International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol.

0, 1–20 (2017)
DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12153

Ubiquitous yet Ambiguous: An Integrative

Review of Unpaid Work
Deanna Grant-Smith and Paula McDonald
School of Management, Queensland University of Technology, PO Box 2434, Brisbane, Qld 4001, Australia
Email: deanna.grantsmith@qut.edu.au; p.mcdonald@qut.edu.au

The expansion of participation in unpaid work such as internships, volunteering and

educationally focused work placements may constitute evidence of deleterious changes
to labour markets increasingly characterized by competition, precarious work and pro-
longed transitions to secure employment. Unpaid work, although under-researched, is
increasingly relevant in times of ubiquitous unpaid internships and the use of volun-
teers in roles that would have been previously paid. Yet there remains a lack of clarity
in terminology and focus across studies of unpaid work. This review article addresses
this concern through two primary aims. First, we review the available literature around
unpaid work setting out five themes: characterizations of unpaid work; the prevalence
and underlying drivers of unpaid work; the apparent benefits of participation; the costs
of participation; and regulatory and structural responses to unpaid work. Together,
these themes set out a holistic interpretation of the accumulated state of knowledge in
this area of inquiry including the implications for organizations, employers, higher ed-
ucation institutions, policy makers and unpaid workers. The second aim is to synthesise
the current and emerging insights arising from the review as a matrix which delineates
four distinct forms of unpaid work along two dimensions – purpose of participation and
level of participatory discretion. The review and resulting matrix provides conceptual
clarity around unpaid work practices that informs future research. It also raises prag-
matic implications for institutional and managerial decision-making which is cognisant
of the range of risks, costs, benefits and ethical issues associated with unpaid work.

Introduction by a student, graduate or job-seeker spending a period

Social and economic changes over the last two
decades have been deleterious for young people seek-
ing entry to a labour market increasingly character-
ized by competition, precarious work and prolonged
transitions to secure employment. Increased partic-
ipation in unpaid work, especially the proliferation
of unpaid internships (Figiel 2013; Harthill 2014;
Holdsworth and Brewis 2014; Perlin 2011), is argued
to exemplify this shift (Gregory 1998). The term ‘in-
ternship’ originated in the field of medical education
(Frenette 2015; Hacker 2016), where it is still used to
denote a period early in the postgraduate training of
doctors when they work in hospitals for relatively low
pay (Owens and Stewart 2016). More recently, intern-
ships have become synonymous with unpaid work in
any discipline. Internships are typically characterized
of time in an organization, performing any combina-
tion of productive work, shadowing a more experi-
enced worker, or performing low-level tasks for those
who already occupy roles in the workplace or pro-
fession (Hadjivassiliou et al. 2012; Harthill 2014).
Interns work in a wide range of occupations, indus-
tries and organization types including private sector
companies, not-for-profit organizations and govern-
ment agencies (Perlin 2011).
Despite rising academic, policy and pedagogical
interest in unpaid work, there is a concerning lack
of clarity in terminology across studies, especially
across different disciplines (e.g. law, employment re-
lations, education), perspectives (e.g. unpaid workers,
employers or universities), and national and jurisdic-
tional settings. The literature encompasses a plethora
of often contradictory and overlapping terms and


C 2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington
Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
2 D. Grant-Smith and P. McDonald
practices which are collectively referred to as unpaid
work. A central contribution of this article is to clar-
ify the terminology around the phenomenon of unpaid
work which is defined as participation in work-based
activities that does not attract remuneration. Clarify-
ing terminology has pragmatic implications because it
will allow for more consistency, accuracy and shared
understandings in discussions, decisions and prac-
tices by students, higher education institutions, or-
ganizations, researchers and policy makers around
unpaid work.
The article has two aims. The first aim is to conduct
an integrative review (Whittemore and Knafl 2005) of
unpaid work which interrogates the extant literature
on the phenomenon in order to construct a system-
atic knowledge base. The second aim is to synthesize
these insights as a typological matrix which delin-
eates four distinct forms of unpaid work along the
intersection of two dimensions – purpose of the ex-
perience and level of participatory discretion. The
matrix offers conceptual clarity around the types of
unpaid work practices discussed in the literature and a
model for decision-making and supervisory practice
where unpaid workers form part of an organization’s
workforce. The review and matrix is relevant to and
extends management literature in drawing out many
of the implications of unpaid work for managers and
organizations, including legal compliance and poten-
tial litigation risks; managerial decision-making; re-
sourcing and capacity issues; organizational benefits
and costs; and the need to safeguard the rights of paid
and unpaid workers. The article concludes by setting
a research agenda for future theorizing and empirical
enquiry on unpaid work.
Review methodology
The purpose of an integrative literature review
is to ‘review, critique, and synthesize represen-
tative literature on a topic in an integrated way
such that new frameworks and perspectives on
the topic are generated’ (Torraco 2005, p. 356).
The review was conducted in several stages. We
first searched leading electronic databases includ-
ing EBSCOHost, GoogleScholar and ABI-Inform for
peer-reviewed, English-language sources using eight
keywords: unpaid work; work-integrated learn-
ing; volunteering; traineeship; practicum placement;
welfare-based work; internship; and unpaid trial
work. The specification of keywords was iterative in
the sense that the sources identified using the initial

C 2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
keyword unpaid work, provided synonyms which
were subsequently used as keywords. This method
ensured as many relevant empirical and theoretical
themes as possible were identified across this cross-
disciplinary field. The 145 cited sources were in-
cluded via an examination of the abstract. Empirical
studies had been primarily undertaken in four national
contexts: the US, UK, Canada and Australia, suggest-
ing unpaid work, as we have defined it for the review,
is a concern of the global north. Although feminist
scholars have expanded the category of work to in-
clude domestic labour and care work, these forms of
work are not the focus of this article because they are
not directly connected to employment, education or
the workplace.
Within papers cited in the review, terms were rarely
defined and often ambiguous, especially with respect
to demarcations between what conditions would and
would not constitute the kind of unpaid work being
discussed. A limited number of Tier One ‘grey’ or
non-standard citations – primarily reports published
by government agencies and international labour or-
ganizations – were included in the review (Adams
et al. 2016). These sources, identified primarily from
the reference lists of peer-reviewed sources and ac-
cessed via GoogleScholar, supplemented and com-
plemented the peer-reviewed sources by highlighting
current and emerging policy1 trends and concerns in a
field where practice and issues in public debates have
emerged ahead of theory and empirical research.
Following a complete reading of each paper, based
on a staged review (i.e., an initial review of abstracts
followed by an in-depth review), the central dimen-
sions of the phenomenon of unpaid work contained
therein were identified and categorized. The review
was organized in this inductive way because the field
spans multiple disciplines and the absence of previ-
ous reviews suggests unpaid work is still emerging
as a field of scholarship in its own right. Integrative
literature reviews are particularly suited to addressing
emerging topics, such as unpaid work, which would
benefit from a holistic conceptualization and synthe-
sis of the extant literature (Torraco 2005).
Through this process of synthesizing the litera-
ture to focus on core issues, we derived five themes
1
We acknowledge that the policy details outlined in this
manuscript are a reflection of the particular timeframe in
which the research took place and as such is subject to change.
However, we have included policy issues so that the reader
is offered a snapshot of the policy and practice landscape
relevant to unpaid work at the time of writing, and to which
many of the papers cited respond.
Ubiquitous yet Ambiguous
around which we have organized the review com-
ponent of the article: (1) characterizations of unpaid
work; (2) the prevalence and underlying drivers of un-
paid work, particularly in countries where it appears
to be trending upwards; (3) the benefits of unpaid
work for participants, business and higher education
institutions; (4) the costs of participation in unpaid
work across different stakeholder groups; and (5) the
scope and nature of regulation associated with un-
paid work in different jurisdictions. Through a crit-
ical analysis which examines these ideas and their
relationships, together, these themes set out a holis-
tic interpretation of the literature which challenges
and extends existing knowledge of this recent phe-
nomenon. In the final stage of the review we used the
critical analysis and synthesis undertaken to develop
a conceptual framework (Torraco 2005) which delin-
eates four distinct types of unpaid work conceptual-
ized along two key dimensions: the degree of partic-
ipatory discretion (mandatory and elective); and the
purpose of the experience (educative or productive
focus). Finally, the article proposes a future research
agenda.
Characterisations of unpaid work
The terms used to designate unpaid work are vast, im-
precise and ambiguous. This also extends to a lack of
clarity around the legitimacy and legality of some un-
paid work practices (Malik 2015; Stewart and Owens
2013) which present organizational risks. In partic-
ular, there is a confluence of ‘ambiguous statutory
language, unclear legal precedent, and non-binding
agency interpretation’ around the notion of interns
(Malik 2015, p. 1186). However, similarly vague and
overlapping definitions also exist for other types of
unpaid work. For example, a recent government report
into volunteering and unpaid work placements among
children and young people in Australia (Parliament
of NSW 2014) suggested volunteering among young
people should be universally promoted and supported.
Unpaid work placements on the other hand, although
identified as a potentially ‘legitimate’ and ‘lawful’
means of providing valuable work experience and ex-
posure, were considered concerning due to ‘the im-
pacts of unethical and unlawful placements on young
people and the wider workforce’ (Parliament of NSW
2014, p. ix). However, the report did not provide defi-
nitional clarity regarding volunteering or unpaid work
placements, either in law or in practice. This failure to
distinguish between different forms of unpaid work

C 2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
3
can lead to uncertainty, not only for participants but
also for businesses who offer unpaid work placements
and those who research them.
Internships may be offered by for-profit or not-
for-profit organizations entirely for the organization’s
benefit, without an established connection to formal
education or an educational institution. Such intern-
ships raise potential litigation risks which are dis-
cussed in a later section. The literature also contains
accounts of internships at prestigious employers, such
as Vogue and the Huffington Post, which can be bid
on by hopeful unpaid workers or their wealthy parents
(Perlin 2011). Through these kinds of processes, job
seekers may ‘pay – and pay dearly – to become un-
compensated workers’ (Durack 2013, p. 251). Indeed,
it is the very ambiguity of terms such as internship
– which can encompass paid or unpaid opportunities
and learning or productive work – that opens the door
for organizations to exploit unpaid workers, irrespec-
tive of the potential illegality of the practice.
In the extant literature, different forms of unpaid
work are sometimes distinguished by features such
as the motivation for participation; the primary ben-
eficiary of the unpaid work (the participant or the
host organization); whether the unpaid work experi-
ence incorporates distinct educational goals and out-
comes; and whether it is directly supervised by an
educational institution or an employer or whether it
is largely unsupervised. In addition to these charac-
teristics, unpaid work is often framed in terms of
its primary purpose: volunteering; learning; or en-
hancing employability. However, these purposes and
motivations often overlap.
Unpaid work as volunteering
Volunteering is often distinguished from other forms
of unpaid work according to the primary beneficia-
ries of the work undertaken. For unpaid work to be
a genuine volunteering arrangement the work must
be a form of civic participation undertaken for the
benefit of the community, even if it also benefits
the host organization and the volunteer. Definitions
based on who benefits (e.g. Home Office 2005) focus
on ‘time willingly given for the common good and
without financial gain’ (Volunteering Australia 2016,
p. 2). Pro bono work is thus generally considered vol-
unteering as it is undertaken to serve or benefit the
community (Harthill 2015). This does not, however,
suggest that volunteering need be overtly altruistic in
nature. Participation may be motivated by the accrual
of benefits to the individual volunteer in terms of, for
4 D. Grant-Smith and P. McDonald
example, social contact, skills development or net-
working, which may be perceived to positively in-
fluence future employment prospects (Holdsworth
and Brewis 2014; Paine et al. 2013; Volunteering
Australia 2016).
The use of volunteers by for-profit organizations,
particularly for the conduct of core activities, has been
identified as inherently problematic. However, even
not-for-profit sector organizations should be aware
that volunteering applies only to unpaid work under-
taken in ‘philosophically sound’ volunteer roles (Vol-
unteering Australia 2007, p. 9) and that the use of
volunteers should not result in job substitution where
volunteers replace paid staff roles (Volunteering
England 2012). Volunteers may also be distinguished
from other unpaid workers in that the majority of
the work they undertake is to some extent voluntary,
including attendance and completion of assigned du-
ties. It is in this level of discretion in attendance and
duties that volunteering differs from traditional work-
based welfare placements, sometimes referred to as
mutual obligation arrangements, which might also be
undertaken within the same not-for-profit organiza-
tions (Volunteering Victoria 2015).
Unpaid work as supplementing education
There is ongoing debate over the extent to which
unpaid work is primarily about working or learn-
ing (Ip 2015). Critics assert that the characteriza-
tion of unpaid work as ‘not working but learning’
is used to ‘legitimately den[y] a whole raft of rights,
protections and claims to wages and working condi-
tions that are granted to other workers’ (Sukarieh and
Tannock 2015, p. 5). Periods of educationally focused
unpaid work are usually undertaken whilst participat-
ing in high school, university or vocational training
and the activities undertaken in the organization are at
least in part structured and supported by educational
institutions (Jackson 2014). This kind of unpaid work
is described using a range of nomenclature includ-
ing shadowing, supervised work experience, clinical
rotation, industry attachment, practicum, field place-
ment, externship and professional practice. Organiza-
tions which provide unpaid work placements in this
context can expect that the activities undertaken in
the workplace will be structured to integrate theoreti-
cal learning with workplace practice as an intentional
part of an educational curriculum in which students’
learning is situated within the act of working (Cooper
et al. 2010). As such, these arrangements constitute a
collaboration between the educational institution and

C 2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
the workplace manager to provide an agreed learning
outcome for the participant.
Apprenticeships are normally excluded from dis-
cussions of unpaid work because although they in-
volve a structured combination of work-based prac-
tical experience with periods of off-job vocational
learning provided by an approved training provider,
the educational component is typically embedded in
the entire learning curriculum (Atkinson 2016) and
included as part of an indentured period of paid em-
ployment (Fuller and Unwin 2013), albeit at very low
wages (Low Pay Commission 2013; National Council
for Vocational Education Research 2016). However,
the requirement to complete periods of educationally
focused unpaid work has been entrenched in some
university disciplines and vocational education and
training courses for many years. In some professional
disciplines a set period of participation is a require-
ment imposed by licensing or registration bodies or
professional associations, such as in nursing, teach-
ing and social work. In vocational education, some
qualifications such as early childhood education or
aged care also have set mandatory minimum work
placement hours (Atkinson 2016). The practice has
been expanding into new disciplines and fields of
study where such external requirements did not for-
merly exist, especially as universities and registered
training organizations become increasingly motivated
to provide their graduates with a labour market ad-
vantage (PhillipsKPA 2014) and to demonstrate their
responsiveness to the needs of industry. Many degree
programmes offer supervised work experience, with
credit attached, as a structured part of the curricu-
lum in order for students to gain skills and knowl-
edge which presumably they cannot learn in the for-
mal classroom (Burke and Carton 2013; Orrell 2011).
This appears, in part, to be a response to the belief
of some employers that universities are creating grad-
uates with a strong knowledge base but without the
ability to practically apply that knowledge in a work
setting (Clearly et al. 2007). Although unpaid work in
this context is rationalized on the basis of the impor-
tance of experiential learning in an authentic work-
place setting, there is a growing body of literature
critical of the effectiveness of this approach, espe-
cially in relation to employment outcomes (Rickhuss
2015).
The process for obtaining unpaid work as part of
gaining a higher education qualification varies. Some
universities and courses have specialist administra-
tive staff who organize and manage placements on
behalf of students; in other instances the academic
Ubiquitous yet Ambiguous
responsible for individual subjects mediates between
students and host organizations. However, it is in-
creasingly common for students and recent grad-
uates to source and negotiate unpaid work place-
ments through their own informal networks (Tholen
et al. 2013) or via the services of private ‘brokers’
(Standing 2011). Brokers typically charge significant
fees2 to identify and negotiate placements in domes-
tic or international internships (Perlin 2011; Steffen
2010; Swan 2015). These internship intermediaries
appear to be increasingly numerous and visible in the
youth employment landscape. In relation to domes-
tic students participating in international internships
specifically, these agencies have prompted major con-
cerns and their conduct is often resistant to effective
enforcement of national labour standards (Gordon
2015), not least because of their global reach.
Unpaid work as employability enhancing
It has been argued that despite the learning oppor-
tunities that may be offered by some forms of un-
paid work, the key motivations for and outcome of
participation is enhancing employability (Discenna
2016; Smith et al. 2015). Studies adopting student-
centred perspectives have found that participants con-
sider these opportunities an essential strategy for
gaining a competitive edge in the graduate mar-
ketplace (Cannon and Arnold 1998). Unpaid work
is seen as a future-oriented ‘braggable investment’
that may translate into employment opportunities
(Corrigan 2015, p. 341).
Governments too are focused on realizing the em-
ployability enhancing potential promised by partici-
pation in unpaid work. This is particularly the case for
unpaid work that is funded, facilitated or mandated by
governments as part of proactive labour market poli-
cies targeting the unemployed (Hadjivassiliou et al.
2012). These are sometimes referred to as ‘workfare’
(Dar 2015) or work for the dole schemes (Bessant
2000; Borland and Tseng 2011) where eligible job
seekers receiving government income support may be
required to participate in an unpaid work experience
2
As an example, the website of Australian internship broker
Australian Internships charges an AU$500 application fee,
with ‘outstanding fees’ to be paid following a pre-screening
interview with the agency, an interview with the Host Organ-
isation and confirmation of the formal training agreement.
It is unclear whether the application fee is credited to the
applicant if an internship does not proceed. Costs for similar
brokering services have been estimated to be in the range of
US$6750 to US$9499 (Durack 2013).

C 2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
5
programme as part of mutual obligation requirements
(Dar 2015).
Unpaid work may also be undertaken as a work trial
or as unpaid training. A work trial involves periods of
unpaid work undertaken for the purpose of demon-
strating to an employer the skills and knowledge to
secure a paid job. Unpaid trials involve the demon-
stration of relevant and specific skills over a short time
period, the intention of which is to lead to employ-
ment in a specific and currently vacant job. Within
the Australian context, for example, for a work trial
to be legal, the worker should work under the direct
supervision of an appropriately qualified supervisor
for the entire trial (Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO)
2014; Stewart and Owens 2013). In contrast, unpaid
training comprises the accumulation of work expe-
rience or training undertaken prior to remuneration
being received or an employment arrangement being
reached. Reference to unpaid training within the liter-
ature, and its implications for organizations in the US
context, is commonly tied to the training of railroad
brakemen in the Walling v Portland Terminal case and
the precedent it set for the regulation of unpaid intern-
ships in that country (see Gessner 2015; Reid 2014).
In this case, the non-payment of trainees was deemed
to be lawful because the training was considered to
benefit the intern and the employer derived no imme-
diate advantage from the activities (US Department
of Labor 2010).
Prevalence of unpaid work
Although unpaid work, particularly in the form of un-
paid internships, is characterized in much of the crit-
ical academic literature as representing ‘a uniquely
vulnerable, growing sector of the working force’
(Frederickson 2013, p. 253), a limited number of
large, empirical studies have been conducted that as-
sess the shifting contours of what appear to be upward
trends in participation in unpaid work. Even fewer
studies have focused on quantifying the benefits of
participation in unpaid work, either to organizations
that utilize unpaid workers, or in terms of objective
employment outcomes for participants. The extant
literature consistently laments this paucity of empir-
ical data and relies heavily on anecdotal evidence
presented in media reports, especially of exploitative
organizational and management practices; case law,
particularly in the USA where there has been an
increasing trend towards successful claims against
(usually large) organizations of compensation for lost
6 D. Grant-Smith and P. McDonald
wages (such as the highly publicized Black Swan case
detailed later in the paper); and the work of advocacy
groups, such as the Carrot Workers Collective (2011)
in the UK and Interns Australia (2015). The literature
also frequently cites semi-regular studies of students
conducted by the National Association of Colleges
and Employers (NACE 2016) and consulting firm In-
tern Bridge (Gardner 2011), and the accounts pre-
sented in Ross Perlin’s (2011) Intern Nation.
Research based on primary data is largely qual-
itative, based on small samples and focused on
the UK, USA and Australian contexts. Siebert and
Wilson (2013, p. 4) for example, discussed the pre-
paredness of creative industries graduates to work up
to 1000 hours for free to ‘ingratiate themselves with
the industry, get their face noticed and get ahead’.
Carnevale and Hanson (2015) estimated that interns
constitute approximately 1.3% of the United States
labour force, and that around half of all college stu-
dents report having completed an internship, half
of which are unpaid, during their studies. In some
fields, such as entertainment and politics, nearly all in-
ternships are unpaid (Bennett 2011). Frenette (2015,
p. 355) has observed of this growth in unpaid work
that ‘over the last few decades, what began as a pol-
icy (and rhetoric) to facilitate the transition from
school to work [has grown] into an unwieldy intern
economy’.
A number of studies provide some insights into
the prevalence of unpaid work, suggesting that the
practice is widespread and involves a large number of
organizations from varied sectors and industries. In
Europe, where in 2013 a survey of 27 countries was
undertaken, 46% of respondents aged 18–35 years
had undertaken at least one, and often more than one,
unpaid traineeship, which was defined as a limited
period of work experience or training spent in a busi-
ness, government body or not-for-profit institution by
students or young graduates (Directorate-General for
Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion [DGESAI]
2013). The report revealed the highest participation
rates in The Netherlands (79%) and Germany (74%)
and the lowest in Slovakia and Lithuania (both 8%).
Of all respondents, 59% reported their most recent
traineeship was unpaid and of the remainder which
were paid, less than half of participants considered the
amount earned sufficient to live on (DGESAI 2013).
In their report for the Australian Fair Work Om-
budsman, Stewart and Owens (2013) conducted
small-scale surveys of educators and law and jour-
nalism students that revealed significant evidence of

C 2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
unpaid work in a wide variety of organizational set-
tings. A Canadian survey found similarly widespread
experiences, with 42% of university students report-
ing having taken part in some institutionally orga-
nized, educationally focused unpaid work (Kramer
and Usher 2011). UK-based Graduate Prospects
(2011), which described internships as the ‘new de-
gree’, reported on a survey of 22,000 graduates, that
45% of British graduates now move into entry-level
jobs though this route. However, although this and
some other research supports the assertion that intern-
ships help graduates obtain employment, studies are
usually based on surveys of students or employer per-
ceptions rather than objective employment statistics.
The prevalence of participation in unpaid work has
also been demonstrated beyond student cohorts. For
example, a recent prevalence study of a representative
sample of the working age population conducted in
Australia found that one-third (34%) of respondents
aged 18–64 and more than half (58%) of respondents
aged 18–29 reported having undertaken at least one
episode of unpaid work experience in the previous
five years (Oliver et al. 2016).
Recent responses to the ‘problem’ of youth em-
ployment have seen an increasing emphasis in gov-
ernment and tertiary education policy rhetoric and
the media on the importance of ‘real world’ and ‘rel-
evant’ work exposure and experience in improving
young people’s employability. Several key features
of the environment in which young people must ne-
gotiate education to work transitions are believed to
be influential in the expansion and encouragement of
unpaid work. From the demand side, labour markets
in many disciplines have contracted and competition
for entry level jobs has increased, meaning employ-
ers can be more selective in their recruitment deci-
sions. Closely associated with strong competition for
entry level jobs is the notion of credential inflation
(Tomlinson 2008). In the UK for example, it has been
estimated that there are 30–40% more graduates than
jobs needing graduates as measured by skill level
(Felstead et al. 2007) and over a third of new graduates
are employed in lower-skill level jobs not requiring a
degree (Office for National Statistics 2012). This, in
turn, crowds out lower-skilled and less experienced
youth from the labour market.
In such an environment, it is hardly surprising that
job seekers see participation in unpaid work as a
legitimate and potentially effective means through
which to stand out from peer job-seekers in a highly
competitive labour market, nor that employers will
Ubiquitous yet Ambiguous
use unpaid work placements as a means through
which to evaluate or trial prospective employees.
However, with ubiquitous participation in unpaid
work comes a competitive cycle where a new, nor-
mative benchmark is created. To be competitive, as
Brown and Hesketh (2004, p. 2) assert in their char-
acterization of graduate employability as gaining ‘en-
try into the winner’s enclosure’, individuals may feel
pressured to engage in ever-longer periods of unpaid
work and/or to do this in higher status organiza-
tions than their peers (Grant-Smith and McDonald
2016).
Another feature of the contemporary youth em-
ployment landscape that drives unpaid work is a re-
duced business investment in training and skill de-
velopment. Mitigating against investment in training
(see Hall 2011; Keep and James 2012) are increas-
ing pressures on firms from shareholders to deliver
returns, as well as unpredictable global markets. The
provision of in-house training, which was at one time
an integral component of entry-level jobs, has signif-
icantly diminished and the costs of such training and
development has been shifted to the individual worker
(Yamada 2002). A related supply-side driver is the
value placed on internship programmes by employ-
ers. These can stem from a genuine desire to provide
young job-seekers with learning or developmental op-
portunities, as an effective pre-employment screening
strategy, or to cut labour costs by accessing productive
work that would have otherwise been conducted by
paid employees (Kalyuzhny 2012). Businesses there-
fore experience a range of internal and external in-
centives, in addition to strong demand from students
and job-seekers, to increase the number and duration
of unpaid work placements.
In response to demands from governments, indus-
try and the broader community that graduates be
better prepared for the world of work, universities
have incorporated a commitment to educationally
focused unpaid work in their strategic policies and
have in recent years significantly expanded these pro-
grammes. This shift is associated with the perception
of educators that such programmes are a legitimate
pedagogy and powerful way to learn, as well as re-
sponding to pleas from students for employability-
enhancing work experience (McLennan and Keating
2008). Indeed, in general, participants feel that unpaid
work experience has positive benefits. For example,
a high proportion of Canadian and Australian stu-
dents who participated in unpaid work that was sup-
ported by their educational institution believe that the

C 2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
7
experience had a positive impact on their critical and
analytical thinking, improved their knowledge and
skills in areas related to their study, and helped them
appreciate how concepts learned in the classroom
applied to the real world (Kramer and Usher 2011;
Oliver et al. 2016).
Organizations and managers should be aware, how-
ever, that some higher education institutions may also
be adding unpaid, on-job pedagogies to their curric-
ula as an easy route to ‘re-marketing’ a traditional
academic course with a ‘vocational’ aura that may
make it more attractive to potential students seeking
the highest future return for their investment in educa-
tion (Abeysekera 2006). Higher education institutions
also value the opportunities that providing students
to their industry partners offers in terms of devel-
oping business contacts and deepening relationships
with industry (Cook et al. 2015). Although fostering
such relationships may offer mutual benefits for busi-
ness and higher education institutions, financial pres-
sures may lead some higher education institutions to
implement work-integrated learning programmes as
an economizing exercise (Reid 2014) or cost-shifting
measure. For example, savings might be seen where
courses with substantial unpaid work components
can be provided with less instruction from educators
(Burke and Carton 2013), particularly in instances
where participants are required to source and manage
their own placements.
In addition to undertaking unpaid work as part
of their studies some students and graduates cre-
ate independent unpaid work opportunities by di-
rectly approaching for-profit companies and offering
to work for free (Harthill 2015). In these cases, be-
cause participants are neither employees nor part of
an educationally focused programme, they are typ-
ically self-insured for risks such as professional in-
demnity and occupational health and safety. Since
these unpaid work arrangements operate outside any
formal reporting regimes, it is difficult to estimate
their prevalence. There is, however, some evidence
that such arrangements, although initiated by the job
seeker, have the potential to provide immediate (and
potentially unethical and/or illegal) benefits to the
employer. For example, concerns have been raised
where companies bill clients for work produced by un-
paid workers (Fink 2013; Grant-Smith and McDonald
2016), freeing up professionals to work on other bill-
able tasks (Harthill 2014), thus providing significant
but questionable positive economic outcomes for the
company.
8 D. Grant-Smith and P. McDonald
Benefits of unpaid work
Formalized and educationally focused unpaid work
embedded into degree programmes that are well su-
pervised and have clear learning outcomes is gener-
ally considered by educators, students and prospective
employers to provide much-needed exposure to pro-
fessional practice and valuable learning opportunities
(Coiacetto 2004; King 2008). From a mainstream em-
ployability perspective, unpaid work is advantageous
in a fluctuating, uncertain economy as it improves
skills, knowledge and experience, assists an individ-
ual to match their human capital profile to labour
market demands and enhances their long-term mar-
ketability (Smith 2010).
Research addressing the effectiveness of unpaid
work in facilitating longer-term and/or secure em-
ployment is scarce and the findings available mixed.
Some small studies indicate that job-seekers may be
more effective in acquiring employment if they have
undertaken an internship or work placement of some
kind but that a number of factors qualify this relation-
ship (see Arcidiacono 2015; Nunley et al. 2014). In a
European survey, more than 70% of respondents re-
ported that their most recent traineeship had assisted
them to access a job, although only a quarter reported
that they had been actually offered employment fol-
lowing its completion (DGESAI 2013). A recent re-
view of 57 peer-reviewed articles addressing the im-
pact of internships completed by university students
identified a variety of benefits for students including
improved changes of employment in a career-oriented
job after graduation, enhancing job and social skills,
and assistance in deciding on career paths (Sanahuja
Velez and Ribes Giner 2015). However, predictors
of internship effectiveness were largely dependent on
input from host organizations including mentoring
and greater autonomy during the internship (Sanahuja
Velez and Ribes Giner 2015).
In addition to the extra resources and ideas pro-
vided by unpaid workers, the benefits for businesses
hosting unpaid workers are often expressed in terms
of corporate responsibility, in the sense of giving back
to the industry and community (Atkinson 2016), and
as a low cost and low risk means of recruiting new
employees (Rothman 2007). However, Peters et al.’s
(2014) Canadian research found that not all partic-
ipants benefit to the same extent, with arts, human-
ities and social sciences university graduates enjoy-
ing fewer labour market benefits from participation in
work placements or internships. Econometric analysis
of the outcomes of unpaid work experience and the

C 2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
extent to which participation facilitates subsequent
paid employment is scarce. This may be partly the
result of the recency of the phenomenon and the chal-
lenges associated with collecting large-scale and ac-
curate data on what is an under-reported activity. The
available international evidence focuses on the impact
of mandatory unpaid work on individuals receiving
unemployment benefits as part of active labour mar-
ket programmes and generally finds no positive effect
on employment outcomes (Heckman et al. 1999) or a
reduced likelihood of separating from unemployment
payments (Borland and Tsend 2011).
Costs of unpaid work
The financial costs to business associated with hosting
unpaid workers and welfare recipients can be con-
siderable and has led to some businesses charging
education providers (Atkinson 2016). However, the
trend towards increasing participation in unpaid work
has also raised concerns around equity of access and
other costs for participants, which have direct impli-
cations for organizations and managers who create
opportunities for unpaid work in terms of who is of-
fered access and the terms under which the placement
is organized. Access to unpaid work experience op-
portunities are identified in the literature as being
highly classed, raced, gendered, ageist and subject to
geographical inequalities (Allen et al. 2013; Bennett
2011; Boulton 2015; Hughes and Lagomarsine 2015;
O’Connor and Bodicoat 2016; Regan Shade and
Jacobson 2015). In particular, those who are econom-
ically disadvantaged may not have the same oppor-
tunities to participate due to the imperative of jug-
gling unpaid work and paid work (often in retail,
food services and the like) to cover living expenses.
These limits to participation may function as a struc-
ture of exclusion and reduced social mobility within
the labour market by constraining career opportuni-
ties and access to certain employment pathways for
those without adequate financial, social and educa-
tion resources (Curiale 2010; Frenette 2013; Graeber
2011).
As has been highlighted in the UK literature in
particular, occupational fields such as law, politics,
finance and journalism are dominated by individu-
als from privileged or socio-economically advantaged
backgrounds, not only because of the effect of exist-
ing social networks but because wealthy families can
afford to support their children undertaking work ex-
perience in high cost cities such as London where
Ubiquitous yet Ambiguous
the top firms are located (e.g. Davis 2010; Milburn
2009; Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission
2014; Sutton Trust 2014; Tholen et al. 2013). Illus-
trating this problem was the recent highly publicized
case of a New Zealander who claimed he had to live in
a tent because he could not afford to rent accommoda-
tion in Geneva while completing an unpaid internship
with the United Nations (ABC News Online 2015).
Although the stunt was later revealed to be a polit-
ically motivated act designed to draw attention to a
significant concern, the point remains that the UN’s
interns, although unpaid, are expected to self-fund in-
ternational travel, accommodation and food in one of
the world’s most expensive capital cities. The prob-
lem of equity of access may arise not only in relation
to informal, privately organized unpaid work intern-
ship arrangements but also in what would be defined
as genuine educationally focused placements, in the
sense that students need to be able to afford transport
costs to access workplaces and additional accommo-
dation costs if the host employer is not located close
to where they live (Bennett 2011).
Concerns around constrained employment oppor-
tunities for disadvantaged or marginalized youth be-
cause of a lack of access to unpaid work aligns with a
related concern regarding the framing of the prac-
tice as an individual and rational choice. This is
problematic because it ignores the wider context in
which individuals’ choices are made and how such
choices impact the youth employment landscape more
broadly (Siebert and Wilson 2013). Indeed, the more
critical literature argues that policy approaches to
youth employment have disproportionately focused
on the qualities of individuals while giving limited
recognition to the influences of labour market and
occupational structures and the ways (paid and un-
paid) employment opportunities are framed, for ex-
ample, by social class, gender or ethnicity (Allen et al.
2013; Jackson 2014; Moreau and Leathwood 2006;
Schwartz 2013; Yamada 2002). A recent study by
Leonard et al. (2015) demonstrated how unpaid in-
terns in a not-for-profit organization in the UK, ra-
tionalized their participation in unpaid work through
a complex mix of class-conscious political motiva-
tions, career ambitions and lifestyle aims. In partic-
ular, they promoted unpaid work in the not-for-profit
sector as able to deliver desirable social and cul-
tural capital and resources, albeit from differentiated
starting points, through which participants may posi-
tion themselves ahead of their peers (Leonard et al.
2015). Participation in work, even if unpaid, is not
equally available to all (Davis 2010) and organizations

C 2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
9
play a key gatekeeping role in deciding who does
and does not have access to the opportunities
available.
Cautions associated with the acknowledged value
of unpaid work to business are also being raised in
emerging policy. These are based on characteriza-
tions of some unpaid work as ‘wage theft’ (Harthill
2015), and as potentially exploitative or unlikely to
deliver promised learning and employment outcomes.
Indeed, tensions are evident with respect to corpo-
rate social responsibility in the sense that although
organizations may discharge their responsibilities by
providing opportunities for young people to develop
their skills they may also face significant reputational
risks if accusations of exploitation are made publicly.
A recent European Union (2013) Council Recom-
mendation noted that while quality traineeships of-
ten improve labour matching, promote mobility and
contribute to productivity benefits, there were poten-
tial socio-economic costs associated with traineeships
when they replaced regular employment. Similar crit-
icisms have been levelled at unpaid internships with
respect to the potential for displacing paid workers
and eroding the availability of entry level positions.
In response to these concerns about exploitation, an
International Labour Conference (2012) resolution
encouraged collective bargaining around the working
conditions of apprentices and interns.
Concerns have also been raised regarding the qual-
ity and unevenness of experience offered by some un-
paid work opportunities (Bennett 2011; Braun 2012;
Gessner 2015). Swan (2015) argued that the compe-
tition involved in gaining certain internships means
that interns may be required to be compliant, under-
take menial work, display enthusiasm and forego gen-
uine on-the-job training. Despite Kalyuzhny’s (2012,
p. 152) assertion that ‘interns are not generally part
of a disadvantaged or underserved class, and are free
to simply walk away from an arrangement they feel
is exploitative’, the combination of workplace power
dynamics and strong assumptions that participation
will always result in benefits means that in practice,
unpaid workers may be very reluctant to walk away
from poor quality placements (Durack 2013) or to
refuse requests made by employers.
A European Union (2013) Council Recommenda-
tion has asserted that significant productivity gains
are unlikely to result from low-quality traineeships
that have minimal learning content built into them.
Sub-standard learning outcomes may also result from
a range of exploitative practices that have been
uncovered such as unreasonable workloads (Union
10
of Students in Ireland 2014) and situations where
unpaid work participants are asked to undertake un-
ethical tasks (Moorman 2004) or engage in risky
physical activities that may cause injury without
proper precautions (Perlin 2011). The European sur-
vey of traineeships revealed 30% of programmes were
deficient in terms of the conditions of work or the
degree of learning content and that those who had
participated in an inferior traineeship were signifi-
cantly less likely to find employment subsequently
(European Commission 2012). Furthermore, as the
European Commission (2012) has identified, appli-
cants for work experience may have difficulty assess-
ing the quality of placements prior to committing to
them due to information asymmetry. This research
further suggests that in some organizational con-
texts, there is an urgent need for improvement around
the planning, supervision and oversight of unpaid
work.
As the above concerns indicate, there are tensions
associated with promoting participation in unpaid
work, whether as a component of a qualification or
not. The potential exploitation associated with un-
paid work is argued to be both subtle (Gregory 1998)
and hidden. In part, this is a consequence of legal
ambiguities associated with protections for unpaid
workers, including volunteers, in many jurisdictions
(Rubinstein 2006). Participants are unlikely to raise
concerns for fear their professional reputation may be
compromised or their access to employment opportu-
nities will be limited (Bennett 2011; Braun 2013; Fink
2013; Grant Bowman and Lipp 2000; Hacker 2016;
Yamada 2002). The challenge for business and poli-
cymakers is therefore to provide young people with
opportunities for gaining work experience whilst also
safeguarding their employment conditions and pro-
tecting them from exploitation in the early stages of
their careers.
Regulatory and structural responses
to unpaid work
The regulatory challenges of unpaid work participa-
tion are increasingly being acknowledged by policy-
makers around the world (e.g. Council of the Euro-
pean Union 2014; International Labour Organization
2012; Stewart and Owens 2013). Indeed, of all the de-
bates in the unpaid work literature, perhaps the most
developed is the legality or otherwise of unpaid in-
ternships in the USA, where unpaid internships are
prevalent but legally and ethically ambiguous. While

C 2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
D. Grant-Smith and P. McDonald
some sources do not decouple the ethics of unpaid
work from its legal status, the legality of unpaid work,
irrespective of jurisdiction, usually centres on deter-
mining whether the arrangement, in effect, constitutes
an employment relationship.
Unpaid internships fall into what Yamada (2012,
p. 217) has termed ‘a legal void, falling between the
legal protections for workers and legal protections
for students’. The literature focuses primarily on the
under-enforcement of extant legal provisions and the
inadequacies of employment protection laws (e.g.,
Bennett 2011; Braun 2012; Chrysler 2014; Lorenz
and Thomas 2015; Svacina 2012; Yamada 2002).
Here, we briefly review themes relevant to the legality
or otherwise of unpaid work; however, it is important
to note that legal parameters continue to be ambigu-
ous in most jurisdictions, leading to significant uncer-
tainty for organizations, managers, policymakers and
participants alike.
In the USA, the primary mechanism through which
labour is regulated is the Fair Labor Standards Act
1938 (FLSA). Under the FLSA a person who volun-
teers to perform services for a public agency with-
out compensation is explicitly excluded from the def-
inition of employee and is exempt from minimum
wage and overtime requirements (Rubenstein 2006).
There are also statutory exemptions for ‘learners’ and
‘apprentices’ (s. 214). However, given these exemp-
tions do not extend to students undertaking educa-
tionally focused unpaid work, including interns, case
law is left to regulate the distinction between an intern
and an employee (Cameron 2013). The ‘proliferation
of unpaid internships has . . . resulted in litigation
against employers that hosted unpaid internship pro-
grams’ (Bergman 2014, p. 557) including the high
profile Black Swan case which patently reflects the
legal risks to organizations which are associated with
unpaid work that is later deemed to be ‘productive’.
The case saw two unpaid student workers success-
fully receive compensation for their unpaid work on
the basis that the tasks they were performing in an un-
paid capacity were no different to those being under-
taken in a typical employee relationship (for detailed
discussion of this case see Chrysler 2014; Hacker
2016; Jones and Seltzer 2015). Notwithstanding the
reliance on case law, the Department of Labor de-
veloped six criteria for determining whether an indi-
vidual may be engaged without pay with a for-profit
business. These factors include whether the individual
receives training, the extent to which the experience
benefits the participant rather than the organization,
whether the participant displaces an employee, and
Ubiquitous yet Ambiguous
whether the participant is automatically entitled to a
paid role at the conclusion of the period of unpaid
work (for a more detailed discussion of these laws
see Butterworth 2013; Chrysler 2014; Magalidi and
Kolisnyk 2014; Reid 2014). The criteria outlined in
Fact Sheet #71 stipulates that if a business derives
any immediate advantage from the work of an in-
tern, the intern should be paid (Lorenz and Thomas
2015). Thus, according to Bennett (2011), the legal
theory that underlies this approach, and the central
question for employers, is whether an employment
relationship exists; that is, whether the experience is
largely educational in nature or whether the partici-
pant is performing tasks for the benefit of the com-
pany. Legislation specifically addressing unpaid in-
ternships is yet to be developed in the USA (Hacker
2016).
In Canada, the regulation of internships differs
based on provincial standards. Provisions similar to
those in the USA exist in labour statutes such as the
Employment Standards Act 2000 (Ontario), which is
based around three criteria which require that intern-
ships must provide training for certain professions;
that they meet the conditions required for the intern
to be considered a trainee; and that they form part
of a programme approved by an education institution
(Smeltzer 2015). These laws extend protections to
those performing work normally performed by an em-
ployee and trained by the employer for the employer’s
business (Butterworth 2013). Similar provisions also
apply under UK law (Stewart and Owens 2013)
where although most unpaid internships are techni-
cally illegal, effective monitoring and enforcement
has been identified as problematic (Forkert and Lopes
2015).
In Australia, the Fair Work Act 2009 provides that
an individual undertaking a vocational placement or
unpaid placement as a requirement of an education of
training course or government assistance programme
is not an employee and is therefore not entitled to
minimum wages (Owens and Stewart 2016). A re-
lated Factsheet further provides that unpaid work ex-
perience that is not related to a course of study, may
still be lawful if the person on placement is not do-
ing ‘productive’ work; or where the main benefit of
the arrangement is for the person doing the place-
ment; and the person is receiving a meaningful learn-
ing experience, training or skill development (FWO
2014).
Some literature highlights the legal and admin-
istrative responsibilities of education institutions
in relation to the administration of unpaid work

C 2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
11
experience (Cameron and Klopper 2015; Craig and
Wilke 2016). Indeed, given that unpaid work par-
ticipants are not true employees and therefore are
not subject to many of the statutory protections em-
ployers are obliged to provide to employees, educa-
tion institutions appear to be held to higher account
for protecting unpaid work participants and ensur-
ing quality outcomes, than are the organizations in
which the unpaid work is undertaken. For example,
universities may be liable for workplace injuries or
other harm incurred during university sanctioned or
supported learning activities, despite that in reality,
they often have limited control over what happens
to the student at an offsite location (Cameron and
Klopper 2015; Svacina 2012). Higher education in-
stitutions are also increasingly expected to instigate
a range of preventative and responsive risk manage-
ment measures which ensure student well-being and
protect institutional reputation and potential liabil-
ity (Batra et al. 2014; Miller et al. 2002; Saunders
2000; Svacina 2012). Such measures include educat-
ing students about their workplace rights; informing
them about risks they may encounter because they
are not in a formal employment relationship; provid-
ing adequate support during periods of unpaid work;
appropriately supervising and monitoring workplace
experiences; and responding to concerns raised
(Gregory 1998; Poe 2010; Svacina 2012). Ensuring
student well-being also requires screening potential
employers, educating them about their responsibili-
ties to participants and under the law, and discontin-
uing partnerships with employers who have repeated
complaints made against them. However, concerns
have been raised regarding the extent to which aca-
demic or administrative staff may be willing to take
on such roles in a climate in which the needs of the
employer and the ongoing relationship between the
employer and the higher education institution may be
valued above other priorities including ‘learning . . .
social equality or the collective good’ (Johnston 2011,
p. 179; Maurer and Ryan Cole 2012).
Finally, in terms of structural responses to the phe-
nomenon of unpaid work, there has been a concerted
effort by activist groups to raise awareness of the
vulnerability of interns and other unpaid workers via
social media (Hope and Figiel 2012). Such advocacy
groups include Interns Australia, the Geneva Interns
Association, the Canadian Intern Association, and in
the UK, Intern Aware and the Carrot Workers Collec-
tive. Another UK-based social enterprise, Internoc-
racy, works with organizations to structure, design
and accredit their internship programmes.
12
Conceptualizing unpaid work
Synthesizing the key components of the review pre-
sented above, we distinguish between four distinct
types of unpaid work conceptualized along two key
dimensions: the degree of participatory discretion;
and the purpose of the experience. This model has
theoretical implications in terms of providing direc-
tions for future research, as well as practical implica-
tions for managerial decision-making that, depending
on the level of discretion and purpose, as well as the
workplace context itself, will contribute to the de-
velopment of a more consistent set of expectations
between stakeholders and contribute to placements
that are created, structured, supervised and accessed
more effectively.
The first dimension, Participatory Discretion, dis-
tinguishes unpaid work as either mandatory or elec-
tive, from the participant’s perspective. A mandatory
level of discretion refers to instances where partici-
pation in unpaid work is directed by a third party and
where it is non-optional in that receipt of a defined
benefit (e.g. qualification, employment contract, wel-
fare payment) is conditional upon participation. An
elective level of discretion is where participation is
not linked to a formal outcome but, rather, is under-
taken at the behest of the participant.
The second dimension, Purpose of Experience, dis-
tinguishes unpaid work as having either an educa-
tional or productive focus. Unpaid work with an edu-
cational focus is centred on supplementing an educa-
tional experience and the primary beneficiary3 of the
experience is unambiguously the participant. Most
educationally focused programmes are predicated on
developing the ability of participants to demonstrate
the applicability of theory in the workplace and on
the grounds of learning by doing (Lorenz and Thomas
2015). This often requires that the participant demon-
strate their ability to perform relevant tasks oriented
3
The notion of beneficiary is suggested in a general rather
than legal sense. It is recognized that as a legal construct
used to determine the employee status of an unpaid worker,
this notion is ‘unnecessarily subjective’ and has the potential
to be over-individualized, which may lead to unpredictable
and sub-optimal legal decisions and neglects the very pos-
sible scenario that the participant may not benefit from the
experience (Hacker 2016, pp. 79–80). A troubling legal de-
velopment is that some US courts have begun to place an
emphasis on intangible benefits that an unpaid worker may
derive from the experience, rather than educational outcomes,
such as developing work ethic and the opportunity to display
leadership (Malik 2015).

C 2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
D. Grant-Smith and P. McDonald
toward the achievement of specific learning outcomes
that are connected to an explicit educational aim.
However, the agreement of tasks occurs within the
context of a defined learning contract, with perfor-
mance expectations and duration of engagement de-
termined by the educational institution, not the em-
ployer. Hence, unpaid work with an educational focus
is typically based on a tripartite relationship between
the participant, the host organization and an educa-
tional institution (Batra et al. 2014; Elijido-Ten and
Kloot 2015; Miller et al. 2002).
Although skills may be developed through partici-
pation, unpaid work with a productive focus4 is cen-
tred on undertaking work tasks that are directed by
and primarily benefit the employer. In a productive-
focused arrangement there is a limited expectation of
facilitated learning, other than contextual or organi-
zational orientation, and a stronger emphasis on the
delivery of work tasks of direct benefit to the host
organization rather than the development of ‘fungible
and/or transferable’ skills (Gessner 2015, p. 1081).
Hence, unpaid work with a productive focus is based
on the relationship between the participant and the
employer. The onus is on the employer to structure
and supervise the arrangement, even if an educational
institution supports or encourages the practice or if
participation is mandated by the state.
As shown in Figure 1, combined, these dimensions
delineate four distinct forms of unpaid work which
provide conceptual clarity around types of unpaid
work practices observed in the literature.
All quadrants involve workplace learning to some
extent. However, quadrants one and two are con-
cerned with unpaid work that has a primary and ex-
plicit educational mandate and contains elements of
both work and learning for the express purpose of ex-
periential education (Batra et al. 2014; Jordan-Baird
2013). Mandatory Educational unpaid work denotes
unpaid work that is a formal requirement of com-
pleting a qualification from a higher education in-
stitution such as a university or vocational training
organization or high school. A participating business
should therefore expect a reasonable level of input,
cooperation and support from the educational institu-
tion in terms of how the placement is structured and
supervised. Elective educational unpaid work com-
prises unpaid work that is pedagogically oriented and
4
The notion of productive is suggested in a general rather
than legal sense. It is not used in opposition to menial work
(Gessner 2015) but rather intended as an expression of po-
tential value to the organization.
Ubiquitous yet Ambiguous
Figure 1. Four types of unpaid work
often institutionally supported but not mandated to
complete a course of study or qualification. In prac-
tice, and in some disciplines more than others, stu-
dents may participate in both mandatory and elective
episodes of unpaid work. Since it is directly tied to a
course of study, Mandatory Educational unpaid work
enjoys the highest levels of institutional oversight and
support, but the extent of involvement in screening
potential employers and providing academic mentor-
ing is variable (Elijido-ten and Kloot 2015; Miller
et al. 2002). This type of unpaid work has the highest
levels of clarity – for host organizations and partic-
ipants – around duration, performance expectations
and learning outcomes, and provides the most ex-
plicit safeguards in terms of consistency and quality
of experience and risk management.
By contrast Elective Educational unpaid work is
less well defined and may be associated with lower
levels of governance and oversight. Since this form
of unpaid work is discretionary and often undertaken
in addition to mandatory educational unpaid work,
organizations concerned with equity of access should
be aware that students from higher socioeconomic
backgrounds may disproportionately participate be-
cause they have fewer imperatives to undertake paid
work in order to cover living expenses. Possibilities
exist for organizations providing this form of unpaid
work experience to offset some of the costs associ-
ated with the placement for disadvantaged students in
particular, such as the costs of transport, accommoda-
tion, special clothing or other basic expenses. Elective

C 2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
13
educational unpaid work is deserving of further
scrutiny and critique since it occupies a unique lo-
cation at ‘the intersection of labour and educational
practices’ and typically involves participants with the
lowest levels of prior workplace experience (Ip 2015,
p. 502).
Quadrants three and four are concerned with un-
paid work that has an explicit focus on the perfor-
mance of productive work rather than on educational
outcomes. Mandatory Productive unpaid work fo-
cuses on unpaid work imposed by the state, in the case
of work-based welfare, or by employers, prior to en-
tering into a formal paid employment relationship in
the case of work trials and unpaid, on-the-job training.
For example, such training may involve a participant
learning to perform a task or the application of a task
(such as demonstrating the use of a particular coffee
machine) but the work is not linked to a formal edu-
cational programme or related to acquiring a formal
qualification. Some episodes of work trials and un-
paid training may be unlawful in some jurisdictions,
especially if the arrangement essentially constitutes
an employment relationship where productive work
is undertaken.
Elective Productive unpaid work is the most di-
verse, complex and legally ambiguous of the four
quadrants because it encompasses volunteering, un-
paid internships and unpaid professional work. It
therefore poses the highest risks to organizations in
terms of potential litigation by participants who later
claim the work was the same as that being undertaken
in a typical employee relationship, and reputational
risks if claims of exploitation emerge. Volunteering,
although often distinguished by its benefit to society,
is an elective form of unpaid work which results in
the delivery of productive work, including pro bono
work. Unpaid internships undertaken outside an ed-
ucational framework and unpaid professional work
are also forms of Elective Productive unpaid work
because although there may be benefits for the partic-
ipant in terms of enhanced employability, the work is
structured around the delivery of productive work for
an ‘employer’. Although these kinds of unpaid work
are classed as elective due to a higher level of dis-
cretion in participation decisions, the discretionary
nature of participation may be eroded as ‘individ-
ual choices . . . are subsumed by a wider narrative
that emphasises the benefits of participation and the
potential loss in terms of skills, employability and
personal worth of not getting involved’ (Holdsworth
and Brewis 2014, p. 205). This makes the decision to
not participate increasingly difficult.
14
Future research
The literature is seemingly unanimous that ‘the in-
tern economy is here to stay’ (Frederickson 2013,
p. 273). However, despite an emerging international
literature base, there has been insufficient empirical
attention to the prevalence, nature and outcomes of
unpaid work. Most research suggests an expansion of
participation in unpaid work, especially by university
students, but the extent of this expansion in differ-
ent disciplinary fields and industry contexts warrants
further investigation. Even less attention has been af-
forded to the particular unpaid work practices and ex-
periences of international higher education students,
vocational education and training students, secondary
school students, and jobseekers not engaged in edu-
cation or training. There is also an urgent need to
understand the nature and quality of participation by
different cohorts of job seekers. This is particularly
true when we consider the apparent diversity of expe-
riences, the potential for exploitative practices associ-
ated with unregulated unpaid work, and the ambiguity
about what kinds of work experience are lawful, espe-
cially when undertaken outside formal education or
training programmes. Further, we have only forma-
tive knowledge of the extent to which unpaid work is
effective in facilitating employability, that is, in de-
veloping the capacities and skills considered desirable
by employers, or more importantly, in facilitating the
acquisition of paid and secure employment in their
chosen field. A more concerted focus on supply-side
issues is also warranted, such as exploring the motiva-
tions of different types of employers to create unpaid
work opportunities and an examination of how un-
paid work experience is weighed up by employers
in recruitment decisions. Finally, knowledge of how
choices around unpaid work are practised and shaped
is nascent. The notion of choice is often dismissed
as self-evident and simply a response to worsening
labour market conditions rather than being influenced
by a neoliberal discourse which positions job seek-
ers as responsible for their own employment success
(Johnston 2011).
There is a vigorous and ongoing debate regarding
the place of unpaid work in learning programmes,
and especially around whether or not such place-
ments should indeed be paid (Craig and Wilke 2016;
Edwards and Hertel-Fernandez 2010; Jones and
Seltzer 2015; Lawton and Potter 2010; Smith et al.
2015). There are also increasing concerns that as a
result of rising participation rates, unpaid work is be-
coming ‘the entry-level job’, further contributing to

C 2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
D. Grant-Smith and P. McDonald
the precarity of youth employment (Regan Shade and
Jacobson 2015, p. 190). However, there is an emerg-
ing body of work that critically considers the extent
to which participation in unpaid work has been fa-
cilitated, adopted and encouraged. Given the classed,
raced, gendered and geographical inequalities in ac-
cess to unpaid work experience opportunities and
the potential for exploitative and unlawful practices
raised in this review, there is a pressing need to de-
termine the effectiveness and outcomes of different
types of unpaid work to inform educational and indus-
trial relations policy responses that effectively balance
‘worker autonomy and worker protection’ (Magaldi
and Kolisnyk 2014, p. 184). There is also a need to
identify alternatives to unpaid work which provide
opportunities for exposure to the world of work in
an integrated and controlled learning environment,
without being exposed to a world of unpaid work
and potential exploitation, both generally and indi-
vidually (Fredericksen 2013). Alternatives to unpaid
work which have been explored include supervised,
university-based (rather than workplace) learning ac-
tivities which simulate real workplace experiences
and interactions (e.g. Harthill 2014; Llewellynn and
Clarke 2013).
Unpaid work needs to become the focus of more
rigorous and sustained study and there is a need for
large-scale surveys to identify trends in the preva-
lence of different permeations of unpaid work across
different countries, regions, population groups and in-
dustries and importantly, the potential implications of
these for the organizations that choose to host unpaid
workers. There appear to be some significant differ-
ences regarding expectations of unpaid work within
sectors (Hurst and Good 2010) which require further
exploration, as does the troubling rise in participa-
tion rates of experienced professionals undertaking
unpaid internships following job loss or to facilitate
transition between professions (Magaldi and Kolis-
nyk 2014; Reid 2014; Steffen 2010). Finally, there is a
need to research why, albeit that unpaid work appears
to be increasing across disciplines and jurisdictions,
in select professions such as engineering, it remains
uncommon and students are routinely paid while un-
dertaking mandatory work placements as part of their
studies (Smith et al. 2015).
Conclusion
This article has provided an integrated review of
the available literature addressing unpaid work. The
Ubiquitous yet Ambiguous
review explicated the diverse terminology used to de-
scribe unpaid work; its prevalence and characteristics;
the potential value and risks to participants, educa-
tional institutions and employers; and the legal param-
eters of the practice. Employers, education providers,
governments and unpaid workers themselves have
all contributed to the expansion of unpaid work. Al-
though empirical evidence of long-term employment
outcomes attributable to participation in unpaid work
is scant (e.g. Silva et al. 2016) proponents of unpaid
work highlight the benefits of increased workplace ex-
posure in enhancing employability through the devel-
opment of interpersonal, social and professional skills
and networks (Gault et al. 2000, 2010; Knouse and
Fontenot 2008). Critics, however, emphasize a range
of negative outcomes that may be incurred, includ-
ing exploitative and unsafe work practices and social
exclusion (e.g. Allen et al. 2013; Burke and Carton
2013), and the unevenness of unpaid work experi-
ences with respect to the accrual of benefits (Bennett
2011; Braun 2012; Gessner 2015) and challenges to
access by those who are economically disadvantaged.
More broadly, unpaid work has been critiqued as be-
ing a prop for neoliberal market economies where
‘capital finds novel ways to offload its responsibil-
ities for a workforce’ (McRobbie 2002, p. 518) in
terms of training, development and the organization
of work.
The expansion of unpaid work and its ubiquity may
also be problematic in the sense that discretionary par-
ticipation and choice may be eroded as job seekers are
co-opted into participation. Critics suggest the expan-
sion of unpaid work may act to cheapen all labour by
applying downward pressure on the wages and oppor-
tunities of others in the labour market (Siebert and
Wilson 2013; Standing 2011) and create the expecta-
tion of unpaid work as an obligatory rite of passage
to paid employment (Discenna 2016).
For organizations and managers, the resource costs
incurred in designing and supervising meaningful and
lawful work assignments (Maertz et al. 2014) are ac-
companied by potential legal and reputational risks.
However, organizations are also likely to derive sub-
stantial long-term benefits from a more skilled and
experienced pool of job applicants. With that ben-
efit comes a corporate social responsibility to en-
sure that every unpaid work placement, irrespective
of whether it is mandatory or elective, productive or
educational, is appropriately supervised and ensures
participant safety and well-being. Organizations, as
well as higher educational institutions and the state,
have a responsibility to ensure fair access to those

C 2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
15
with fewer supports, especially where unpaid work
is a component of mutual obligation requirements.
Meanwhile, as widely discussed in the literature, the
development of appropriate legal safeguards is strug-
gling to keep pace with changes in the practice of
unpaid work around the world.
The conceptual framework presented is based on
the purpose of and level of participatory discretion
in unpaid work experiences. It goes some way to-
wards disentangling the hitherto ambiguous termi-
nology around different forms of unpaid work which
have tended to focus on the term intern which ‘can be
(and has been) broadly construed to refer to widely
varying kinds of pre-employment activity by almost
any kind of job-seeker’ (Durack 2013, p. 247). This
lack of definitional clarity ultimately impacts the le-
gitimacy of some potentially beneficial opportunities
while obscuring the potential illegality of others. It is
imperative that the educational integrity of Manda-
tory Educational and Elective Educational forms of
unpaid work be monitored and that focus be placed
on ‘advancing educational benefits for students, not
merely offering opportunities for practice’, particu-
larly where course fees are charged concurrent to
the unpaid work experience (Maurer and Ryan Cole
2012, p. 123). For Mandatory and Elective Produc-
tive arrangements, unpaid work should centre on the
participant, although genuine volunteering could be
an exception to this because participants’ may de-
liberately decentre themselves in favour of altruistic
motivations for engaging in unpaid work. Adopted in
practice settings, the framework may help avoid the
deliberate ‘misclassification’ of workers (Hughes and
Lagomarsine 2015) and contribute to shared expecta-
tions about the nature and likely outcomes of unpaid
work.
References
ABC News Online (2015). Unpaid intern admits tent
home was publicity stunt. Available at: http://www.
abc.net.au/news/2015-08-14/unpaid-un-intern-admits-
tent-home-was-publicity-stunt/6698930 (accessed 14
August 2015).
Abeysekera, I. (2006). Issues relating to designing a work-
integrated learning program in an undergraduate account-
ing degree program and its implications for the curriculum.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 7, pp. 7–
15.
Adams, R., Smart, P. and Sigismund Huff, A. (2016). Shades
of grey: guidelines for working with the grey literature
in systematic reviews for management and organizational
16
studies. International Journal of Management Reviews,
online, pp. 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12102
Allen, K., Quinn, J., Hollingworth, S. and Rose, S. (2013).
Becoming employable students and ‘ideal’ creative work-
ers: exclusion and inequality in higher education work
placements. British Journal of Sociology of Education,
34, pp. 431–452.
Arcidiacono, D. (2015). Between training and work expe-
rience: the effectiveness of post-graduate internships and
placement services. E-Journal of International and Com-
parative Labour Studies, 4, pp. 44–75.
Atkinson, G. (2016). Work-based Learning and Work-
integrated Learning: Fostering Engagement with Employ-
ers. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education
and Training.
Batra, M., Scudder, B. and Piper, J. (2014). Legal dimensions
of business school internships. Competition Forum, 12,
pp. 261–270.
Bennett, A.M. (2011). Unpaid internships and the Depart-
ment of Labor: the impact of underenforcement of the
Fair Labor Standards Act on equal opportunity. University
of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and
Class, 11, pp. 293–313.
Bergman, G.S. (2014). Unpaid internships: a tale of legal
dissonance. Rutgers Journal of Law and Public Policy, 11,
pp. 551–589.
Bessant, J. (2000). Civil conscription or reciprocal obligation:
the ethics of work-for-the-dole. The Australian Journal of
Social Issues, 35, pp. 15–35.
Borland, J. and Tseng, Y. (2011). Does ‘work for the dole’
work? An Australian perspective on work experience pro-
grams. Applied Economics, 43, pp. 4353–4368.
Boulton, C. (2015). Under the cloak of whiteness: a circuit of
culture analysis of opportunity hoarding and colour-blind
racism inside US advertising internship programs. tripleC,
13, pp. 390–403.
Braun, S. (2012). The Obama ‘crackdown’: another failed
attempt to regulate the exploitation of unpaid internships.
South Western Law Review, 41, 281–307.
Brown, P. and Hesketh, A. (2004). The mismanagement of
talent: Employability and jobs in the knowledge economy.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Burke, D. and Carton, R. (2013). The pedagogical, legal and
ethical implications of unpaid internships. Journal of Legal
Studies Education, 30, pp. 99–130.
Butterworth, S. (2013). Fair work ombudsman issues ma-
jor report on unpaid work in Australia. Employment Law
Bulletin, 18, pp. 164–165.
Cameron, C. (2013). The vulnerable worker? A labour
law challenge for WIL and work experience. Asia Pa-
cific Journal of Cooperative Education, 14, pp. 135–
140.
Cameron, C. and Klopper, C. (2015) University lawyers: a
study of legal risk, risk management and role in work inte-
grated learning programmes. Journal of Higher Education
Policy and Management, 37, pp. 344–360.

C 2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
D. Grant-Smith and P. McDonald
Cannon, J.A. and Arnold, M.J. (1998). Student expectations
of collegiate internship programs in business: a 10-year
update. Journal of Education for Business, 73, pp. 202–
204.
Carnevale, A. and Hanson, A. (2015). Learn and earn: career
pathways for youth in the 21st century. E-Journal of Inter-
national and Comparative Labour Studies, 4, pp. 76–89.
Carrot Workers Collective (2011) Surviving Internships: A
Counter Guide to Free Labour in the Arts. Available at:
https://carrotworkers.wordpress.com/counter-internship-
guide/ (accessed 1 May 2016).
Chrysler, A.G. (2014). All work, no pay: the crucial need for
the Supreme Court to review unpaid internship classifica-
tions under the Fair Labour Standards Act. Michigan State
Law Review, 5, pp. 1561–1607.
Clearly, M., Flynn, R., Thomasson, S., Alexander, R. and
McDonald, B. (2007). Graduate Employability Skills: Re-
port prepared for the Business, Industry and Higher Ed-
ucation Collaboration Council. Canberra: Department of
Education, Science and Training.
Coiacetto, E. (2004). The value of a structured planning
practicum program. Australian Planner, 41, pp. 74–82.
Cook, S.J., Stokes, A. and Parker, R.S. (2015). A 20-year ex-
amination of the perceptions of business school interns: a
longitudinal case study. Journal of Education for Business,
90, pp. 103–110.
Cooper, L., Orrell, J. and Bowden, M. (2010). Work Inte-
grated Learning: A Guide to Effective Practice. Oxford:
Routledge.
Corrigan, T.F. (2015). Media and cultural industries in-
ternships: a thematic review and digital labour parallels.
tripleC, 13, pp. 336–350.
Council of the European Union (2014). Council Rec-
ommendation on a Quality Framework for Trainee-
ships. Available at: www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/
cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/lsa/141424.pdf (accessed 10
March 2016).
Craig, T.R. and Wilke, T.A. (2016). Perceptions
and practices: employers, educators, and students
on GIS internships. Transactions in GIS, online,
https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.12201.
Curiale, J. (2010). America’s new glass ceiling: unpaid intern-
ships, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the urgent need
for change. Hastings Law Journal, 61, pp. 1531–1560.
Dar, A. (2015). Work Experience Schemes. Brief Pa-
per 06249. House of Commons Library. Avail-
able at: www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06249.pdf
(accessed 1 March 2016).
Davis, R. (2010). House of poshos. New states-
man. Available at: http://www.newstatesman.com/society/
2010/02/minimum-wage-interns-mps (accessed 18 Febru-
ary 2016).
Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and In-
clusion (DGESAI) (2013). The Experience of Traineeships
in the EU, Flash Eurobarometer 378. Brussels: European
Commission.
Ubiquitous yet Ambiguous
Discenna, T.A. (2016). The discourses of free labour:
career management, employability, and the unpaid
intern. Western Journal of Communication, online,
https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2016.1162323.
Durack, K. (2013). Sweating employment: ethical and legal
issues with unpaid student internships. College Composi-
tion and Communication, 65, pp. 245–272.
Edwards, K.A. and Hertel-Fernandez, A. (2010). Paving the
Way through Paid Internships: A Proposal to Expand Ed-
ucational and Economic Opportunities for Low-Income
College Students. New York, NY: Economic Policy Insti-
tute and Dēmos.
Elijido-Ten, E. and Kloot, L. (2015). Experiential learning in
accounting work-integrated learning: a three-way partner-
ship. Education + Training, 57, pp. 204–218.
European Commission. (2012). Towards a Quality Frame-
work on Traineeships: Second-Stage Consultation of the
Social Partners at European Level under Article 154
TFEU. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/
regdoc/rep/1/2012/EN/1-2012-728-EN-F1-1.pdf
(accessed 5 December 2015).
European Union (2013). Proposal for a council recom-
mendation on a quality framework for traineeships.
COM/2013/0857. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52013PC0857
Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) (2014). Unpaid Work
Factsheet, 3. Available at: https://www.fairwork.gov.au/
how-we-will-help/templates-and-guides/fact-sheets/
unpaid-work/unpaid-work (accessed 1 March 2016).
Felstead, A., Gallie, D., Green, F. and Zhou, Y. (2007). Skills
at Work 1986–2006. SKOPE, Universities of Oxford and
Warwick.
Figiel, J. (2013). Work experience without qualities?
Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organizations, 13, pp.
33–52.
Fink, E.M. (2013). No money, mo’ problems: why unpaid
law firm internships are illegal and unethical. University
of San Francisco Law Review, 47, pp. 435–458.
Forkert, L. and Lopes, A. (2015) Unwaged posts in UK
universities: controversies and campaigns. tripleC, 13,
pp. 534–552.
Fredericksen, L. (2013) Falling through the cracks of Title
VII: the plight of the unpaid intern. Georgia Mason Law
Review, 21, pp. 245–273.
Frenette, A. (2013). Making the intern economy. Work and
Occupations, 40, pp. 364–397.
Frenette, A. (2015). From apprenticeship to internship: the
social and legal antecedents of the intern economy. tripleC,
13, pp. 1–10.
Fuller, A. and Unwin, L. (Eds.) (2013). Contemporary ap-
prenticeship. International perspecives on an evolving
model of learning. Routledge: Milton Park, UK.
Gardner, P. (2011). The Debate over Unpaid College Intern-
ships. Austin, TX: Intern Bridge.
Gardner, P. (2012) Reaction on Campus to the Unpaid In-
ternship Controversy. Austin, TX: Intern Bridge.

C 2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
17
Gault, J., Leach, E. and Duey, M. (2010). Effects of business
internships on job marketability: the employers’ perspec-
tive. Education + Training, 52, pp. 76–88.
Gault, J., Redington, J. and Schlager, T. (2000). Undergrad-
uate business internships and career success: are they
related? Journal of Marketing Education, 22, pp. 45–
53.
Gessner, J. (2015). How railroad brakemen derailed unpaid
interns: the need for a revised framework to determine
FLSA coverage for unpaid interns. Indiana Law Review,
48, pp. 1053–1088.
Gordon, J. (2015). Global Labour Recruitment in a Sup-
ply Chain Context. ILO Fair Recruitment Initiative Series,
Paper No 1, ILO, Geneva.
Graduate Prospects. (2011). Real Prospects 2011: The Real-
ity of UK Graduate Employment. Birmingham: Prospects
House. Available at: http://www.hecsu.ac.uk/assets/
assets/documents/research_reports/Real_Prospects_
2011_EMPLOYER_REPORT.pdf (accessed 1 March
2016).
Graeber, D. (2011). Value, politics and democracy in
the United States. Current Sociology, 59, pp. 186–
199.
Grant-Smith, D. and McDonald, P. (2016). The trend toward
pre-graduation professional work experience for Aus-
tralian young planners: essential experience or essentially
exploitation. Australian Planner, 53, pp. 65–72.
Grant Bowman, C. and Lipp, M. (2000). Legal limbo of the
student intern: the responsibility of colleges and universi-
ties to protect student interns against sexual harassment.
Harvard Women’s Law Journal, 23, pp. 95–131.
Gregory, D. (1998). The problematic employment dynamics
of student internships. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics
and Public Policy, 12, pp. 227–264.
Hacker, M.A. (2016). Permitted to suffer for experience: sec-
ond Circuit uses ‘primary beneficiary’ test to determine
whether unpaid inters are employees under the FLSA in
Glatt v. Searchlight Pictures, Inc. Boston College Law Re-
view, 57, pp. 67–83.
Hadjivassiliou, K., Carta, E., Higgins, T., Rickard, C.,
Ter-Minassian, S., Pesce, F., Samek, M., Barbieri,
D., Broglio, D., Naaf, S., Grollmann, P., Weigel, T.,
Wolfgarten, T. and Hensen, K. (2012). Study on a Compre-
hensive Overview on Traineeship Arrangements in Mem-
ber States. Final Synthesis Report. Luxembourg: Publica-
tions Office of the European Union.
Hall, R. (2011). Skills and skill formation in Australian work-
places: beyond the war for talent? In Baird, M., Hancock,
K. and Isaac, J. (eds), Work and Employment Relations:
An Era of Change. Sydney: Federation Press, pp. 78–
92.
Harthill, S. (2014). Shining the spotlight on unpaid law-
student workers. Vermont Law Review, 38, pp. 555–
624.
Heckman, J., Lalone, R. and Smith, J. (1999). The economics
and econometrics of active labour market programs. In
18
Ashenfelter, O. and Card, D. (eds), Handbook of Labour
Economics, Vol 3A. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 1865–2097.
Holdsworth, C. and Brewis, G. (2014). Volunteering, choice
and control: a case study of high education student volun-
teering. Journal of Youth Studies, 17, pp. 204–219.
Home Office (2005). Volunteering Compact Code of Good
Practice. London: Home Office.
Hope, S. and Figiel, J. (2012). Intern Culture: A Liter-
ature Review of Internship Reports, Guidelines and
Toolkits from 2009–2011. London: Artquest. Available
at: http://www.artquest.org.uk/uploads/recovered_files/
Intern%20Culture%20report.pdf (accessed 1 March
2016).
Hughes, S. and Lagomarsine, J. (2015). The misfortune of
the unpaid intern. Hofstra Labor and Law Journal, 32,
pp. 409–444.
Hurst, J. and Good, L. (2010). A 20-year evolution of in-
ternships: implications for retail interns, employers and
educators. The International Review of Retail, Distribu-
tion and Consumer Research, 20, pp. 175–186.
International Labour Organization (2012). Internships:
Head Start or Labour Trap? Available at: www.ilo.
org/global/about-theilo/newsroom/features/WCMS_
187693/lang-en/index.htm (accessed 22 August 2015).
International Labour Conference (2012). Resolution
Concerning the Youth Employment Crisis: A Call for
Action. Available at: www.ilo.org/ilc/ILCSessions/
101stSession/texts-adopted/WCMS_185950/
lang-en/index.htm (accessed 25 July 2015).
Interns Australia (2015). 2015 Annual Survey. Available at:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/internsaustralia/
pages/136/attachments/original/1448771977/Interns_
Australia_2015_Annual_Survey.pdf?1448771977
(accessed 1 November 2015).
Ip, A. (2015). Negotiating educated subjectivity: intern
labour and higher education in Hong Kong. tripleC, 13,
pp. 501–507.
Jackson, D. (2014). Factors influencing job attainment in re-
cent Bachelor graduates: evidence from Australia. Higher
Education, 68, pp. 135–153.
Johnston, J. (2011). Interrogating the goals of work-
integrated learning: neoliberal agendas and critical ped-
agogy. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 12,
pp. 175–182.
Jones, M. and Seltzer, J. (2015). Should criminal justice in-
terns be paid? The Black Swan case and beyond. Journal
of Criminal Justice Education, 26, pp. 185–210.
Jordan-Baird, C. (2013). Experience Essential, Remunera-
tion: None. The Legal Status of Internships. Melbourne:
Centre for Employment and Labour Relations Law.
Kalyuzhny, J.J. (2012). Cultivating the next generation: why
farming internships should be legal. San Joaquim Agricul-
tural Law Review, 21, pp. 131–154.
Keep, E. and James, S. (2012). A Bermuda triangle of policy?
Bad jobs, skills policy and incentives to learn at the bottom
end of the labour market, Journal of Education Policy, 27,
pp. 211–230.

C 2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
D. Grant-Smith and P. McDonald
King, R. (2008) Addressing the Supply and Quality of
Australian Engineering Graduates for the 21st Century.
Epping: Australian Council of Engineering Deans.
Knouse, S. and Fontenot, G. (2008). Benefits of the business
college internship: a research review. Journal of Employ-
ment Counselling, 45, pp. 61–66.
Kramer, M. and Usher, A. (2011). Work-integrated Learn-
ing and Career-Ready Students: Examining the Evidence.
Toronto: Higher Education Strategy Associates.
Lawton, K. and Potter, D. (2010). Why Interns Need a Fair
Wage. London: The Institute for Public Policy.
Leonard, P., Halford, S. and Bruce, K. (2015). ‘The
new degree?’ Constructing internships in the third
sector. Sociology, online, pp. 1–17, https://doi.org/
10.1177/0038038515574456.
Llewellynn, A. and Clarke, D. (2013). How are CSU adver-
tising students being prepared to be industry ready grad-
uates? Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate
Employability, 4, pp. 73–84.
Lorenz, M. and Thomas, W.L. (2015). Redefining the
internship in the face of legal realities and eco-
nomic valuations. Cornell HR Review. Available at:
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/chrr/75/ (accessed 1
March 2016).
Low Pay Commission (2013). National Minimum Wage
Report. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/226822/
National_minimum_wage_Low_Pay_Commission_
report_2013.pdf (accessed 1 March 2016).
Maertz, C.P, Jr., Stoeberl, P.A. and Marks, J. (2014). Build-
ing successful internships: lessons from the research for
interns, schools, and employers. Career Development In-
ternational, 19, pp. 123–142.
Magaldi, J.A. and Kolisnyk, O. (2014). The unpaid intern-
ship: a stepping stone to a successful career or the stum-
bling block of an illegal enterprise? Finding the right bal-
ance between worker autonomy and worker protection.
Nevada Law Journal, 14, pp. 184–209.
Malik, M.M. (2015). The legal void of unpaid internships:
navigating the legality of internships in the face of conflict-
ing tests interpreting the FLSA. Connecticut Law Review,
47, pp. 1183–1214.
Maurer, N.M. and Ryan Cole, L. (2012). Design, teach and
manage: ensuring educational integrity in field placement
courses. Clinical Law Review, 19, pp. 115–161.
McLennan, B. and Keating, S. (2008). Work-integrated
Learning (WIL) in Australian Universities: The Chal-
lenges of Mainstreaming WIL. Paper presented at the Ca-
reer Development Learning – Maximising the Contribu-
tion of Work Integrated Learning to the Student Expe-
rience NAGCAS Symposium, June, Melbourne. Avail-
able at: https://tls.vu.edu.au/vucollege/LiWC/resources/
NAGCASpaper-final10June08.pdf (accessed 1 March
2016).
McRobbie, A. (2002). Clubs to companies: notes on the de-
cline of political culture in speeded up creative worlds.
Cultural Studies, 16, pp. 516–531.
Ubiquitous yet Ambiguous
Milburn, A. (2009). Unleashing Aspiration: The Final Report
of the Panel on Fair Access to the Professions. London:
UK Cabinet Office.
Miller, L.K., Anderson, P.M. and Ayres, T.D. (2002).
The internship agreement recommendations and reali-
ties. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 12, pp. 37–
60.
Moorman, A.M. (2004). Legal issues and the supervised in-
ternship relationship: who is responsible for what? Journal
of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 75, pp. 19–
24.
Moreau, M. and Leathwood, C. (2006). Graduates’ employ-
ment and the discourse of employability. Journal of Edu-
cation and Work, 19, pp. 305–324.
National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE)
(2016). Internship and Co-op Survey. Bethlehem PA:
NACE.
National Council for Vocational Education Research
(NCVER) (2016). VET Glossary – ‘Traineeship’. Avail-
able at: http://www.voced.edu.au/content/gloassary-term-
traineeship (accessed 5 January 2016).
Nunley, J., Pugh, A., Romero, N. and Seals, R. (2014). Col-
lege Major, Internship Experience and Employment Op-
portunities: Estimates from a Resume Audit. Auburn Uni-
versity Department of Economics Working Paper Series.
O’Connor, H. and Bodicoat, M. (2016). Exploita-
tion or opportunity? Student perceptions of intern-
ships in enhancing employability skills. British Jour-
nal of Sociology of Education, online, https://doi.org/
10.1080/01425692.2015.1113855.
Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2012). Gradu-
ates in the Labour Market – 2012. Available at:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_259049.pdf (ac-
cessed 1 March 2016).
Oliver, D., McDonald, P., Stewart, A., and Hewitt, A. (2016).
Unpaid Work Experience in Australia: Prevalence, Na-
ture, Impact. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of
Employment.
Orrell, J. (2011). Good Practice Report: Work-Integrated
Learning. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching
Council.
Owens, R. and Stewart, A. (2016). Regulating for de-
cent work experience: meeting the challenge of the
rise of the intern. International Labour Review, online,
https://doi.org/10.1111/ilr.12013/epdf.
Paine, A.E., McKay, S., and Moro, D. (2013). Does volun-
teering improve employability? Insights from the British
Household Panel Survey and beyond. Voluntary Sector
Review, 4, pp. 355–376.
Parliament of New South Wales (Parliament of NSW).
(2014). Volunteering and Unpaid Work Placements among
Children and Young People in New South Wales. Sydney:
Committee on Children and Young People.
Perlin, R. (2011). Intern Nation: How to Earn Nothing and
Learn Little in the Brave New Economy. London: Verso.

C 2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
19
Peters, J., Sattler, P. and Kelland, J. (2014). Work-integrated
Learning in Ontario’s Postsecondary Sector: The Path-
ways of Recent College and University Graduates.
Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.
Available at: http://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv:68693
(accessed 1 March 2016).
PhillipsKPA (2014). Engaging Employers in Work Integrated
Learning: Current State and Future Priorities. Canberra:
Department of Industry.
Poe, F. (2010). ‘Don’t forget to breathe. Very important.’:
an overview of unpaid internships and the entertainment
industry. Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal, 21,
pp. 39–43.
Regan Shade, L. and Jacobson, J. (2015). Hungry for the job:
gender, unpaid internships, and the creative industries. The
Sociological Review, 63, pp. 188–205.
Reid, P.L. (2014). Fact Sheet #71: shortchanging the un-
paid academic intern. Florida Law Review, 66, pp. 1375–
1402.
Rickhuss, T. (2015). Investigating the cost of unpaid intern-
ships for the UK Advertising Industry. Journal of Promo-
tional Communications, 3, pp. 363–380.
Rothman, M. (2007) Lesson learned: advice to employ-
ers from interns. Journal of Education for Business, 82,
pp. 140–144.
Rubinstein, M.H. (2006). Our nation’s forgotten workers: the
unprotected volunteers. University of Pennsylvania Jour-
nal of Labor and Employment Law, 9, pp. 147–184.
Sanahuja Velez, G. and Ribes Giner, G. (2015). Effects of
business internships on students, employers and higher ed-
ucation institutions: a systematic review. Journal of Em-
ployment Counselling, 52, pp. 121–130.
Saunders, J.D. (2000). Paralegal internships: assessing the
risks and responsibilities. Paralegal Education and Prac-
tice, 16, pp. 105–123.
Schwartz, M. (2013). Opportunity costs: the true price of
internship. Dissent, 60, pp. 41–45.
Siebert, S. and Wilson, F. (2013). All work and no pay: con-
sequences of unpaid work in the creative industries. Work,
Employment and Society, 27, pp. 711–721.
Silva, P., Lopes, B., Costa, M., Melo, A.I., Paiva
Dias, G., Brilo, E. and Sebra, D. (2016). The
million-dollar question: can internships boost employ-
ment? Studies in Higher Education, online, pp. 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1144181
Smeltzer, S. (2015). Interrogating course-related public in-
terest internships in communications. tripleC, 13, pp. 509–
525.
Smith, S., Smith, C., and Caddell, M. (2015). Can pay, should
pay? Exploring employer and student perceptions of paid
and unpaid placements. Active Learning in Higher Edu-
cation, 16, pp. 149–164.
Smith, V. (2010). Enhancing employability: human, cultural,
and social capital in an era of turbulent unpredictability.
Human Relations, 63, pp. 279–303.
20
Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission (2014). State
of the Nation 2014: Social Mobility and Child Poverty in
Great Britain. London: HMSO.
Standing, G. (2011). The Precariat: The New Dangerous
Class. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Steffen, H. (2010). Student internships and the privilege
to work. Cultural Logic: Culture and Crisis. Available
at: http://clogic.eserver.org/2010/Steffen.pdf (accessed 1
March 2016).
Stewart, A. and Owens, R. (2013). Experience or Exploita-
tion? The Nature, Prevalence and Regulation of Unpaid
Work Experience, Internships and Trial Periods in Aus-
tralia. Melbourne: Fair Work Ombudsman.
Sukarieh, M. and Tannock, S. (2015). The educa-
tion penalty: schooling, learning and the diminish-
ment of wages, working conditions and worker power.
British Journal of Sociology of Education, online,
https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2015.1093408.
Sutton Trust (2014). Research Brief: Internship or Inden-
ture? Available at: www.suttontrust.com/researcharchive/
internships/ (accessed 2 November 2015).
Svacina, L.S. (2012). A review of research on unpaid in-
ternship legal issues: implications for career services pro-
fessionals. Journal of Cooperative Education and Intern-
ships, 46, pp. 77–87.
Swan, E. (2015). The internship class: subjectivity and in-
equalities – gender, race and class. In Broadbridge, A.M.
and Fielden, S.L. (eds), Handbook of Gendered Careers
in Management: Getting in, Getting on, Getting out. Chel-
tenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 30–43.
Tholen, G., Brown, P., Power, S., and Allouch, A., (2013). The
role of networks and connections in elites’ labour market
entrance. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility,
34, pp. 142–154.

C 2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
D. Grant-Smith and P. McDonald
Tomlinson, M. (2008). The degree is not enough: students’
perceptions of the role of higher education credentials for
graduate work and employability. British Journal of the
Sociology of Education, 29, pp. 49–61.
Torraco, R. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews:
guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development
Review, 4, pp. 356–367.
Union of Students in Ireland. (2014). Campaign Case Stud-
ies. Available at: http://nurses.usi.ie/cases_old/ (accessed
1 March 2016).
United States Department of Labour (2010). Fact Sheet
#71: Internship Programs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act. Available at: http://www.huntonfiles.com/files/
webupload/HELP_Internship_Programs_Under_FLSA.
PDF
Volunteering Australia (2007). Designing Volunteer Roles
and Position Descriptions: Toolkit. Melbourne: Volunteer-
ing Australia.
Volunteering Australia (2016). State of Volunteering in Aus-
tralia: Help Create Happiness. Canberra: Volunteering
Australia.
Volunteering England (2012). A guide to avoiding job sub-
stitution. Available at: http://www.resettlement.eu/sites/
icmc.tttp.eu/files/VAS%20Guide%20to%20avoiding%
20job%20substitution.pdf (accessed 1 March 2016).
Volunteering Victoria (2015). Volunteering Victoria po-
sition statement about Work for the Dole. Available
at: http://volunteeringvictoria.org.au/work-dole-scheme-
position-statement/ (accessed 5 February 2015).
Whittemore, R. and Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review:
updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52,
pp. 546–553.
Yamada, D.C. (2002). The employment law rights of student
interns. Connecticut Law Review, 35, pp. 215–257.