"itsays.Butthat'sonlyforPostmates'45engineers,designers,andexecutives.Itdoesnotincludethe2,000peoplewhoaremakingdeliveries’.63 InEurope, theextenttowhich lackofsecureandpermanentemployeestatusaffectsaccess toand thecostsofhealth servicesvaries fromcountry tocountry.Butevenwhenhealthcareisavailablefreeofcharge,manyworkersfacealackofpayduringperiodsof illness or injury. They may also lack other benefits, such as maternity or paternity leave orcompassionate leave, the absence of which does not just add to the economic pressures ofprecariousnessbutalsocreatespsychologicalburdens,impactingfamilylifeaswellasworkinglife.

Thesedifficultiesare likely tobeexacerbatedbythe fact thatworkersmay lackdirectchannelsofcommunicationwith theultimate clientandare thusdeprivedof an individualor collective voice,givingthemnosayin influencingthedecision-makingthatshapestheir labourprocesses.64Eveninonlineworkcarried in ‘virtualteams’, it is likelythatmanyoftheseeffectswillstilloccur,becausethegeographicaldistancefromtheemployeractstoreducethekindsofdirectinteractionthatoccurwhen employees are co-located. Isolation, lack of social support, and the requirement to beautonomous all increase psychological stress. Additional psychosocial strain may come from the

60Morris,R.R.andMcDuff,D.(2014)‘CrowdsourcingTechniquesforAffectiveComputing’,HandbookofAffectiveComputing,MITMediaLab,MIT.(2014)http://affect.media.mit.edu/pdfs/14.Morris-McDuff.pdf61Roberts,S.(2016)‘CommercialContentModeration:DigitalLaborers'DirtyWork’,inS.U.Noble&B.Tynes(eds)TheIntersectionalInternet:Race,Sex,ClassandCultureOnline,PeterLangPublishing.62Perez.L.M,Hones,J.,Englert,D.RandSachau,D.(2010)‘SecondaryTraumaticStressandBurnoutamongLawEnforcementInvestigatorsExposedtoDisturbingMediaImages’,JournalofPoliceandCriminalPsychology,25(2).63Kessler,S.(2014)‘Pixel&Dimed:On(not)gettingbyinthegigeconomy,FastCompany,March18.http://www.fastcompany.com/3027355/pixel-and-dimed-on-not-getting-by-in-the-gig-economy64Foradiscussionofthelinksbetweeninterruptions,workintensification,multitaskingandworkstrainanddistressinworkinvolvingICTuse,seeChesley,N.(2014)‘Informationandcommunicationtechnologyuse,workintensificationandemployeestrainanddistress’Work,EmploymentandSociety,Volume28(4)589-610.


combined impacts of multiple jobs which may interact with each other in diverse ways.65 Whenemployersdonot take responsibility forworkingconditions, thisdoesnot just transfera rangeofrisks to individualworkers.Workerwhoareunmonitoredandunsupervisedother thanby indirectmeans (performance or output indicators, payment by results, customer ratings, etc.) are alsounobservedinotherways.Deterioratingphysicaland/ormentalhealth,orhealth-threateningmeansofcopingwithstress(suchasuseofalcoholordrugs),whichwouldbespottedinanormalworkingsituation, can escalate rapidly if nobody is aware of them. This can lead not only to serious life-threateningrisksfortheworkerconcernedbutalsotoclientsandthegeneralpublic.

65Foradetaileddiscussionoftheimpactofmultiplejob-holdingonpsychosocialrisks,seeBrun,E.andMilczarek,M.(2009)Expertforecastonemergingpsychosocialrisksrelatedtooccupationalsafetyandhealth,EuropeanAgencyforSafetyandHealthatWork.https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/reports/7807118


EmploymentstatusofcrowdworkersTheemploymentstatusofcrowdworkersisacentralbutcontentiousissue.Thelegalpresence,orotherwise,ofanemploymentrelationshipiscrucialtodeterminingthefinancialcostsandbenefitsofthiswayoforganisingwork,andtodeterminingtheemploymentrightsofworkeremployedinthisway.Therefore, thisquestion isof theutmost importanceforthepotential impactofcrowdwork.Forcompanieswhichutilisethisformoflabour,theopportunitytoexternalisecostsassociatedwithdirectemploymentisakeymotivatingfactor.The'manifoldassurancesandprotections'forworkersthat companies in the USA avoid when work is done by non-employees include 'overtimecompensation, minimum wage protections, health insurance, disability insurance, unemploymentinsurance, maternity and paternity leave, employer-sponsored retirement plans, workers’compensationforinjuries,paidsickleave,andtheabilitytoengageincollectiveaction'.66Tothislistcan be added costs associated with the provision of work space, work equipment, materials,transport, training, and insurance. Employers of crowd workers in the USA tend to avoid a legalemploymentrelationshipinpreferencefor'independentcontractor'status,facilitatedbyavarietyofintermediationmodels,includingtheuseofcompanieswhichactasthe‘employerofrecord’.67Fourdifferentmodelshavebeenproposedforthegovernanceof‘humancloudplatforms’: ‘arbitrators’,‘governors’, ‘facilitators’, and ‘aggregators’.68 Although in each case workers are selected andmanageddifferently,innonearetheydirectemployeesoftheultimatecustomer.

Nevertheless, it seems clear that in many cases workers have an ongoing employment-likerelationship.Forexample,thelifeinsurancecompanyAegeon‘hasanon-demandworkforceof300licensedvirtualagentsmanagedthroughanotheronlineintermediary,LiveOps.AlthoughnotlegallyAegeanemployees,theyarescheduledfor inboundandoutboundcallingthroughLiveOps’ routingsoftware’.69SomeUScorporateliteratureseesthe‘marketplacemodel’–thetriangularrelationshipofplatform,servicebuyer,andindependentcontractor–ascreatingtoomuchlegaluncertainty,andproposes instead a ‘general contractormodel’, inwhich the platform enters into ‘master service’agreementswithboththeotherparties.70

Thissituation,however,isincreasinglycontested.Lawsuitsdemandingemployeestatusforworkershave been filed or considered on behalf of workers for Handy71 in California and Homejoy inMassachusetts(whichhassincegoneoutofbusiness),despitethelatter’sinsistencethatitwas‘nota cleaning company but a platform’.72 In San Francisco, similar class action suits have been filedagainstUberandLyftdemandingemployeestatusfortheirdrivers.73

66Dokko,J.,Mumford,M.andSchanzenbach,D.W.(2015),WorkersandtheOnlineGigEconomy:AHamiltonProjectFramingPaper,TheHamiltonProject,Brookings,Washington.67Karpie,A.(2014)Engagingthe21stCenturyProfessionalWorkforce,MBOPartners.68Kaganer,E.,Carmal,E.,Hirschheim,R.andOlsen,T.(2013)‘ManagingtheHumanCloud’MITSloanManagementReview,Winter.69Kaganeretal,Page1.70Onforce(2013)TheGeneralContractorModel:AcompetitiveadvantageinItFieldServicesDelivery,OnforceWhitePaper.71Montgomery,K.(2014)‘HandySuedforBeingaHellscapeofLaborCodeViolations’ValleyWag,12,November.http://www.cnbc.com/id/102435316#.72http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/10/at-the-uber-for-home-cleaning-workers-pay-a-price-for-convenience/73CNBC.com(2015)‘LawsuitsfacingUber,LyftcouldaltersharingEconomy’,20February.http://www.cnbc.com/id/102435316#.


Moreover, inaddition tocontractual features that suggest formsofdependency that resembleanemploymentrelationship,thereisalsoevidencethatUberdriversarepressuredintodependencyonthecompanybyothermeans,suchasloansfortheleaseorpurchaseofnewcars.74

In Europe, the situation is, if anything, even more complex. Sometimes, workers appear to betreatedasgenuineemployees.Althoughitisnotentirelyclearfromitswebsite,Berlin-basedMila75(whichalsohasoffices inSwitzerland,Romania, IndonesiaandChina76) seems to treat itsworkers(termed ‘friends’77) as employees, on a similar basis to a temporary employment agency. Thiscompany also claims to provide ‘excellent social and accident insurance’.78 In the UK, the legalservice platform Axiom describes its legal staff as 'employees'.79 Other sites go to considerablelengths to ensure that workers who use them comply with the legal requirements of self-employment.Forinstance,theFrenchFreelancersitenotonlydescribesitselfasa'marketplace'thatsimply 'puts employers and contractors in direct contact with each other', it also specifies thedocumentsaworkermustprovidetocomplywithfreelancestatusunderFrenchlaw.80Despitetheformal position, however, some platforms include requirements that sit uneasily with freelancestatus.Forinstance,increativecrowdworkitiscommonforintellectualpropertyrightstorestwiththeclientnottheworker,aswouldmoreusuallybethecaseforfreelancers.Someplatforms,suchas oDesk,81 encourage clients and workers to use software that enables real-time surveillance ofwork done; a feature of more traditional employment relations. Reflecting this unevenness,Eurofound reported that in most European countries ‘pay, working conditions and other issues,notablyintellectualpropertyrights,[maybe]determinedeitherbythetwopartiesorthetermsandconditionsoftheplatform’.82

Further complexity can arise when companies use crowd work methods for assigning tasks, inconjunctionwithzero-hourscontractsfortheworkerstowhomthesetasksareassigned.Zero-hourscontractscommonlyfalloutsidethe legaldefinitionofemployee.Nevertheless,research intheUKfoundthat64%ofemployersclassifiedzero-hoursstaffasemployeesandonly3%regardedthemasself-employed,83 despite ‘confusion among employers over what employment rights “employees”are eligible for’.84 Of course, it cannot be presumed that all zero-hours workers are organisedthroughin-housecrowdworkarrangements,orthattheUKistypicalofEurope.Thisdoessuggest,though,thatevenwheretheemploymentstatusofworkersisunclear,inpracticetheymayoftenbetreated as employees – though it does not follow that such workers necessarily enjoy fullemploymentrights,giventheiremployers’uncertaintyastowhatthosemightbe.

74Henwood(2015)‘WhattheSharingEconomyTakes’,TheNation,January27.Seealsohttp://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-and-its-shady-partners-are-pushing-drivers-into-su-1649936785andhttp://bostinno.streetwise.co/2014/12/27/uber-santander-lease-to-own-for-uberx-martha-coakley-santander-investigation/75https://www.mila.com/76http://venturevillage.eu/zurich-mila-fund-3m77https://www.mila.com/friends78https://www.mila.com/jobs.Accessed9thFebruary,20--15.79http://www.axiomlaw.com/what-we-do(Accessed15March2016)80http://www.freelance.com/en/contents/products-and-services,accessedonFebruary20,2015.81Caraway,B.(2010)‘Onlinelabourmarkets:aninquiryintooDeskproviders’,WorkOrganisation,LabourandGlobalisation,4(2):111-12582Eurofound(2015),NewFormsofEmployment,PublicationsOfficeoftheEuropeanUnion,Luxembourg:109.83CIPD(2013)Zero-hourscontracts:MythandReality,CharteredInstituteofPersonnelandDevelopment:2984Ibid.:30


Where online platforms are used internally, the situation regarding employment status may berelativelyclearbecause thereareonly twoactors– theemployerand theworker–and thereforethemain question is whether the worker has the same rights as other employees.Where threeactorsare involved,however,– theultimateclient, theonline intermediary,and theworker– thesituation is more complicated. Platforms matching professional freelancers with clients generallymakecleartheself-employedstatusofthefreelancer(thoughtheremaybeborderlinecases).Themost contentious cases, however, are those involving the online co-ordination of low-skill work,bothonlineandoffline.

In theUSA this questionhas been addressed in somedepth in the literature in relation toonline‘click work’ or ‘cognitive piecework’ platforms.85 Such sites typically publish disclaimers telling‘requesters’ and ‘providers’ that they use their services at their own risk. The implication is thatworkers are ‘independent contractors’ rather than employees. Nevertheless, the platforms oftenattachconditionssuchasrequirementsforallfinancialtransactionstobeprocessedviathesite,and‘satisfaction’ clauses which legitimate the rejection of unsatisfactory work without justification.Thus,AmazonMechanicalTurkmandatesthattheworkproductis‘madeforhire’whichmeansthatownership rights, including intellectualproperty, remainwith the ‘requester’even if theworkhasbeenrejected.86Italsohastherightto‘terminate’workers,barringthemfromfurtherparticipationintheplatform.Suchconditionssuggestalevelofcontrolthatgoesbeyondthemereprovisionofanintroduction between two independent parties, and which resembles more closely a traditionalemploymentrelationship.

Nevertheless,anumberofconditionsapply thatmake itdifficult toestablishdefinitively thatclickworkersshouldberegardedasemployees.For instance,workersmayworkformultipleplatforms,and/orsupplytheirownequipment.Inrelationtoofflineworkers,asnotedearlier,therehavebeensomeclassactionsuits intheUSAseekingemployeestatusforworkersprovidingtaxiservicesanddomestichelpbutno clear judgementhas yetbeen reached. Specific conditions vary fromsite tositebutthereareseveralinwhichpayratesaresetbytheonlineintermediary,whomayalsohavethepower todisciplineorbarparticularworkers, suggestingapatternof controlanddependencythatresemblesatemporaryemploymentagencyorserviceproviderratherthanalabourexchangeorlistingservice;butsuchhypotheseshaveyettobetestedlegally.

InapotentiallysignificantresponsetosuchdifficultiesoflegaldefinitionintheUSA,SethHarrisandAlanKrueger87haveproposedanewlegalclassificationof'independentworker',inordertopermitthe restoration of a number of benefits and protections to workers in the online gig economy;including freedoms to organise and collectively bargain, civil rights and anti-discriminationprotections, workers' compensation insurance, wage and hours protections, unemploymentinsurance,andaffordablehealthcareinsurance.

Thesituation isunclear inEuropebut it seems likely that, inmanyMemberStates,workersdoingmanual or low-skill clerical work organised via online platforms might be regarded as their

85Foranoverview,seeFelstiner,A.(2011)‘WorkingtheCrowd:EmploymentandLaborLawintheCrowdsourcingIndustry’,BerkeleyJournalofEmployment&LaborLaw,32(1).http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1433&context=bjell86AMTagreementquotedinFelstineropcit.p163.87Harris,S.andKrueger,A.(2015),'AproposalformodernizingLaborLawsforTwenty-First-Centurywork:the"IndependentWorker”,'TheHamiltonProject,DiscussionPaper2015-10,Washington,DC,December2015.


employees. In the case of more highly-skilled freelance workers, further tests would have to beappliedtoestablishwhetherworkersaregenuinelyself-employedaccordingtotherelevantnationalregulations (for instance, working for multiple clients, tax status, etc.). Overall, then, theemploymentstatusofcrowdworkersisoneofanumberofunresolvedissuessurroundingthiswayoforganisingwork.

Tax,insuranceandregulationofcrowdworkplatformsThegrowthofonlineworkexchangesraisesnewand,asyet,unresolvedquestionsforpolicymakersconcernedwiththegovernanceoflabourandconsumermarkets,andtheprotectionoftherightsofworkers, consumers and the general public. Among these unresolved questions is the status ofonlineworkexchanges–theplatformsattheheartofthesenewformsofworkorganisation.Theseplatforms have diverse origins and take multiple forms and are therefore difficult to categorise.Potentially,theymightberegardedasmarkets,temporaryworkagencies, labourexchanges,socialenterprises,serviceproviders,advertisingplatforms,oronlinedirectories.

Regarding them as ‘private employment agencies’ would bring them within the scope of ILOConvention No 181, which would require adopting countries to ensure a range of measures toprotect workers and jobseekers including freedom of association, collective bargaining,minimumwages, access to training, occupational safety and health, compensation in case of occupationalaccidentsordiseasesandworkingtime.Privateemploymentagenciesmustalsohaveproceduresfordealingwithcomplaints–somethingnotably lacking frommanyof theplatformsdiscussedabove.TheConventionaddresses thepossibility thatworkersmayberecruited inonecountry towork inanotherboth in relation tomigrantworkersand to thepossibilityof fraudulentpractices incross-bordertransactions.Therearealsorestrictionsontheprocessingofpersonaldata,andonthefeesthatworkersmaybecharged.

Two alternative optionswould be to regard these platforms as employers, or as temporaryworkagencies,whichwould immediately conferon themall theassociated responsibilities inanygivennationalcontext.Iftheyarenotregardedasfallingintoanyofthesethreecategories,thentheopenquestionremains:whatarethey?Untilthiscanbeanswereditisdifficulttoknowwhatregulationsshouldapply.

Asimilarlackofclaritypertainsinrelationtoinsurance,aquestionthatisparticularlyimportantinrelationtoofflinework.Ifanaccidentoccursinthehomeofaclientwhohasbookedacleanerviaanonline platform, for example, who is responsible? Should it be covered by the insurance of thehouseholderorthatoftheplatform?Orcouldtheindividualworkerbeheldresponsible?Whatiftheworkerwereattackedorhadanaccidentonthewaytoorfromthejob?Inthecaseofonlinework,whowouldberesponsibleifanarticlecommissionedfromawriterviaanonlineplatformturnedoutto be libellous? Someonline platforms include clear statements about insurance and liability. Forinstance,Taskrabbit advertises that 'Every task is insuredup to$1million'.88Moreoften, though,statementsonplatformstaketheformofdisclaimers.

Another area of uncertainty is how national and EU regulations can be applied. At the Europeanlevel, these include Directives on Working Time, Part-Time Work, Temporary Agency Work,UndeclaredWork,EqualPayandEqualTreatmentandParentalLeave.Ofparticularrelevanceinthis

88https://www.taskrabbit.co.uk/trust-and-safety–Detailsofthepolicy,here:https://www.taskrabbit.co.uk/guarantee(Accessed17March2016)


context is the Directive on Health and Safety in Fixed-Term and Temporary Employment(91/383/EEC)which extends the same level of protection to fixed-termand agencyworkers as tootheremployees.Italsoimposesadutyonundertakingstogiveadequateinformationandtrainingtotheseworkerstoprotecttheirsafetyandhealth,specifiesappropriatemedicalsurveillance,andclarifies the division of responsibilities between temporary employment agencies and userundertakings. It isdifficulttoapplythis,orotherDirectives,toonlineworkexchanges iftheir legalstatus,andthatoftheirworkforce,isunclear.

Atanationallevel,similarproblemsariseinrelationtotheapplicabilityofnationalregulationssuchasthosereferringtominimumwages,equaltreatment,taxandnationalinsurancedeductions,andsafetyregulations.Aparticularlyimportantquestioniswhatformsofsocialprotectionareavailabletocrowdworkers,howeligibilitycanbeestablishedandhowrightscanbeclaimed.

Whereworkersorganisedbyonlineplatformsareprovidingservicesdirectly to thepublic there isconsiderableoverlapbetween issuesrelatingtoworkerprotectionandthoserelatingtoconsumerprotection. Insomecasesthere isa lackofclarityaboutwhethertheconsumer’s ‘contract’ iswiththecrowdworkerorwiththeonlineplatform.Thisaffectstheconsumer’srights,forinstancetofaircontracttermsandguarantees.Consumersalsohavespecificrightsinrelationtounsafe,dangerousorfaultygoods,pre-contractinformation,dataprotection,misleadingadvertisementsforgoodsandservices,andpurchasesmadeovertheInternet,whichmaybeapplicablewhentheyuseonlineworkexchanges.

More broadly, issues relating to safe and healthy working practices in public spaces or privateresidencesmay affect both workers andmembers of the public. It is not always clear, however,whether they shouldbe addressed asmatters of public safety, using environmental protectionorpublic health regulations, or more specifically as labour or consumer protection issues. In manycountries this question has practical implications since it will determine which body should beresponsibleforinspection,dealingwithcomplaintsandenforcement.

Many online platforms advertise the services of workers with particular skills. However it is notalways clear what evidence exists that they actually have the relevant qualifications or whoseresponsibility it is to check these credentials. This question has implications for professionalresponsibility, especially important in cases where there are regulations in place requiring thatpractitioners have the relevant certification (e.g. in accountancy, medical services, electricalinstallation)orrequirementsforchecksforpastconvictions(e.g.fortheft,dangerousdriving,childabuse, sexual assault). Some platforms, but by nomeans all, state that all theirworkers are fullyvetted (without necessarily explaining how). The absence of such checks can lead to situationswherethesafetyandhealthoftheworkerconcerned,andofclientsandmembersofthepublic,canbeputatrisk.

ConclusionsWecanconcludefromthisoverviewthatthere iscurrentlybotha lackofreliableevidenceontheextentofcrowdworkinEuropeandalackofinformationaboutthedemographiccharacteristicsofthe crowd workforce. Qualitative information about their working conditions and employmentstatusisalsolacking.


TheHertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurveyResearchQuestionsTheliteraturesurveysummarisedintheprevioussectionmadeitclearthattherewereanumberofunresolvedquestionsthatwouldhavetobeaddressedbeforeanyseriousresearchcouldbecarriedoutabout the social andeconomic implicationsof thedevelopmentof crowdwork. These canbesummarisedasfollows:

1. Howcancrowdworkersbeidentified?2. Howmanypeoplearecarryingoutcrowdwork?3. Whataretheirdemographiccharacteristicsandhowdotheycomparewiththerestofthe

labourforce?4. Towhatextentdoesthiscrowdworkconstituteamainsourceofincome?5. Whatkindsofworkaretheydoing?

Onlywhenthesequestionshavebeenansweredwillitbepossibletodesignqualitativeresearchthatwill make it possible to answer the further questions that are of such strong interest to policystakeholders,suchas:whataretheworkingconditionsofcrowdworkers?Towhatextentaretheycovered by current regulatory, tax and insurance arrangements? What are the motivations forworking in this way? How does crowd work contribute to work-life balance? Does crowd workprovidethebasisforsustainablenewcareers?

SurveydesignInordertoaddressthesequestions,itwasdecidedtocarryoutapilotsurveytoestablishtheextentand characteristics of crowd work and explore some features of their working arrangements.Becauseofbudgetary restrictions, itwas furtherdecidedtocarry this surveyoutonline,using themethod of adding additional questions to an omnibus survey known to be representative of thegeneralpopulation.

Designing the survey presented a number of challenges. First, since there is no generally agreeddefinitionof‘crowdworker’,itwasoutofthequestiontoaskthesimplequestion‘Areyouacrowdworker?’. Drawing on the extensive experience of the Principal Researcher (who has in the pastpioneeredresearchonothernewtechnology-relatedphenomenasuchasteleworking,telemediatedmobileworking and offshore outsourcing), themethod selected for this exploratory studywas tocollect informationabout the full rangeofonlinebehaviour connectedwith income-generationorwork-seekingthatmightencompasscrowdwork,inordertoisolatecrowdworkers,byelimination,from broader categories of online behaviour. This would enable a typology of crowd workers toemerge by a process of cross-tabulation with other variables (such as age, gender, occupation,employmentstatusetc.)toproduceatentativeprofileofthecrowdworkforce.

Becauseourworkingdefinitionreferredonlytopaidwork(i.e.thesaleofpersonallabour)managedbyonlineplatforms,itwasimportanttocollectinformationonothersourcesofincomederivedviaonline platforms from which it could be separated, such as income from selling, or resellingpossessionsorcraftproductsorrentingoutrooms.Intherecognitionthatsomerespondentsmightbe seeking work on online platforms without necessarily having found it, it was also consideredimportant to capture informationon thiswork-seekingprocess.However itwasalso important todistinguish this behaviour from other online job-search processes that were not connected with


seeking crowdwork. In order to achieve this separation, itwas decided to ask additional generalquestions about online job search activities. Finally, it was recognised thatmany of the practicesinvolvedincrowdworkmayalsobepresentinotherformsofemployment.Theseactivitiesincludeuseofonline‘apps’fornotificationofnewtasksorcustomersorloggingofworkinghours,andusingemail or SMS messages for out-of-hours communication with employers or clients. These werethereforemadethesubjectoffurtherquestions.

InformationwasthuscollectedaboutawiderangeofpracticesconnectedwithICT-mediatedwork,providing a rich source of data fromwhich different dimensions of crowdwork could be studied.Onceparticipantswhohadatsometimeengagedinpaidworkorganisedviaanonlineplatformshadbeenidentified,itwasthenpossibletoaskfurtherquestionsaboutthetypeofworkcarriedout,thefrequencyofsuchworkanditscontributiontototalearnings.

SamplingThesurveywascarriedbyIpsos-MORIaspartofitsregulariOmnibusonlinesurvey,initiallyintheUKandsubsequentlyinSweden,Germany,Austria,andtheNetherlands.Thereasonsforthischoiceofsurvey method were twofold. First, budgetary considerations prohibited the use of large-scaleoffline surveys. Second, the omnibus survey made it possible, without additional cost, to collectinformation on a large range of demographic variables. Third, the Ipsos-MORI iOmnibus surveymakes it possible to construct a stratified sample which is representative of the wider nationalpopulation in anumberofdemographicdimensions–principally age, gender, regionandworkingstatus – and,where necessary,weight the findings to represent the total population. In practice,stratification varied slightly according to themarket research practices in each country (Table 2.1providesdetails). Inparticular, theage rangesof the samplesvaried fromcountry tocountry (seeTable1).Nevertheless,despitethesesmallvariations,eachsurveysamplewasrepresentativeofitsnationalpopulationinimportantrespects.Wecanthusstatewithsomeconfidencethatthesamplesof crowd workers produced by the survey in each country are representative of the broaderpopulationsofcrowdworkersthere.Nevertheless,becauseonlyanonlinepopulationwassampled,wecannotstatewithcompleteconfidencethatthepercentagesfoundengaginginparticulartypesofonlineactivitycanbeextrapolatedtotheentirepopulationofthesecountries.

Suchextrapolationswillbecarriedout in thenextstageof theresearchwhen,wehope, itwillbepossibletoconductacomparablesurveyusingface-to-faceandortelephonemethods,thusmakingitpossibletocalibratetheresultsmoreprecisely.Thesurveypresentedhereisdesignedtoprovidebase-linedataonwhichfurtherresearchcanbebuiltinthefuture.


Table1Samplesandstratification

Country Samplesize

Surveydates

Agerange

Stratification

UK 2,238 22-26 Jan2016

16-75 Age, gender, region, social grade,workingstatus

Sweden 2,146 26Feb-7Mar2016

16-65 Age,gender,regionandworkingstatus

Germany 2,180 1-4 April2016

16-70 Age,gender, region,populationdensityofrespondentsettlement,chief incomeearner of household, household size,workingstatus

Austria 1,969 1-4 April2016

18-65 Age,gender,region,andworkingstatus

Netherlands 2,126 22-27 April2016

16-70 Age, gender, economic activity, region,workingstatus


ResearchfindingsThecontext:generalparticipationintheonlineeconomyThefirsttaskwastoestablishtheextenttowhichrespondentsinthecountriessurveyedparticipateactivelyintheonlineeconomybyusingonlineplatformstohelpgenerateincome.

Figure1.Participationintheonlineeconomyasasourceofincome,bycountry

Source:HertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurvey,2016Base: 2238 respondents in the UK, 2146 respondents in Sweden, 2180 Respondents in Germany, 1969 respondents inAustriaand2126respondentsintheNetherlands(weighted).

Figure 1 summarises the ways in which participants in the survey gained income from onlinesources.Participantswereaskedtocodeasmanycategoriesasapplied,sothetotalsexceed100%.

54%

31%

10%

10%

8%

9%

59%

13%

10%

12%

8%

10%

55%

32%

12%

12%

11%

12%

66%

45%

21%

18%

16%

19%

62%

25%

9%

13%

8%

9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Sellownpossessions(egEbay)

Resellproductsononlinemarketplace(egAmazon)

Sellself-madeproducts(egEtsy)

Sell/resellonownwebsite

Renttopayingguest(egAirbnb)

Anycrowdwork

NL AT DE SE UK


As can be seen, themost popular means of makingmoney via the Internet is selling one’s ownpossessions, secondhand,onplatforms suchaseBay, usedbymore thanhalf the sample ineachcountry. This was followed by the practice of reselling goods in online marketplaces, or on theparticipants’ownwebsites. Significantproportions (ranging from9% in theNetherlands to21% inAustria) also sold self-made products on sites such as Etsy (which specialises in hand-made craftproducts),whiletheproportionderivinganincomefromrentingoutroomsonsitessuchasAirbnbrangedfrom8%to16%.

Crowdwork,definedaspaidworkviaanonlineplatform,hadgeneratedanincomefor9%oftheUKandDutchsamples,10%inSweden,12%inGermanyand19%inAustria.Crowdworkwasthuslessprevalentthanallotherformsofonlineincomegenerationexceptrentingoutroomsandsellingself-madeproductsand,insomecases,sellingonapersonallyownedwebsite.Nonetheless,itisclearlyanimportantsourceofincomeforasignificantminorityofthepopulation.

Figure2showsthedemandsideof thestory: theextent towhichrespondentsparticipated in theonlineeconomyascustomers.Here,unsurprisingly,onlineshoppingfornon-groceryitemsisbyfarthemostcommonpractice(groceryshoppingwasexcludedfromthesurveybecauseofitsveryhighprevalence). However there are also significant numbers buying services from online platformswhichcorrespond,fromthepointofviewoftheworkersupplyingtheservice,withformsofcrowdwork. Here, the largest category is services provided in the home (such as cleaning or householdmaintenancetasks),usedby36%ofthesampleintheUK,30%intheNetherlands,26%inSweden,20%inAustriaand15%inGermany.Thisisfollowedbytheuseofplatformsfordrivingordeliveryservicesusedby29%ofrepondentsinAustria,fallingto21%inGermany,19%intheUK,18%intheNetherlands and 16% in Sweden. Between 12% of the sample (in Germany) and 17% (In the UK,AustriaandtheNetherlands),withSwedenat13%,arepurchasingservicestobecarriedoutoutsidethecustomers’homes.


Figure2.Participationintheonlineeconomyasacustomer,bycountry


UseoftheInternettofindworkAkeyobjectiveof the researchwas to isolate the search for crowdwork fromother kindsof jobsearchcarriedoutviaonlineplatforms.Jobseekersareencouragedtosearchforworkbyanymeanspossible,butthereareimportantdifferencesbetweenusinganonlinejobrecruitmentsitetofindaposition (whether permanent or temporary, part-time or full-time) with a regular employer, forwhich a formal appointmentwill bemade,with anongoing contractual employment relationship,andseekingcasualworkpaidbythetask.

86%

36%

17%

19%

17%

69%

26%

13%

16%

15%

75%

15%

12%

21%

16%

81%

20%

17%

29%

25%

64%

30%

17%

18%

25%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

Shopfornon-groceryproducts

Buyservicestobedoneinthehome

Buyservicestobedoneoutsidethehome

Buytaxiordeliveryservicefromonlineplazorm

Rentaccommoda{oninaprivatehome

NL AT DE SE UK


Accordingly, all respondents were asked whether they had ‘Look[ed] for a job on a job searchwebsitesuchasJobsite,Manpower,UniversalJobmatch,JobCentreGuideorReed’89aswellasmoredetailedquestionsaboutsearchingforcrowdwork.

AsFigure3shows,extensiveuseismadeofsuchplatforms,rangingfrom37%ofthesampleintheNetherlandsto55%inAustria,withGermanyat40%,theUKat44%andSwedenat50%inbetween.

Figure 3. Online job-search, by country (%)


Wewere interested to find out to what extent participants searching for crowd work were alsosearching for regular jobs. Toaddress thisquestionadetailedanalysiswas carriedout comparingfrequentcrowdworkers,occasionalcrowdworkersandnon-crowdworkersinallfivecountries.TheresultsareshowninFigure4.Thisshowsthat,whilenon-crowdworkersarestilllikelytobeusingjobsearchsites, ranging from33% inGermanyandtheNetherlands to47% inAustria,with theUKat39%,theyaremuchless likelytodosothancrowdworkers,whetherfrequent(at leastweekly)oroccasional.Crowdworkersare,indeedmorethantwiceaslikelyasnon-crowdworkerstobeusingsuch sites. Apart from the Netherlands, where it is nevertheless high, at 86%, the proportion offrequent crowdworkersusing such sites isover90% ineachcountry,while theusebyoccasionalcrowdworkersisnotmuchlower(at78%intheNetherlands,83%inAustriaandGermany,88%intheUKand91%inSweden).

Thissuggeststhatcrowdworkersaresearchingforanyformofworktheycanbefind,andmaybeacceptingcrowdworkonlybecausetheycannotfindamoreregularorpermanentposition.Detailedqualitativeresearchwillberequiredtoestablishwhetherthisisinfactthecase.

89ThequestionsquotedherearetakenfromtheEnglish-languageversionofthequestionnaireusedintheUK.Insomeothercountries,thenamesofdifferentplatformsweresubstituted,dependingontheirpresenceinlocalmarkets,popularityandbrandrecognition.

44%

50%

40%

55%

37%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Useofonlinejobsearch

NL AT DE SE UK


Figure 4. Use of job search platforms by frequent crowd workers, occasional crowdworkersandnon-crowdworkers,bycountry(%)


Wenowturntothesearchforcrowdwork.Figure5showsthepercentagesofrespondentsineachcountrywhosaidthattheyhadlookedforworkononlineplatforms.Theseresponsesarerelativelyhighbecause they includeall thosewhohadever sought suchwork,nomatterhow infrequently.They may therefore include some individuals who might be termed ‘platform tourists’ who hadregistered their details with platforms but not actually carried out paid work by thismeans. The‘driving’categoryrepresentspositiveresponsestoaquestionaskingrespondentswhethertheyhad‘offer[ed] to drive someone to a location for a fee using an app or website such as Uber orBlablacar’. The second category, termed ‘outside the home’, represents positive responses to aquestionwhethertheyhad‘look[ed]forworkyoucancarryoutfordifferentcustomerssomewhereoutside your home on a website such as Handy, Taskrabbit orMybuilder’, while the final one,encompassingbothhigh-skillandlow-skillonlinework,representspositiveresponsestoaquestionwhethertheyhad‘Look[ed]forworkyoucancarryoutfromyourownhomeonawebsitesuchasUpwork,Freelancer,Timeetc,ClickworkerorPeoplePerHour’.90

90ThequestionsquotedherearetakenfromtheEnglish-languageversionofthequestionnaireusedintheUK.Insomeothercountries,thenamesofdifferentplatformsweresubstituted,dependingontheirpresenceinlocalmarkets,popularityandbrandrecognition.

47%

83%

91%

33%

83%

91%

33%

78%

86%

45%

91% 91%

39%

88%93%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Noncrowdworkers Occasionalcrowdworkers Atleastweeklycrowdworkers

AT DE NL SE UK


Figure5.Searchforcrowdwork,bycountry

Source:HertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurvey,2016Base: 2238 respondents in the UK, 2146 respondents in Sweden, 2180 Respondents in Germany, 1969 respondents inAustriaand2126respondentsintheNetherlands(weighted).Ascanbeseen,nationaldifferencesinthesepatternswererathersmall,withthepartialexceptionofAustria,whichscoredhigheroneachofthesethreetypesofcrowdworksearch.Explanationsforthis differencemust remain speculative in the absence of follow-on qualitative research but theymayindicateahigher inclinationtoexperimentwithcrowdwork.Asweshallseelater,thishigherpropensity to seek online crowd work does not correspond with a higher proportion of peopletreatingcrowdworkastheirmainsourceof incomeinAustria,comparedwiththeothercountriessurveyed.

ParticipationinpaidcrowdworkSurvey participantswere also askedwhether they had actually done crowdwork and, if so, howfrequently they did this. Figure 6 shows the proportion earning an income from crowd work byfrequency.Ascanbeseen,manycrowdworkersdosoonlyoccasionally.However5%ofthesamplein the UK, Netherlands and Sweden do so at least weekly, with the proportion in each of thesecountries going up to 6% when asked whether they do so monthly. In Germany, the proportiondoingsoarealittlehigher(with6%crowdworkingweeklyand8%crowdworkingmonthly).Austriaremainstheoutlier,atthetopendoftherangeinbothcases(at9%and13%respectively).Furtherinvestigationisrequiredtoestablishwhythismightbethecase.91

91AtthetimeofwritingweareplanningtocarryoutasupplementarysurveyusingofflinemethodsinordertodeterminewhetherthismightbeafeaturethatisspecifictotheonlinepopulationofAustria,whichmighthaveahigherpropensitytoengageinincome-seekingbehaviourwhenonline,ascomparedwiththeotherEuropeancountriesinthesurvey.

7%

12%

19%

9%

16%

22%

13% 13%

19%16%

21%

34%

8% 9%

16%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Crowdworkdriving Crowdworkoutsidehome Crowdworkfromhome

UK SE DE AT NL


Figure6.Peopledoingcrowdwork,bycountryandfrequency


Whatisclear,however,isthatnationaldifferencesincrowdworkpracticescannotbeattributedtonational differences in welfare state models92 or ‘varieties of capitalism’.93 While the UK has abenefit system that is generally considered considerably less generous than those of the othercountriessampled, levelsofbothweeklyandmonthlycrowdwork(at5%and6%respectively)arethesameasthoseinSwedenandtheNetherlands,despitedifferencesinentitlementtobenefitsandbenefit levels. The UK and Sweden are two countries that exhibit, perhaps, the most extremecontrast in our sample, between ‘liberal’ and ‘social democratic’welfare regimes,while themorehybridNetherlandsregimeisgenerallycategorisedasacombinationofthe‘corporatist’and‘socialdemocratic’models.Asnotedbelow,thehigherfrequencyofcrowdworkin‘corporatist’Germanyand Austria does not translate into a higher proportion of the sample earning themajority of itsincomefromcrowdwork.

GenderofcrowdworkersThe crowdworkforceamongour respondents is surprisinglyevenlydividedbygender, albeitwithsome national variations. Looking at those who have ever gained an income from crowd work,

92Esping-AndersenG.(1990),ThreeWorldsofWelfareCapitalism,London:PolityPress.93HallP.A.&SoskiceD.(2001),VarietiesofCapitalism:theInstitutionalFoundationofComparativeAdvantage,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,

9%

6%

5%

10%

6%

5%

12%

8%

6%

19%

13%

9%

9%

6%

5%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

Anycrowdwork

Atleastmonthly

Atleastweekly

NL

AT

DE

SE

UK


womenformamajorityintheUK(at52%),withmenformingthemajorityinothercountries(at56%intheNetherlands,risingto59%inAustriaand62%inGermanyandSweden).

Figure7.Anycrowdwork,bygender(%)

Source:HertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurvey,2016Base:207respondentsintheUK,198respondentsinSweden,252RespondentsinGermany,359respondentsinAustriaand187respondentsintheNetherlandsstatingthattheyhadevercarriedoutcrowdwork(weighted).

Focussing inonthosewhocrowdworkat leastweeklyproducesasimilarprofile,witha47%/53%split betweenmen and women in the UK, whilemen form themajority, at 59% of the frequentcrowdworkforceinAustria,risingto60%intheNetherlands,61%inGermanyand63%inSweden.Thesimilaritiesbetweencountriesaretoogreattosuggestthatgenderparticipationincrowdworkmightberelatedtostructuralpatternslinkedtodifferentinstitutionalcontexts.

48%

62%

62%

59%

56%

52%

38%

38%

41%

44%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

UK

SE

DE

AT

NL

Male Female


Figure8.Weeklycrowdwork,bygender(%)

Source:HertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurvey,2016Base:104respondentsintheUK,104respondentsinSweden,135RespondentsinGermany,186respondentsinAustriaand104respondentsintheNetherlandsstatingthattheycarriedoutcrowdworkatleastweekly(weighted).

Itmight be expected that, aswithmany labourmarket statistics, an apparent similarity betweenmen and women might conceal a degree of gender segregation in terms of the types of workactually done. Such segregation patternswere surprisingly difficult to detect because of the highpropensityofcrowdworkerstocodemultiplecategoriesofworkwhenaskedwhatkindofworktheydo. While perhaps indicating a certain desperation among crowd workers, many of whom seempreparedtooffertheirservicestodoalmostanything,thismakesithardtoestablisha‘core’activityforanygivenworker.

There were noticeable gender differences in the pattern of multi-coding. Given a list of eightpossible types of crowd work, respondents who had already indicated that they had gained anincomefromcrowdworkwereaskedtostatewhichtypestheyhaddone.AsFigure9demonstrates,men,onaverage,namedmoretypesofworkthanwomen,withanaverageof4.4to5.2typesinallcountries,whilewomennamednomorethanfoureverywhereexceptGermany(wheretheaverageforwomenwas4.2).

47%

63%

61%

59%

60%

53%

37%

39%

41%

40%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

UK

SE

DE

AT

NL

Male Female


Figure9.Averagenumberoftypesofworkdone:anycrowdwork,bygenderandcountry

Source:HertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurvey,2016.Base:231respondentsintheUK,234respondentsinSweden,295RespondentsinGermany,407respondentsinAustriaand238respondentsintheNetherlandsstatingthattheyhadevercarriedoutcrowdwork(weighted).

Interestingly enough, this disparity between men and women was reduced (except in theNetherlands and, to a lesser extent, the UK)when respondents carrying out crowdwork at leastweeklywereinvestigated,ascanbeseenfromFigure10.Therewasageneraltendencyforweeklycrowdworkerstociteevenmoretypesthantheoccasionalcrowdworkers.Thismay indicatethatthose seeking tomake a living from crowdworkmust be prepared to offer asmany services aspossibleandmay,indeed,beanindicatorofdesperation.

4,95,2 5,1 4,9

4,44,0 3,8

4,23,7

3,1

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

UK SE DE AT NL

male female


Figure10.Averagenumberoftypesofworkdone:weeklycrowdworkers,bygenderandcountry


Anotherindicatorofgenderdifferencecanbederivedfromtheinformationaboutthetypesofworksought online (which includes those who had looked for crowdwork without finding any). Here,respondentswere given three broad categories ofwork to check:work that could be carried outfromtheirownhomes;workthatwascarriedoutoutsidethehome;anddrivingwork.Onceagain,therewasastrongtendencytocitemorethanonetypeofwork,withmensomewhatmorelikelytodosothanwomen,ascanbeseenfromFigure11.

6,66,0

6,7 6,66,05,8

5,4

6,45,8

4,6

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

UK SE DE AT NL

male female


Figure11.Averagenumberoftypesofworksought:anyseekingcrowdwork,bygenderandcountry

Source:HertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurvey,2016.Base:444respondentsintheUK,468respondentsinSweden,458RespondentsinGermany,663respondentsinAustriaand354respondentsintheNetherlandsstatingthattheyhadeversearchedforcrowdwork(weighted).

Figures12-16summarises theseresultsbygender foreachcountry.Herethedifferencesbetweencountriesbecomesomewhatmorepronounced.IntheUK,thereisamarkedtendencyforwomentobemoreactivelyseekingcrowdworkingeneraland,morespecifically,tobelookingforworktheycandofromtheirhomes.Elsewhere,menexceedwomeninallcategoriesinseekingworktheycandofromhome,exceptinSweden,wheretheyareslightlyoutnumberedbywomen.

Whatisperhapsthemostremarkablefeatureoftheseresultsisnotthegenderdifferencesbuttherelative lackofthesecomparedwithotherevidenceon labourmarketsegmentationbygender. Inthe UK, for example, drivingwork is stronglymale-dominated. In 2016, out of 351,000 transportdrivers,only47,000werewomen,ofwhom10,000(outofatotalof232,000)weretaxidrivers,ofwhom6,000(outofatotalof184,000)wereself-employed.Inotherwords,inthegeneralUKlabourforce,womenformonly13%ofalldrivers,4%oftaxidriversand3%ofself-employedtaxidrivers.94Yettheyform49%ofself-definedwould-bedriversintheUKcrowdworkforce.

94UKLabourForceSurveyData,April-June,2016.AccessedonSeptember30,2016from:http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/datasets/employmentbyoccupationemp04.

1,92,0

2,1 2,12,0

1,7 1,71,8 1,8

1,7

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

UK SE DE AT NL

male female


Figure 12. Type of crowd work sought, by gender: UK (numbers of would-be crowdworkers)

Source:HertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurvey,2016.470respondentsintheUKstatingthattheyhadeversearchedforcrowdwork(weighted).

There are several possible explanations for this disparity. It could be that crowd work offers anopportunity for women to enter occupations from which they have traditionally been excluded,perhaps along with other historically excluded groups. Or it could be evidence not so much ofachievement as of aspiration.We have already seen the high propensity both of potential crowdworkersandactualcrowdworkerstonameseveralalternativetypesofwork.Coulditbethatthisisameasureoftheirwillingnesstoearnanykindofanincomeatall,withofferingarangeofservicesbeingseenasameansofoptimisingtheirearningpotential:awayofsaying,sotospeak,‘Pleasegiveme work. I’ll do anything’? Such hypotheses can only be tested through in-depth qualitativeresearch.Onthebasisoftheresultsofthispilotsurvey,theymustremainatthelevelofspeculation.

197

165

130

79

272249

132

75

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Totalseekingonlinework

Fromhome Outsidehome Driving

Male

Female


Figure13.Typeofcrowdworksought,bygender:Sweden(numbersofwould-becrowdworkers)

Source:HertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurvey,2016.Base:Base:512respondentsinSwedenstatingthattheyhadeversearchedforcrowdwork(weighted).

Figure14.Typeofcrowdworksought,bygender:Germany(numbersofwould-becrowdworkers)

Source:HertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurvey,2016.Base:480respondentsinGermanystatingthattheyhadeversearchedforcrowdwork(weighted).

259

218

178

109

252226

136

69

0

50

100

150

200

250

300



Male

Female

255

211

171156

225

187

97115

0

50

100

150

200

250

300



Male

Female


Figure15. Typeof crowdwork sought,by gender:Austria (numbersofwould-be crowdworkers)

Source:HertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurvey,2016.Base:703respondentsinAustriastatingthattheyhadeversearchedforcrowdwork(weighted).

Figure 16. Type of crowd work sought, by gender: Netherlands (numbers of would-becrowd workers)

Source:HertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurvey,2016.Base:374respondentsintheNetherlandsstatingthattheyhadeversearchedforcrowdwork(weighted).

AgeofcrowdworkersAsexpected, youngpeopleweremore likely than theirolder counterparts toparticipate in crowdwork.Figure17showsthebreakdownofrespondentssayingthattheyhaddoneanycrowdworkbyage,withFigure18showingtheagebreakdownofthetotalsampleforcomparison.Ascanbeseen,peopleundertheageof24haveahigherpropensitytosaytheyhavedonesomecrowdworkinallcountries,withadifferencerangingfrom4percentagepointsintheUKto9inSweden(itshouldbenoted that in Austria this category covered only 18-24-year-olds, but 16-24-year-olds in all other

367338

233

181

336313

163

117

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400



Male

Female

191166

11392

183160

77 72

0

50

100

150

200

250



Male

Female


countries).Thereisasimilarpatterninthe25-34agerange,althoughhere,thelowestdifferenceisinAustria,at2percentagepoints,withahighof14percentagepointsinGermany.Inthe35-44agerange,thelikelihoodofbeingacrowdworkerisclosetotheaverageineachcountry,withafall intheolderageranges(hereitshouldbenotedthattheupperagelimitinthesamplevariedbetween65and75dependingonthecountry).Whatisperhapssurprisinghereistheextenttowhicholderagegroupsareactivelyparticipating ina formofwork thathasonlyappeared in the lastdecade,overturningstereotypesthatcrowdworkisaphenomenononlyaffectingtheyoung.

Figure17.Ageofcrowdworkers,bycountry(%)

Source:HertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurvey,2016.Base:207respondentsintheUK,198respondentsinSweden,252RespondentsinGermany,359respondentsinAustriaand187respondentsintheNetherlandsstatingthattheyhadevercarriedoutcrowdwork(weighted).Note:Theunder-24agecategoryincludespeopleaged16-24intheUK,Sweden,GermanyandtheNetherlandsand18-24inAustria.The55+agecategoryincludespeopleaged55-65inSwedenandAustria,55-70inGermanyandtheNetherlandsand55-75intheUK

20%

27%

20%

25%

19%

30%

30%

31%

22%

23%

22%

17%

17%

21%

24%

12%

14%

17%

19%

17%

15%

11%

15%

12%

17%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

UK

SE

DE

AT

NL

Upto24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+


Figure18.Ageoftotaladultpopulationsampled,bycountry(%)

16%

18%

14%

13%

15%

18%

19%

17%

20%

17%

19%

21%

19%

22%

19%

19%

21%

23%

25%

21%

29%

21%

27%

20%

27%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

UK

SE

DE

AT

NL

Upto24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+


Source:HertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurvey,2016.Base: 2235 respondents in the UK, 2133 respondents in Sweden, 2170 Respondents in Germany, 1951 respondents inAustriaand2115respondentsintheNetherlands(weighted).Note:Theunder-24agecategoryincludespeopleaged16-24intheUK,Sweden,GermanyandtheNetherlandsand18-24inAustria.The55+agecategoryincludespeopleaged55-65inSwedenandAustria,55-70inGermanyandtheNetherlandsand55-75intheUK

Figure19.Ageofweeklycrowdworkers,bycountry(%)

Source:HertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurvey,2016.Base:104respondentsintheUK,104respondentsinSweden,135RespondentsinGermany,186respondentsinAustriaand104respondentsintheNetherlandsstatingthattheyhadevercarriedoutcrowdwork(weighted).Note:Theunder-24agecategoryincludespeopleaged16-24intheUK,Sweden,GermanyandtheNetherlandsand18-24inAustria.The55+agecategoryincludespeopleaged55-65inSwedenandAustria,55-70inGermanyandtheNetherlandsand55-75intheUK

Acloserfocusonthosewhodocrowdworkmoreintensively(respondentswhoreporteddoingsoatleastweekly)showsastrongerbiastowardstheyoung,ascanbeseenfromFigure19,whichshowsthat inall thecountriessurveyedapart fromtheNetherlands,at42%,peopleundertheageof35made up half or more than half the crowd workforce, ranging from 52% in Germany to 58% inSweden.Nevertheless, theoldergeneration isbynomeansabsentaltogether. IntheNetherlands,overathird(36%)ofcrowdworkerswereaged45orover(comparedwith28%inGermany,25%inAustria,23%inSwedenand21%intheUK).

Furtherqualitative researchwill be required toexplore themotivationsbehind this pattern.Haveolder crowd workers adopted this new form of work out of curiosity, boredom, a desire tosupplement their incomeor financial desperation?Ormight there be someother explanation fortheirengagementwithonlineplatforms?

23%

28%

22%

30%

22%

32%

30%

30%

27%

20%

24%

19%

20%

18%

22%

10%

14%

17%

18%

20%

11%

9%

11%

7%

17%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

UK

SE

DE

AT

NL

Upto24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+


EmploymentstatusofcrowdworkersAsnotedabove,theemploymentstatusofcrowdworkersisacontestedissue,withnoclearrulingson whether they are regarded, by themselves or others, as employees, freelancers, independentcontractorsorsomeotherstatus.Whencrowdworkiscarriedoutinadditiontosomeotherformoflabourmarketparticipationthenitisevenmoredifficulttounraveltheworker’sstatus,whetherinrelationtotheircrowdworkortheirotheremployment.Inmostsurveys(includingtheIpsosMORIomnibus surveys of which this formed a part), respondents are given a simple choice: betweensaying that they are an employee (part-time or full-time), self-employed, or unemployed. Inrecognitionthatmanycrowdworkersmaywish tosayyes tomorethanoneof theseoptions,weaddedextracategoriestocoveradditionaleconomicstatuses,allowingrespondentstocodeasmanyoftheseastheywished.Theseoptionswere:

1. Iamemployedonatemporarycontract;2. Ihavemorethanonepaidjob;3. Ireceiveanincomefromapensionorstatebenefits;4. Ireceiveanincomefromrentorotherinvestments;5. Noneofthese;6. Prefernottosay.Because of themany different possible combinations of these statuses, some numbers were toosmalltobestatisticallysignificant.Wecarriedoutananalysisofthedatatotestvarioushypothesesinrelationtotheemploymentstatusofcrowdworkersofwhichtwoarepresentedhere.

The first of these hypotheses related to whether frequent crowdworkers weremore likely thaninfrequent crowdworkersornon-crowdworkers to state that theywereemployees.As shown inTable 2, because of the relatively small number of frequent crowdworkers the results were notconclusive. InSweden,althoughthepercentageofcrowdworkershavingemployeestatus is loweramongst frequent crowd workers than infrequent/non-crowd workers, the difference is notstatisticallysignificant.

The Netherland and UK both have higher percentages with employee status amongst frequentcrowdworkersbutthedifferencesarenotstatisticallysignificant(althoughUKhasalowp-value,thefactthatweareconductingmultiplecomparisonsmeansthatwemustattainaverylowp-valueinorder to confidently claim statistical significance). ForGermany, the difference in percentages forfrequentand infrequent/non-crowdworkers isstatisticallysignificantwhereasthepercentagesarevirtuallyidenticalforAustria.

Acomparisonofweeklycrowdworkerswithotherswhohaveever foundworkonline is shown inTable 3. In Sweden, although the percentage of crowd workers having employee status is loweramongst frequentcrowdworkersthan infrequentcrowdworkers, thedifference isnotstatisticallysignificant.Austria,Germany,theNetherlandandtheUKallhavehigherpercentageswithemployeestatusamongstfrequentcrowdworkersbutthedifferencesarenotstatisticallysignificant.

It will be necessary to conduct qualitative research to gain a deeper insight into crowdworkers’perceptions of employee status, andwhether this status relates to their crowdwork or to otheraspectsoftheirlabourmarketparticipation.


Table2.Arefrequentcrowdworkersmorelikelythaninfrequentcrowdworkersornon-crowdworkerstohaveemployeestatus?

Have employee status(figuresinparenthesesare95%confidenceintervals)

AT DE NL SE UK

Infrequent andnon-crowdworkers

1159outof178365.0%(62.8%,67.2%)

1103outof204554%(51.8%,56.1%)

1280outof202263%(61.2%,65.4%)

1404outof204269%(66.7%,70.8%)

1195outof213456%(53.9%,58.1%)

Crowd working atleastweekly

120 out of 18664.5%(57.6%,71.4%)

96 out of 13571%(63.5%,78.8%)

73 out of 10470%(61.4%,79.0%)

67 out of 10464%(55.2%,73.6%)

71 out of 10468%(59.3%,77.2%)

p-valueforone-sidedhypothesistest <0.001 0.068 0.004

p-value for two-sidedhypothesistest 0.895 0.367

Source:HertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurvey,2016N.B. p-values for one-sided tests presented for one-sided hypotheses being presentedwith the exception of Austria andSwedenforwhomatwo-sidedhypothesisismoreappropriate.

Table3.Arefrequentcrowdworkersmorelikelythaninfrequentcrowdworkerstohaveemployeestatus?

Have employee status(figuresinparenthesesare95%confidenceintervals)

AT DE NL SE UK

Infrequentcrowdworkers

110 out of 17364%(56.4%,70.8%)

78 out of 11767%(58.1%,75.2%)

57 out of 8369%(58.7%,78.7%)

69 out of 9473%(64.5%,82.3%)

62 out of 10360%(50.7%,69.6%)


120 out of 18665%(57.6%,71.4%)

96 out of 13571%(63.5%,78.8%)

73 out of 10470%(61.4%,79.0%)

67 out of 10464%(55.2%,73.6%)

71 out of 10468%(59.3%,77.2%)

p-valueforone-sidedhypothesistest 0.427 0.224 0.412 0.112

p-value for two-sidedhypothesistest 0.170

Source:HertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurvey,2016.N.B. p-values for one-sided tests presented for one-sided hypotheses being presentedwith the exception of Austria andSwedenforwhomatwo-sidedhypothesisismoreappropriate.

Wenextturnedourattentiontowhetherornotcrowdworkersstatedthattheyhadafull-timejob.Onceagain,itwasdifficulttogainadefinitivepicture,ascanbeseenfromTables4and5.


Table 1. Are frequent crowd workers more likely to say they have a full-time job,comparedwithinfrequentandnon-crowdworkers?

Have full-time job(figuresinparenthesesare95%confidenceintervals)

AT DE NL SE UK

Infrequent andnon-crowdworkers

860 out of 178348%(45.9%,50.6%)

775 out of 204538%(35.8%,40.0%)

780 out of 202239%(36.5%,40.7%)

1122outof204255%(52.8%,57.1%)

917 out of 213443%(40.9%,45.1%)


94 out of 18651%(43.4%,57.7%)

85 out of 13563%(54.8%,71.1%)

52 out of 10450%(40.4%,59.6%)

54 out of 10452%(42.3%,61.5%)

58 out of 10456%(46.2%,65.3%)

p-valueforone-sidedhypothesistest 0.275 <0.001 0.011 0.005

p-value for two-sidedhypothesistest 0.547

Source:HertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurvey,2016N.B. p-values for one-sided tests presented for one-sided hypotheses being presentedwith the exception of Sweden forwhomatwo-sidedhypothesisismoreappropriate.

InSweden,althoughthepercentageofcrowdworkerssayingthattheyhaveafull-timejobisloweramongst frequent crowd workers than infrequent/non-crowd workers, the difference is notstatisticallysignificant.

Austriaand theNetherlandsall havehigherpercentages saying theyhavea full-time jobamongstfrequent crowd workers but the differences are not statistically significant (although theNetherlandshasalowp-value,thefactthatweareconductingmultiplecomparisonsmeansthatwemustattainverylowp-valuesinordertoconfidentlyclaimstatisticalsignificance).ForGermanyandUK, the difference in percentages for frequent and infrequent/non-crowd workers is statisticallysignificant.


Table2.Areweeklycrowdworkersmorelikelythanothercrowdworkerstohaveafull-timejob?

Have full-time job(figuresinparenthesesare95%confidenceintervals)

AT DE NL SE UK


91 out of 17353%(45.2%,60.0%)

63 out of 11754%(44.8%,62.9%)

38 out of 8346%(35.1%,56.5%)

57 out of 9461%(50.8%,70.5%)

49 out of 10348%(37.9%,57.2%)


94 out of 18651%(43.4%,57.7%)

85 out of 13563%(54.8%,71.1%)

52 out of 10450%(40.4%,59.6%)

54 out of 10452%(42.3%,61.5%)

58 out of 10456%(46.2%,65.3%)

p-valueforone-sidedhypothesistest 0.071 0.283 0.118

p-value for two-sidedhypothesistest 0.696 0.215

Source:HertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurvey,2016N.B. p-values for one-sided tests presented for one-sided hypotheses being presentedwith the exception of Austria andSwedenforwhomatwo-sidedhypothesisismoreappropriate.

InAustriaandSweden,althoughthepercentageofcrowdworkerssayingtheyhaveafull-timejobislower amongst frequent crowd workers than infrequent crowd workers, the difference is notstatistically significant. Germany, the Netherland and the UK all have higher percentages withemployee status amongst frequent crowd workers but the differences are not statisticallysignificant.

Once again, there is insufficient evidence to draw general conclusions about crowd workers inrelation to this variable, uncovering a need for further qualitative research. However we canconcludewithsomecertainty thatcrowdworkersdonot representadistinctive,atypicalgroupofworkerswithadifferentprofile fromtherestof theworkforce: thesimilaritiesbetweenthethreegroups (frequent crowd workers, infrequent crowd workers and non-crowd workers) are greaterthanthedifferencesbetweenthem.

ContributionofcrowdworktoincomeRespondents in the survey who reported that they had carried out crowd work were asked toestimatewhatproportionof their incomewasderived fromthisactivity.As is common in surveysinvestigating personal financial information, a relatively high proportion declined to answer thisquestion,eitherstatingthattheypreferrednottosay(5%-10%,dependingonthecountry)orthattheydidnotknow,(rangingfrom19%intheUKto38%intheNetherlands).Figure20presentstheoverallresponsestothisquestionwiththeseunknowndataexcluded.

Asthisshows,foramajority,crowdworkrepresentsasmallsupplementtotheirmainincome:withthelargestgroup(rangingfrom33%inSwedento58%inAustria)estimatingthatitrepresentslessthan10%oftheirtotal income.Nevertheless,thereisasmallminority(rangingfrom3%inAustriaandGermanyto11%intheNetherlands)forwhomcrowdworkprovidestheonlysourceofincome.More significantly, crowdwork constitutesmore thanhalf the incomeof arounda thirdof crowdworkers in theUKandSweden (33%and36%respectively),25% inGermanyand theNetherlandsand 14% inAustria. The relatively lowdegree of dependence on crowdwork in Austria, and to a


lesserextentinGermany,mayreflectthefactthatAustriahasthehighestandGermanythesecondhighestoveralllevelofparticipationincrowdwork,suggestingthatthesearecountrieswithabove-average levelsof experimentationor ‘dabbling’ in crowdwork,but seriousdependenceon it as amainsourceofincomeismoreorlessinlinewithothercountries.

Crowdwork thusconstitutesmore thanhalfofall income for2.4%of the total sample inAustria,2.6%inGermany,1.7%intheNetherlandsand2.8%eachintheUKandSweden–formingthemainsourceofincomeforanaverageof2.5%ofthesamplesacrossallfivecountries.


Figure20.Earningsfromcrowdworkasaproportionofallincome,allcrowdworkers,bycountry(%)

Source:HertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurvey,2016.Base:237respondentsintheUK(weighted)with24%don’tknoworpreferringnottoanswerexcluded,248respondentsinSweden (weighted)with34%don’t knoworpreferringnot toanswer excluded, 308 respondents inGermany (weighted)with28%don’tknoworpreferringnottoanswerexcluded,434respondentsinAustria(weighted)with31%don’tknowor

41%

15%

10%

15%

12%

6%

33%

13%

18%

20%

10%

6%

44%

19%

12%

15%

7%

3%

58%

15%

12%

6%

5%

3%

51%

13%

11%

6%

8%

11%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Upto10%

10%to25%

25%to50%

50%to75%

75%to99%

All

UK

SE

DE

AT

NL


preferringnottoanswerexcluded,251respondentsintheNetherlands(weighted)with44%don’tknoworpreferringnottoanswerexcluded.

Forpeoplewhodo frequent crowdwork thenumbers are smaller anddifferences arenot alwaysstatisticallysignificant.Wecarriedoutananalysisontheresults to investigatethehypothesis thatpeoplewhocrowdworkat leastweeklyaremore likely to say that crowdwork contributesmorethan half their income. The results (shown in Table 6) show that for Austria, Germany, theNetherlandsandtheUKthereissufficientevidencetoacceptthishypothesis.However,forSwedenthisisnotthecase,withacomparativelylarge36%ofcrowdworkerswhoworklessfrequentlythanweeklysayingthatmorethanhalftheir incomeisfromthissource.Thisjustifiesafocusonweeklycrowdworkersasthosemostlikelytobedoingsoastheirmainincome-generatingactivity.Howeverthetwocategories(weeklycrowdworkingandusingcrowdworkasamainsourceofincome)arebyno means synonymous. Not only do many weekly crowd workers have other major sources ofincome, but there are also many more occasional crowd workers for whom it is more than asupplement,especiallyinSweden.

Table 6. Is crowd work more likely to be a main source of income for weekly crowdworkersthanothercrowdworkers?

Crowd work contributes more than half of income(figuresinparenthesesare95%confidenceintervals)

AT DE NL SE UK


7 out of 1246%(1.6%,9.7%)

8 out of 879%(3.1%,15.3%)

4 out of 459%(0.6%,17.2%)

23 out of 6436%(24.2%,47.7%)

15 out of 7520%(10.9%,29.1%)


36 out of 15523%(16.6%,29.9%)

44 out of 12136%(27.8%,44.9%)

27 out of 7337%(25.9%,48.1%)

31 out of 8238%(27.3%,48.3%)

40 out of 9243%(33.3%,53.6%)

p-valueforone-sidedhypothesistest <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.408 <0.001

Source:HertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurvey,2016.

PersonalincomesofcrowdworkersExaminationoftheincomesofcrowdworkersacrossthefivecountriessurveyediscomplicatedbythe fact that there are three different currencies among them. This variety makes directcomparisonsdifficult. Furthermore,market researchconventionsalsovarybetween thecountries,sothatincomeisrecordeddifferentlyacrossthecountries.Nevertheless,despitethesedifferences,itispossibletoidentifybroadpatternsofincomedistributionamongcrowdworkersineachcountry,and then to compare thosepatterns across the countries surveyed. First, this sectionwill presentevidenceofoverall income,andthengoontoexaminetheproportionofearningsthatcomefromcrowdwork. Figures 21-25 therefore show thepersonal incomesof crowdworkers separately foreachcountry.

As already noted, most crowd workers have other sources of employment besides crowd work.Thesefindingsconcerntheoverallincomeofcrowdworkersineachofthefivecountriessurveyed–thatis,notjusttheirincomefromcrowdwork.


Figure21.PersonalincomesofcrowdworkersintheUK

Source:HertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurvey,2016.Base:2238respondentsintheUK(weighted)with14%preferringnottoanswerexcluded.

Figure22.PersonalincomesofcrowdworkersinSweden

Source:HertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurvey,2016.Base:2146respondentsinSweden(weighted)with14%preferringnottoanswerexcluded.

44%41%

36%

29%32% 32%

19%21%

25%

8% 7% 7%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

Allrespondents Anycrowdwork Weeklycrowdwork

Upto£19,999 £20,000–34,999 £35,000–£54,000 £55,000+

46%

51% 50%

38%

33%36%

11% 12% 11%

5% 4% 4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%


Upto299,999KR 300,000–499,999KR 500,000–699,999KR 700,000+


Figure 23. Personal incomes of crowd workers in Germany

Source:HertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurvey,2016.Base:2180respondentsinGermany(weighted)with17%preferringnottoanswerexcluded.

Figure24.PersonalincomesofcrowdworkersintheNetherlands

Source:HertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurvey,2016.Base:2126respondentsintheNetherlands(weighted)with30%preferringnottoanswerexcluded.

49%

37%35%

37%

48%50%

12% 12%14%

2% 3%1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%


Upto€18,000 €18,001–€36,000 €36,001–€60,000 €60,001+

29% 28%31%

36%

28%31%

25%

36%

30%

10%8% 9%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%


Upto€18,000 €18,001–€36,000 €36,001–€60,000 €60,001+


Figure 25. Personal incomes of crowd workers in Austria

Source:HertfordshireBusinessSchoolCrowdWorkSurvey,2016.Base:1969respondentsinAustria(weighted)with18%preferringnottoanswerexcluded.

Ingeneral,thesefindingsshowapatternwherebycrowdworkersdonotdifferdramaticallyfromthegeneral pattern in their respective countries. In Sweden, they aremore likely to be in the lowestincomebandandlesslikelytobeinthehighestbandthantheaverage.Thesameistrue,toalesserextent, for theNetherlandsandAustria. In theUKandGermany, frequentcrowdworkersare lesslikelytobeinthelowestincomebracket.Inthenextphaseoftheresearch,wewillexploretowhatextentthisisrelatedtobeingthemainhouseholdbreadwinner.

TypeofworkdoneWehavealreadynotedthepropensityofcrowdworkerstonamealargenumberofdifferenttypesofworkwhenaskedwhatkindsofworktheyhavedone.Thiscreatesmajorchallengesforanalysisand indicates a need for in-depthqualitative research to obtain a better picture. The informationpresented here is therefore indicative, rather than definitive. As can be seen in Figure 26, theoverwhelming impression, inallcountries, isofaworkforceclaimingtocarryoutawidevarietyoftasks,bothonlineandoffline,intheirownhomesandinthoseofothers.

Furtherqualitativeresearchwillberequiredtoestablishamoredetailedpicture.

46% 46% 47%45% 45%

42%

7% 7% 8%

2% 3% 2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%


Upto€18,000 €18,001–€36,000 €36,001–€60,000 €60,001+


Figure26.Typeofcrowdworkdone,bycountry


ConclusionsGiventheconfusionabout terminologyanddefinitionsdiscussed in the firstsectionof this report,measuring the extent of crowdwork is a highly ambitious challenge. Indeed, it presents somanydifficultiesthatitisnotsurprisingthatthishasbeenthefirstseriousattempttodosoinEurope.

We can conclude that the series of pilot surveys presented in this report havebeen successful inestablishing some baseline data against which other surveys can be measured. Because theyinvolvedonlyonlinesurveys,theresultscannotbegeneralisedwithcompleteconfidencetoentirepopulations. Nevertheless they give us, for the first time, an objective picture of crowd workpracticeswithintheonlinepopulationandarepresentativesampleofcrowdworkers.

The results demonstrate that crowd workers are not sharply distinguished from the rest of theworkforce. Participation in crowdwork should rather be seen as part of a continuum of income-seekingbehaviourusingonlineplatforms,embeddedinlargerpatternsofonlineparticipationsuchassellingpersonalpossessions,resellingproductsandrentingoutrooms.Crowdworkersaremuchmorelikelythanthegeneralonlinepopulationalsotobesearchingforregularemploymentonjobsearchplatforms. This suggests that it is, formany, a stop-gapactivity, doneonlyuntil somethingbettercomesalong.

Themajorityofcrowdworkersdosoonlyoccasionally.Howeverbetween6%and13%oftheonlinepopulationdosoatleastmonthlyandbetween5%and9%atleastweekly.Evenforthese,itisnotnecessarilytheonlysourceofincome.Thereisasmallminority(rangingfrom3%ofcrowdworkersinAustriaandGermanyto11%intheNetherlands)forwhomcrowdworkprovidestheonlysourceofincome.Moresignificantly,crowdworkconstitutesmorethanhalftheincomeofaroundathird

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Professionalwork

Crea{veorITworkonyourcomputerorotheronlinedevice

Officework,shorttasksor'clickwork'

Errandsorofficeworkoncustomer’spremisesPersonalservicework

Regularworkinsomebodyelse'shome

Occasionalworkinsomebodyelse'shome

Taxiorotherdrivingwork

UK

SE

DE

AT

NL


of crowd workers in the UK and Sweden (33% and 36% respectively), 25% in Germany and theNetherlands and 14% in Austria. Nevertheless, for the majority, crowd work represents a smallsupplement to theirmain income:with the largest group (ranging from33% inSweden to58% inAustria)estimating that it represents less than10%of their total income.Thisaddsweight to theimpression that crowd work is embarked on by people seeking to augment their income fromwhatevermeansareavailable,animpressionthatisfurtherreinforcedbythepropensitytoengageinmultipletypesofcrowdwork,ratherthanspecialiseinasingleform.

Crowdworkersaremore likelytobeyoung,butarebynomeansexclusivelyso,andarerelativelyevenlydividedbetweenmenandwomen.Astrikingcharacteristicofthegenderdivisionoflabouristhat female crowd workers, or would-be crowd workers, tend to step outside the traditionaloccupational gender roles, offering their services for a wide range of activities, including thosegenerallytypedasmasculine.

Whilegivingagoodgeneral indicationof thescaleandcharacteristicsofcrowdwork in these fiveEuropean countries, and preparing the ground for establishing representativeness in futureresearch,thisexperimentalsurveyraisesalargenumberofquestionsrequiringfurtherinvestigation.

First,itsuggestsaneedtocarryoutcomparativeresearchusingofflinemethodsinordertomakeitpossibletoextrapolatewithconfidencetotheentirepopulation,aswellasextendingthesurveytootherregionsofEuropeandtheworld.

Second, it raises a large number of questions that can best be addressed by means of in-depthqualitative research. These concern such issues at the motivation for carrying out crowd work,workingconditions,employmentstatus,pay,leave,healthandsafety,workinghours,tax,insurance,collectivebargainingandqualityofworkinglife.

Someofthesewillbedevelopedinfurtherstagesofthisproject.

crowd work in europe - university of...

Documents