Sustainability 13 00271

sustainability
Article
Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Romanian Labor
Market
Carmen Valentina Radulescu 1 , Georgiana-Raluca Ladaru 1 , Sorin Burlacu 2 , Florentina Constantin 1 ,
Corina Ioanăs, 3 and Ionut Laurentiu Petre 4, *
1 The Department of Agrifood and Environmental Economics, Bucharest University of Economic Studies,
010374 Bucharest, Romania; carmen-valentina.radulescu@eam.ase.ro (C.V.R.);
raluca.ladaru@eam.ase.ro (G.-R.L.); florentina.constantin@eam.ase.ro (F.C.)
2 The Department of Public Administration and Management, Bucharest University of Economic Studies,
010374 Bucharest, Romania; sburlacu@amp.ase.ro
3 The Department of Accounting and Audit, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 010374 Bucharest,
Romania; corina.ioanas@cig.ase.ro
4 Doctoral School of Economics II, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 010374 Bucharest, Romania
* Correspondence: laurentiu.petre@eam.ase.ro; Tel.: +40-727-571-841
Abstract: The present research aims to establish the impact that the current crisis situation the planet
is facing, namely the COVID-19 pandemic, has had so far on the Romanian labor force market.
In this context, given the lack of information and information regarding this pandemic and its effects,
the administration of a questionnaire among the population was considered to identify the research
results. The method of semantic differential and the method of ordering the ranks were used for
the interpretation of the results. With the help of this questionnaire, it will be possible to answer
the question of the research in this study: What are the main effects of the COVID-19 pandemic
on the Romanian labor market? The main results showed that the COVID-19 pandemic affected
the Romanian workforce; the respondents of the applied questionnaire claimed that they obtained

better results and maintained a similar income, but the health crisis also influenced the mentality of
employees, with respondents stating that in the event of changing jobs, they would consider it very
Citation: Radulescu, C.V.; Ladaru,
important for the new employer to ensure the conditions for preventing and combating COVID-19, as
G.-R.; Burlacu, S.; Constantin, F.;
Ioanăs, , C.; Petre, I.L. Impact of the
well as complex health insurance. However, analyzing at the macroeconomic level, it was found that
COVID-19 Pandemic on the the COVID-19 pandemic induced an increase in the number of unemployed people in the Romanian
Romanian Labor Market. labor market.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 271.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010271 Keywords: labor market; COVID-19 pandemic; Romanian labor market
Received: 26 November 2020

Accepted: 24 December 2020
Published: 30 December 2020 1. Introduction
For almost a year since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (12 December 2019) in
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu-
downtown Wuhan, China, it has spread and now affects all states of the world. The World
tral with regard to jurisdictional clai-
Health Organization said the coronavirus outbreak became a pandemic three months after
ms in published maps and institutio-
nal affiliations.
its onset on 11 March 2020 [1]. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic around the world
were not as severe from a health point of view as it had been predicted at the beginning,
but they were severe from an economic point of view. The limitation of the health effects
can also be explained by the radical economic measures applied by the governments of
Copyright: © 2020 by the authors. Li- the countries to eradicate this pandemic. The importance of studying the effects of the
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. pandemic on the labor market lies precisely in these imposed measures, with a major
This article is an open access article impact especially in developing countries, where the effects of economic crises are felt
distributed under the terms and con- more strongly and over a longer period of time. This paper fills the gap by bringing new
ditions of the Creative Commons At- empirical evidences on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon a developing country,
tribution (CC BY) license (https://
using survey analysis. Romania’s case is discussed as an example of how government
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
measures influence the labor market.
4.0/).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 271. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010271 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 271 2 of 23
It is generally appreciated that, depending on the extent to which differences and

stratifications of labor market integration are explained, with respect to a particular country
as well as the level of integration of neighboring localities, it describes how successful
policies and strategies are successful [2].
We consider that Romania is a special country for the subject of the labor market,
both from the perspective of migration and the discrepancies between salaries in various
sectors of activity, so it is worth conducting an in-depth analysis. In Romania, there are
divided opinions among the population regarding the measures taken by the government
during the pandemic, some agreeing with them and others opposing.
There are two main aspects regarding the labor market in Romania, but also outside
it, which people support, namely: Romania is the country with the most emigrants in the
European Union, with over 3 million Romanians living in the 27 member countries in
2019, and on the other hand, contrary to this statistical record, the unemployment rate in
Romania was lower and lower, reaching 2.9%, before the health crisis.
Before the health crisis, in Romania, given the decrease of the population registered
in this country, which directly contributes to the decrease of the labor resource, as well as
to its aging, there was the problem of insufficient labor in the national economies, and of
these, agriculture was the most affected, with farmers complaining about the lack of labor.
The Romanian College of Physicians shows that in Romania, the COVID-19 epidemic
evolved in the context of the epidemic in Western Europe, having common aspects, but also
some peculiarities. At time of the appearance of the first case in Romania, there were
already cases of COVID-19 in Western Europe: Italy (323 cases), France (14 cases), Germany
(18 cases), Great Britain (13 cases), Spain (7 cases). During that period, hundreds of
thousands of Romanians began to return to the country from areas where the epidemic
was ongoing. Some of them were infected with SARS-CoV-2. Between 26 February 2020–18
March 2020, out of the 261 cases diagnosed in Romania, 127 (49%) were import cases: from
Italy (66%), France, Germany and Spain (5%), Great Britain, Austria (by 4%) and 130 (49.1%)
direct or indirect contacts of import cases. The percentage decreased gradually, reaching
13% at the end of March.
The introduction of the state of emergency on 15 March 2020 contributed greatly to
limiting the spread of SARS-Cov-2 infection among the population. However, this effect
was achieved with a series of drastic restrictions on the labor market. Thus, economic
analysts claim that large companies, employees and employers have been severely affected
by the global coronavirus pandemic. They claim that according to the National Institute of
Statistics, the hourly cost of labor in the second quarter of this year recorded a growth rate
of 11.47% compared to the previous quarter and 16.11% compared to the same quarter of
the previous year, mainly determined by the interruption of the activity in the context of
COVID-19.
2. Literature Review
In Romania, there are increasingly difficult problems for the new generation in finding
their profession or trade and, implicitly, a job. These problems come against the background
of some professions in dynamics, their appearance, the disappearance of those outdated
by modern technology, as well as the concentration of some professions, in the current
conditions on this market. The phenomenon of migration as well as the decrease of the
population, mentioned in the introduction are also confirmed by specialized studies where
it is stated that both the employed population and the active population are influenced by
the decreasing labor resource.
Between 2012 and 2016, the active population decreased yearly [3], which once again
strengthens the prepandemic labor market problem.
We agree that the great historical pandemics of the last millennium have usually
been associated with the subsequent low return on assets [4–7]. Studies regarding other
pandemics have been conducted. For example, the HIV/AIDS pandemic argues that such
a global crisis decreases labor demand through three effects: declines in overall growth,
sharp declines in sectors that provide investment goods, in particular the construction
and equipment sectors, and the effects of disease-induced morbidity on unskilled and
semi-skilled workers who tend to reduce production relatively more in sectors that use
intensive unskilled and semi-skilled labor, with other negative employment implications for
work [8]. However, there are authors who consider that through the COVID-19 pandemic,
we are facing a common economic and health crisis of unprecedented proportions in recent
history [9]. Regarding women’s labor force participation, there are studies that conclude
that it tends to increase with economic development (although the relationship is not direct
or coherent at the country level) so that in the case of recessions, women’s involvement
could decrease [10–12].
Perhaps one of the major challenges in the labor market during the COVID-19 pan-
demic is putting health professionals around the world in an unprecedented situation [7],
having to make impossible decisions and work under extreme pressure [13], decisions that
often consider allocating limited resources, balancing their own needs (including physical
and mental health) [14] that can lead in some situations to mental health degeneration [15].
A major impact on the formation of the labor market is the differentiation of the
level of labor productivity with a direct impact on wages. The motivation of workers from
different sectors of the economy can determine the orientation toward more prestigious and
better paid industries. However, increasing labor productivity, mechanization, automation
and digitization of the economy were considered factors that contribute to the reduction of
labor. The COVID-19 pandemic paradoxically leads to the accentuation of these factors,
being able to be a source of economic recovery [16].
Another area strongly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic is education. Specialist
studies show that higher levels of education can at least partially compensate for the
negative effects of economic crises [17].
Studies conducted immediately after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic presented
preliminary indicators with catastrophic declines in employment [18]. Surveys provided
further evidence of declining employment and indicated a 20 million drop in the number
of employed workers. The same studies showed that, surprisingly, there was a much
less proportional increase in unemployment, which could indicate that most of these new
unemployed workers are not looking for a new job [19,20]. However, the wave of early
retirements they have documented suggested that permanent changes may already be
taking place [21].
Regarding the long-term economic consequences of pandemics, some studies show
that capital is destroyed in wars, but not in pandemics [22]; pandemics can, in turn, induce
a relative labor shortage and/or a shift to greater precautionary savings [23], although this
would lead to the idea that these consequences are consistent with the neoclassical growth
model [7].
Moreover, researchers agree that traditional statistical models for measuring unem-
ployment are no longer useful during pandemics where rates are evolving rapidly [24],
within weeks and not in the order of months [25]. Tracking the effects of the COVID-19 pan-
demic on the labor market with weekly payroll series based on microdata (data available
in real time) allowed tracking of both aggregate and industry effects [26]. Data on the US
economy show that the cumulative job losses paid by April 4 are estimated at 18 million,
and for the two weeks between March 14 and 28, about 13 million paid jobs were lost [27].
Of course, measuring the impact of the pandemic on the labor market must be done
in the context of assessing the economic impact of “social distancing” measures taken to
stop the spread of COVID-19, which raises a fundamental question about the modern
economy, namely: “How many jobs can be fulfilled at home?”. Those who tried to answer
this question found that 37 percent of jobs in the United States can be done entirely at
home, with significant variations between cities and industries, and these jobs are usually
paid more than those that cannot be done from home and accounts for 46% of all US
wages. The same study shows that the application of professional classification in 85 other
countries has led to the conclusion that lower-income economies have a lower share of jobs
that can be done at home. [28].
With initial massive job losses caused by the economic response to the COVID-19
virus, it is estimated that the official US unemployment rate is likely to rise in the coming
months [23]. The estimates are based on an analytical approach that combines the historical
dynamics of the labor market with assessments of the scale of initial job losses and potential
employment behavior as the economy adapts to the virus shock [29]. It is also estimated
that the unemployment rate is likely to exceed by a substantial margin, higher than in any
other recession (even after World War II), and will remain fairly high next year [30].
The health crisis has an impact on sociodemographic changes (gender, age, level of
education, household size or marital status) as well as on the economic cycle that affects
the likelihood of employment in the labor market [31].
Regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the relationship between the
organization and employees, some studies have found that perceived organizational
support can moderate the relationship between exposure and stress. Thus, it was found
that the relationship was weaker when the organizational support was perceived as high
and, conversely, the relationship was stronger when the perceived organizational support
is at a low level [32].
Embracing the idea that the COVID-19 pandemic has a profound impact on labor
markets around the world [33], the authors of some papers analyze the heterogeneous
impacts observed in the early stages of the pandemic in different occupations and workers
using the latest available labor force survey data from Current Population Survey, the main
source of labor statistics for the United States. These show that the early stages of the pan-
demic had a disproportionately negative impact on employment and hours in lower paid
occupations, the only notable exception being caretakers and building cleaners, for whom
employment increased sharply between mid-February and mid-March 2020. An impor-
tant research finding shows that in the US, workers who were employed in lower-paid
jobs in mid-February 2020 became, in less than two months, disproportionately fewer in
employment, compared to workers employed in higher paid occupations [34].
Studies of an economy’s response to an unexpected epidemic have shown that house-
holds reduce the spread of the disease by reducing consumption, reducing working hours
and focusing on working from home. Recent research shows that working from home is
subject to learning by doing doubled by a capacity of the limited health system [35].
An important finding in the labor market analysis during the COVID-19 pandemic is
that if in the recent US recessions, job losses were much higher for men than for women,
in the current recession the opposite is true: unemployment is higher among women [36].
The causes and consequences of this phenomenon are that women have experienced
increased job losses both due to the fact that employment is concentrated in severely
affected sectors, such as restaurants, and due to the increased need for childcare, caused by
the closure of schools and kindergartens, which prevented many women from being able
to work [37].
Gender inequality in the labor market during the pandemic is also revealed by a
study conducted in Israel. Research shows that the coronavirus epidemic has not leveled
gender inequality but, on the contrary, the consequences of the economic recession after
coronavirus affect women much more severely than men, more women have lost jobs
than men, which has led to a significant increase in income disparities between women
and men. As a result, the economic downturn during the COVID-19 pandemic negatively
affected women’s attachment to the labor market compared to men, both in terms of overall
employment and working time.
Another important finding is that these negative effects on the economic situation
of women were more evident among the youngest employees and the severity of the
crisis on this age group is also reflected in their extremely pessimistic prospects for the
future. Surprisingly, however, men and women in this age group are just as pessimistic.
One possible explanation would be that this view is subjective and quite naive of women’s
economic prospects, probably because this is the first economic crisis they have experienced.
Israeli researchers argue this conclusion by saying that older women in the cohorts, who
experienced some economic slowdowns, such as after each major war or after the 2000 crisis
and the 2008 financial crisis, are more realistic and understand that their prospects they are
not and cannot be equal to those of men [38].
We agree with those who believe that the COVID-19 pandemic has an unprecedented
impact on societies around the world because as governments impose practices of social
distancing and urge nonessential businesses to close to slow the spread of the outbreak,
a major uncertainty about to the effect that these measures will have on life and livelihood
is born.
Research conducted during this period finds that demand for specific sectors, such as
healthcare, is growing in recent weeks, while for other sectors such as air transport and
tourism the demand for their services is evaporating.
The researchers aimed to provide quantitative forecasts for the US economy of supply
and demand shocks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. To characterize supply
shocks, they developed a telework index to estimate the extent to which workers can carry
out activities associated with their occupation at home and identified which industries are
classified as essential versus non-essential [29]. They also reported plausible estimates of
demand shocks in an attempt to recognize that some industries will have an immediate
reduction in production both due to a lack of demand and especially due to the inability to
work. However, they emphasize that their works are predictions and not measurements.
Their estimate is that the aggregate first-order shock to the economy represents a reduction
of about a quarter of the economy [39].
Some researchers looked at the initial impact of the 2019 coronavirus pandemic
(COVID-19) on the Canadian labor market. They focused on changes in employment and
aggregate hours worked between February 2020 and April 2020, taking into account the
normal monthly changes in these indicators, and found that COVID-19 induced a 32%
decrease in working hours, cumulative weekly work among workers aged between 20 and
64, along with a 15% drop in employment. They characterized the distribution of lost work,
considering that almost half of job losses are attributed to workers in the lower earnings
quartile and found that those most affected by COVID-19 are in public jobs in the industries
most affected by shutdowns, such as those in accommodation and food services, younger
workers, those paid by the hour or those who are not affiliated with a trade union [33].
Of course, what is happening in some countries like the USA, Israel or Canada can
be identified worldwide so that an extrapolation of the situation and the consequences
would be possible. However, we are grateful to the researchers who analyzed the issue of
the COVID-19 pandemic globally. A recently published study looked at the role of global
supply chains in the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on GDP growth for 64 countries.
The researchers segmented the shock of labor supply between sectors and countries using
the fraction of work in the sector that can be done from home in interaction with the
strictness with which countries have imposed certain quarantine and isolation measures.
Their research showed that the average real GDP recession due to the COVID-19 shock
was expected to be −29.6%, with a quarter of the total due to transmission through global
supply chains.
However, they argued that the “renationalization” of global supply chains does not
make countries generally more resilient to the contractions caused by the labor pandemic
and the average decline in GDP would have been −30.2% in a world without trade with
inputs and final goods. This would be due to the fact that eliminating dependence on
foreign inflows would increase dependence on domestic inflows, which are also disrupted
due to national blockades, and in fact trade could isolate a country that imposes a strict
blockade of pandemic shock, because its external entrances are less disturbed than the in-
ternal ones. Their conclusion is that unilateral lifting of bottlenecks in the largest economies
can contribute up to 2.5% to GDP growth in some of their smaller trading partners [40].
At the time of writing, the pandemic is in full swing. The most optimistic estimates
consider that it will last until the spring of 2021 if the vaccine is administered in winter
2020. Studies on the impact of the duration of unemployment benefits on the motivation
to look for new jobs for re-employment have been made since 2008, during the economic
crisis. The researchers examined an unexpected reform of the German unemployment
insurance system in 2008, which increased the potential duration of the benefit from 12 to
15 months for benefit recipients aged between 50 and 54 years. They concluded from their
analysis that any benefit will reduce the motivation for early employment. For example,
a one-month increase in sleep duration will reduce the demand for early employment by
about 10% [41].
Another paradigm of the pandemic situation given by the government policy is given
by the workers within the home delivery services. These services are considered essential
and their workers move freely, while many jobs have been lost and the population is
advised to stay at home. Pandemic labor research is still trying to identify the factors
that determine that in times of crisis the rules cannot be applied equally to everyone [42].
Preliminary conclusions would be that employment or economic security does not deter-
mine the immunity of human beings. Exposure to health or other risks is determined by
economic causes and the specifics of the job. We agree that the complexity and scale of
the COVID-19 pandemic have created turbulence in the fields of modern human existence
with health, the economy and social life as reference pillars.
Although some studies claim that the actions taken by some countries seem to have
largely succeeded in reducing the health impact of COVID-19 and have allowed a return to
normal economic activities much earlier than in neighboring countries, the same studies
conclude that the implications of certain economic policies cannot yet be fully evaluated.
Moreover, these policies may prove to have negative effects in the future [43]. A finding
made during this period by some researchers is that in the states with higher jobs in the
industries most affected by the virus and which have a higher share of workers who earn
less than the weekly amount of unemployment benefit recorded new higher unemploy-
ment insurance claims. An unsurprising suspicion was confirmed. Moreover, the same
research has provided mixed evidence that unemployment benefits affect the number of
unemployment claims. Surprisingly, it could be that they found no evidence that the ability
to work at home should alleviated unemployment rates increased during this period [44].
According to studies published by the European Commission [44], on the labor market
in the European Union, there were three main directions analyzed:
1. The impact of COVID-19 measures on the labor market is expected to be greater
in some Member States in Southern Europe and Ireland, as these are the areas where the
share of tightly closed sectors is higher.
2. The impact was likely to focus on the most vulnerable segments of the active
population. These segments are represented by workers with lower wages and poorer
employment conditions, as well as women and young workers.
3. Previous experience could support the current large-scale transition to telework.
Taking the relevant information from national decrees and additional information
on the possibility of working remotely, the European Commission has constructed five
categories of sectors according to the likely impact of isolation measures:
(1) essential and fully active sectors;
(2) active, but through teleworking;
(3) mostly essential and partially active, cannot be teleworked;
(4) mostly non-essential and inactive, not workable and
(5) closed.
The findings of studies published by the European Commission show that the worst
effects of pandemic measures are often focused on the most vulnerable and disadvantaged
workers. It is noted that the European Commission admits that sectors tightly closed by
decrees (i.e., hospitality, personal services, leisure activities, etc.) are, in most EU countries,
characterized by low wages, poor working conditions and a tendency to increase the
concentration of women and young workers.
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy in Romania was studied in
the literature, determining that the most affected area in Romania will be foreign trade,
and among the affected macroeconomic indicators that are mentioned public debt, budget
deficit, investments and unemployment are the major ones [45].
Based on these studies, the hypothesis of this research can be created, namely the one
in which it is considered that the impact of the health crisis on the labor market will be
direct, both socially and economically, with changes in behavior and the choices of the
employed population, as well as increases among the unemployed.
3. Methodology
The present research aims to establish the impact that the current crisis situation
facing the planet, namely the COVID-19 pandemic, has on the Romanian labor force
market. In this context, given the lack of information and information regarding this
pandemic and its effects, the administration of a questionnaire among the population was
considered to identify the research results.
The questionnaire was composed of 18 questions, 5 of which were socioprofessional.
Among the main objectives of the questions are: identifying the current status and profes-
sional field; determining the main way of carrying out the professional activity during the
COVID pandemic; identifying the degree to which the position is suitable for the employ-
ment regime; identification of the main challenges, but also of the benefits related to the
development of the activity during this period; determining the impact of the pandemic on
respondents’ incomes; identifying the optimal variant, from the respondent’s perspective,
on the program for carrying out professional activities in the future and identifying changes
in the behavior of the population when occupying a new job.
Regarding the sampling method, the “snowball” method was used, and the sam-
ple size as well as the confidence factor were determined based on the Taro Yamane
method [46–48], by the following calculation method:
N
n= , where : (1)
(1 + N × e2 )
n—sample size; N—total population (the population over 16 years old in Romania); e—
accepted error.
Regarding the legal age for work, according to Romanian legislation, this is 16 years
old, so, according to statistics, the population of Romania that meets this criterion is about
16.1 million people, and this value was considered as “N”. It was desired to reach an
error (e) of 4%, and for this volume of the population, this would have meant a sample of
600 people. However, only 548 people responded to the research conducted in this study,
which increases the error slightly to 4.2%, but still within the 95% confidence level, so it
can be seen that the sample is representative of the active population of Romania.
In order to confirm or refute the aforementioned hypothesis, descriptive analysis was
used by means of descriptive statistics. The questionnaire was made in electronic format,
on the Google platform, and the distribution and completion method was also electronic.
In the interpretation of the results, the method of semantic differential and the method
of ordering the ranks were used. With the help of this questionnaire, it will be possible
to answer the question of the research in this study: What are the main effects of the
COVID-19 pandemic on the Romanian labor market?
The following variables were considered for this research, as independent: age, sex,
income, level of education, field of activity, and the dependent variables were those related
to the opinions, preferences and opinions of the active population.
method of ordering the ranks were used. With the help of this questionnaire, it will be
possible to answer the question of the research in this study: What are the main effects of
the COVID-19 pandemic on the Romanian labor market?
The following variables were considered for this research, as independent: age, sex,
Sustainability 2021, 13, 271 income, level of education, field of activity, and the dependent variables were those8 ofre-
23
lated to the opinions, preferences and opinions of the active population.
4. Findings
Findings
The questionnaire was completed by a number of 548 respondents, and compared to
the
the population
population of Romania
Romania in 2020, aged over 15 years (17,592,625), it can be established
confidence interval is lower
that the confidence lower than
than the
the maximum
maximum accepted
accepted threshold
threshold of 5%5% (4.19%),
(4.19%),
at a 95% confidence level. Thus,
at Thus, itit can
can be
be appreciated
appreciated that
that this
this sample
sample is
is representative,
representative,
compared to the potential level of the workforce.
Regarding the sociodemographic
sociodemographiccomponent
componentofofthethequestionnaire
questionnaire and
andthethe
structure of
structure
thethe
of sample, thethe
sample, main classifications
main classificationscancan
be be
seen in Figure
seen 1. 1.
in Figure
Figure 1. Size
Figure 1. Size and structure of
and structure of the
the sample.
sample. Source:
Source: own
own processing
processing based
based on
on data
data obtained
obtained from the centralization
from the centralization of
of
questionnaire responses.
Out
Out of the total respondents,
respondents, 76.3%
76.3% are female respondents
respondents (418(418 people), and 23.7%
(130 people)
people) are
aremale
malerespondents.
respondents.AboutAbout89%89%(488 people)
(488 completed
people) completedhigher education,
higher educa-
10.6% (58 people)
tion, 10.6% completed
(58 people) high school,
completed and 1%and
high school, (2 people) completed
1% (2 people) secondary
completed school.
secondary
Among the respondents,
school. Among 65.3% (358
the respondents, people)
65.3% (358 are between
people) 18–29 years
are between old,years
18–29 17.2% between
old, 17.2%
between
30–39 30–39
years old,years old, 12% 40–49
12% between between 40–49
years old, years old, 5.5%50–59
5.5% between between
years50–59 years and
old years, old
years,were
there and there were no for
no responses responses for over
segments segments overAmong
60 years. 60 years.the
Among theactivity
fields of fields ofinactivity
which
in which
the the companies
companies in which inthewhich the respondents
respondents operate, operate, we emphasize:
we emphasize: education education
with 17%, with
fi-
17%, finance
nance and insurance
and insurance with 13.3%,
with 13.3%, informatics,
informatics, telecommunications
telecommunications with 11.5%
with 11.5% and
and trade
trade9.3%.
with with Regarding
9.3%. Regarding
income,income,
almost almost
30% of 30% of respondents
respondents earn between
earn between 2001 and2001 3000and
lei
3000 lei monthly, 21.9% earn between 3001–4000 lei, 15% earn over 6000 lei, 9.9% earn
between 4001–5000 lei, 10.2% earn between 1001–2000 lei, 7.3% earn less than 1000 lei,
and 5.8% earn between 5 and 6 thousand lei.
The first question, “What is your status on the labor market?”, aimed to determine the
status of the respondent on the labor market.
Analyzing the status of respondents, from Figure 2, 83.6% of them are employees,
which is distributed by gender as follows: 63.9% female (350 people) and 19.7% male
(108 people). The next status, depending on the frequency of answers, is “looking for a
job” with a total percentage of 10.2% of which 48 are women (8.8%) and 8 are men (1.5%).
Out of the total number of respondents, 2.6% are unemployed, thus divided, 1.8% women
The
The first
first question,
question, “What
“What is is your
your status
status onon the
the labor
labor market?”,
market?”, aimed
aimed to
to determine
determine
the status of the respondent on the labor
the status of the respondent on the labor market. market.
Analyzing
Analyzing the the status
status of
of respondents,
respondents, fromfrom Figure
Figure 2,2, 83.6%
83.6% of
of them
them are
are employees,
employees,
which
whichisisdistributed
distributedby bygender
genderas asfollows:
follows:63.9%
63.9%female
female(350(350people)
people)andand19.7%
19.7%male
male(108(108
Sustainability 2021, 13, 271 people).
people). The
The next
next status,
status, depending
depending on on the
the frequency
frequency of of answers,
answers, isis “looking
“looking for
for aa9job”
job”
of 23
with a total percentage of 10.2% of which 48 are women (8.8%) and 8 are
with a total percentage of 10.2% of which 48 are women (8.8%) and 8 are men (1.5%). Out men (1.5%). Out
of
ofthe
thetotal
totalnumber
numberof ofrespondents,
respondents,2.6% 2.6%are
areunemployed,
unemployed,thus thusdivided,
divided,1.8%1.8%women
womenand and
and
0.7% 0.7%
0.7% men. men.
men. The The categories
The categories
categories of of student,
of student, entrepreneur,
student, entrepreneur,
entrepreneur, freelancer freelancer
freelancer and and
and studentstudent register
student register
register be-
be-
between
tween
tween0.4% 0.4%
0.4% and
andand 0.7%
0.7%
0.7% ofof
of respondents.
respondents.
respondents.
Figure
Figure2.2.Sample
Samplestructure
Sample structureaccording
structure accordingto
according totostatus
status
status and
and
and gender. Source:
gender.
gender. own
Source:
Source: processing
own
own based
processing
processing on
ondata
based
based obtained
on data
data from
obtained
obtained the
thecen-
fromfrom the
cen-
tralization of questionnaire
tralization of questionnaire
centralization responses.
responses.
of questionnaire responses.
The
The second
The question,
secondquestion, “What
“Whatisisis
question,“What the
thethe field
field ofof
field of the
the position
position
the youyou
position hold?”,
hold?”,
you aimed
hold?”, aimed at
at identi-
at identifying
aimed identi-
the
fying
fyingfield
theof
the theof
field
field position
of the held by
theposition
position theby
held
held respondent.
by the
therespondent.
respondent.
According
According
According to Figure3,
to Figure
Figure 3,3,centralizing
centralizingthe
centralizing the
the answers
answers
answers toto
to thisthis
this question,
question,
question, it emerged
itit emerged
emerged thatthat
that the
the
the
fieldfield
field of of position
of the
the the position
position held,held,
held, withwith
with the the
the highesthighest
highest frequency
frequency
frequency waswas
was financial
financial
financial accounting
accounting
accounting withwith
with 108
108
108 people,
people,
people, respectively
respectively
respectively 19.7%.
19.7%.
19.7%. The The
The second
secondsecondfieldfield
field waswas
was education
education
education withwith
with 14.6%
14.6% 14.6%
(80 (80 people),
(80 people),
people), fol-
fol-
followed
lowed by by marketing
marketing with
with 9.9%9.9% (54
(54 people),
people), the
the technical
technical field
field
lowed by marketing with 9.9% (54 people), the technical field included 50 respondents included
included 50
50 respondents
(9.1%)
(9.1%) andand the
the sales
sales field
field included
included 40 40 ofof respondents
respondents(7.3%).
(7.3%).
Figure 3. Sample structure according to the field of the position occupied. Source: own processing
based on data obtained from the centralization of questionnaire responses.
The third question, “What was the way of carrying out the professional activities
during the COVID-19 pandemic?”, had as objective the identification of the way of carrying
out the professional activity during the pandemic.
According to Figure 4, out of the total respondents, 46.1% (246 people) carried out
their professional activity during the telemarketing pandemic. Of this percentage, 11.2%
(60 people) worked in education, 9.7% (52 people) worked in computer science, telecom-
The third question, “What was the way of carrying out the professional activities
during the COVID-19 pandemic?”, had as objective the identification of the way of carry-
ing out the professional activity during the pandemic.
According to Figure 4, out of the total respondents, 46.1% (246 people) carried out
Sustainability 2021, 13, 271 their professional activity during the telemarketing pandemic. Of this percentage, 11.2% 10 of 23
(60 people) worked in education, 9.7% (52 people) worked in computer science, telecom-
munications and 6.4% (34 people) worked in finance and insurance. The next way of
munications and 6.4%
working, depending on(34thepeople)
frequency worked in finance
of responses wasand
the insurance.
mixed modeThe next way
(telework andof
working, depending
flexible schedule), for on the 136
which frequency
responses of were
responses was(25.5%),
recorded the mixed mode
of this (telework
percentage, and
3.7%
flexible schedule), for which 136 responses were recorded (25.5%), of this
(20 people) had worked in education and 3.7% also worked in finance and insurance. Of percentage, 3.7%
(20
the people) had worked
total respondents, 24% in(128
education
people)andhad3.7% also worked
a normal scheduleinduring
finance and
this insurance.
period marked Of
the total respondents, 24% (128 people) had a normal schedule during
by the emergence of COVID-19, of this percentage, most 3.4% (18 people) worked in thethis period marked
by theofemergence
field of COVID-19,
trade and 2.2% (12 people) ofin
this percentage,
agriculture, most 3.4%
forestry (18 people)
and fishing. It canworked
be seenin the
that
field of trade and 2.2% (12 people) in agriculture, forestry and fishing. It can
the flexible program was not often encountered during this period, with a share of 4.5% be seen that the
flexible program was not often encountered during this period, with a share
among respondents, of which 1.5% were people working in agriculture, forestry and fish- of 4.5% among
respondents,
ing. of which 1.5% were people working in agriculture, forestry and fishing.
Figure 4.
Figure 4. The
The structure
structureofofthe
thepandemic
pandemicactivity.
activity.Source: own
Source: processing
own based
processing on data
based obtained
on data obtained
from the
from the centralization
centralization of
of questionnaire
responses.
The fourth
The fourth question,
question, “To
“To what
what extent
extent isis the
the position
positionyou
youhold
holdsuitable
suitablefor forcarrying
carrying
out professional
out professional activities
activities in
in telework,
telework,on onaascale
scalefrom
from11toto10?”,
10?”,aimed
aimedatatidentifying
identifyingthe the
degree to
degree to which
which the
the position
position held
held by
by the
the respondent
respondentisissuitable
suitableforfortelework.
telework.
As can be seen, inin Figure
Figure 5, 5, 27.7%
27.7% of of respondents
respondents(152 (152people)
people)gavegavethe themaximum
maximum
grade, regarding the degree to
grade, to which
which their
theirprofessional
professionalactivity
activityisissuitable
suitableforforthe
thetelework
telework
regime.
regime. Of this percentage, 8.03% (44 people) work in computer science
percentage, 8.03% (44 people) work in computer science and telecommu- and telecommu-
nications. The
nications. The next
next grade
grade awarded
awardedwas wasgrade
grade8,8,which
whichregistered
registeredaashare
shareofof16.1%
16.1%ofofthe the
total respondents (88 people), of this percentage, 3.28% (18 people) work
total respondents (88 people), of this percentage, 3.28% (18 people) work in education. in education. The
lowest
The grade—respectively,
lowest grade—respectively, the respondents
the respondents whowho cannot work
cannot in telework—at
work in telework—at all were in
all were
proportion
in proportionof 9.1%, of this
of 9.1%, percentage,
of this percentage,1.49% (8 people)
1.49% working
(8 people) in theinfield
working the of health
field and
of health
social
and assistance.
social Carrying
assistance. Carryingout out
a weighted
a weighted average of the
average marks
of the marks awarded,
awarded, forforthe
theentire
entire
ability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW sample, the average grade for 11 of 23
sample, for which
which the
theactivity
activitycarried
carriedout
outbybythe
therespondents
respondents isissuitable
suitable
for the telework regime is 7.04
for 7.04 out
out of
of 10.
10.
Figure
Figure 5. Grade 5. Grade
given to the given
degreetotothe degree
which to which
the job the job
is suitable foris suitable Source:
telework. for telework. Source: own
own processing pro-on data obtained
based
cessing based
from the centralization on data obtained
of questionnaire from the centralization of questionnaire responses.
responses.
The fifth question, “What is the option that suits you from the perspective of the ef-
ficiency of carrying out professional activities?”, had as objective the determination of the
efficiency of carrying out professional activities.
According to Figure 6, out of the total respondents, 37.4% (198 people) selected the
option “I worked a higher number of hours with better results”; out of this percentage,
Figure 5. Grade given to the degree to which the job is suitable for telework. Source: own pro-
Sustainability 2021, 13, 271 cessing based on data obtained from the centralization of questionnaire responses. 11 of 23
The fifth question, “What is the option that suits you from the perspective of the ef-
ficiency
Theoffifth
carrying out professional
question, “What is the activities?”,
option that had as objective
suits you fromthe thedetermination
perspective of of the
efficiency of carrying out professional activities.
efficiency of carrying out professional activities?”, had as objective the determination of
According
the efficiency ofto Figure out
carrying 6, out of the total
professional respondents, 37.4% (198 people) selected the
activities.
option “I worked
According to aFigure
higher6,number
out of theof total
hoursrespondents,
with better results”;
37.4% (198 outpeople)
of this selected
percentage,
the
25.3%
optionare people aged
“I worked between
a higher number 18 and 29, 4,with
of hours 9% aged
betterbetween
results”;30–39
out ofyears, 4.5% aged
this percentage,
25.3% are40–49
between peopleyearsagedandbetween
2.6% aged 18 and
between29, 4,50–59
9% aged between
years. The next 30–39 years,
option, 4.5% aged
depending on
between
the 40–49ofyears
frequency and 2.6%
answers, aged between
is “I worked 50–59with
fewer hours years. The results”,
better next option,withdepending
a percentageon
of 32.1% (170 people), of this percentage, 21.5% are people aged 18–29. The variant of
the frequency of answers, is “I worked fewer hours with better results”, with a percentage “I
32.1% (170
worked people),
a higher of this of
number percentage,
hours with 21.5% are results”,
poorer people aged 18–29. The
registered variant
a share “I worked
of 20.8% (110
a higher of
people), number
which of hours
10.6% with into
falling poorer
the results”,
first age registered
category. Thea share
last of 20.8%depending
option, (110 people),
on
of which
the number10.6% falling into
of answers, the
is “I first age
worked category.
fewer hoursThe last
with option,
poorer depending
results”, withon the number
a share in the
of answers,
total numberisof “Irespondents,
worked fewerofhours 9.8%,with poorer
the first ageresults”,
categorywith a share7.9%
recording in the
oftotal number
the percent-
of
age.respondents, of 9.8%, the first age category recording 7.9% of the percentage.
Figure 6. Determining
Figure 6. Determining the efficiency of
the efficiency of performing
performing activities,
activities, structured
structured by
by age.
age. Source:
Source: own
own processing
processing based
based on data
on data
obtained from the centralization of questionnaire responses.
obtained from the centralization of questionnaire responses.
The question“What
The sixth question “Whatwerewerethe
themost
most important
important challenges
challenges for for carrying
carrying out pro-
out the the
professional activities,
fessional activities, on aon a scale
scale fromfrom
1 (the1 most
(the most important
important challenge)
challenge) to 4least
to 4 (the (theimportant
least im-
portant challenge)?”,
challenge)?”, aimed ataimed at identifying
identifying the challenges
the challenges in carrying
in carrying out the professional
out the professional activity.
activity.
According to Figure 7, the first criterion, namely “Adaptation to new means/communi-
cation tools”, recorded the most answers in note 4, with 36.1%; thus, this possible challenge
is not so important, especially for young people (18–29 years), which represents 23.7% of
the respondents who gave this grade. The second criterion, “Duration of work schedule”,
recorded the most answers for grade 2, with 35%, so this challenge is considered important
among respondents. The third criterion, “Working in the same space with other family
members”, registered the most answers for grade 1, but only with 29.6%; thus, for these
people, this criterion is the biggest impediment. The last criterion, “Access to modern
technology (devices, internet connection, etc.)”, recorded the most answers for grade 4,
with 35%, so this criterion is not so important for these people.
In order to determine the general scores, a summary table (Table 1) was created with
the answers for each possible challenge in carrying out the professional activity.
Using the semantic differential method for processing results, the ranking of criteria
for the challenges of professional activity is as follows: duration of work schedule, working
in the same space with other family members, adaptation to new means/communication
tools and access to modern technology, as shown in Figure 8.
schedule”, recorded the most answers for grade 2, with 35%, so this challenge is consid-
ered important among respondents. The third criterion, “Working in the same space with
other family members”, registered the most answers for grade 1, but only with 29.6%;
thus, for these people, this criterion is the biggest impediment. The last criterion, “Access
Sustainability 2021, 13, 271 to modern technology (devices, internet connection, etc.)”, recorded the most answers 12 offor
23
grade 4, with 35%, so this criterion is not so important for these people.
Figure 7.
Figure 7. Identifying the challenges in carrying out the professional activity, depending on age and gender. Source: own
processing based on
processing based on data
data obtained
obtained from
from the
the centralization
centralization of
of questionnaire
responses.
1. Importance
Table the of criteria
answers for on the challenges
each possible challengeofinprofessional development.
carrying out the professional activity.
What Were the Most Important Challenges for Carrying Out Professional Activities, on a Scale from 1 (the
Table 1. Importance of criteriaChallenge)
Most Important on the challenges ofLeast
to 4 (the professional development.
Important Challenge)?
Scale What Were to
Adaptation theNew
Most Important Challenges for Carrying Out
Working inProfessional
the Same Activities, onModern
Access to a Scale
Duration of Work
Means/Communication
from 1 (the Most Important Challenge) Space
to 4 with
(the Other
Least Family Challenge)?
Important Technology (Devices,
Schedule
Tools Members Internet Connection, etc.)
Scale Adaptation to New Duration of Working in the Same Access to Modern Technol-
1 138
Means/Communication 138
Work Sched- 162
Space with Other Fam- ogy (Devices, 110Internet
2 86 192 158 112
Tools ule ily Members Connection, etc.)
3 126 160 128 134
14 138
198 13858 162 100 110192
2
Total 86
548 192
548 158 548 112548
Final3Score 2.30
126 2.75
160 128 2.70 1342.26
4 198 processing based on data 58
Source: own 100 of questionnaire responses. 192
Total 548 548 548 548
Final Score 2.30 2.75 “What are the main
The seventh question, 2.70benefits you consider in carrying
2.26 out profes-
sional activities
Source: own processing in telework,
based on data obtainedon a scale
from from 1 (mostofimportant
the centralization benefit)
questionnaire to 5 (least important
responses.
benefit)?”, was aimed at identifying the benefits in carrying out professional activity.
According to Figure 9, the first possible benefit, “saving significant time resources
allocated to the home-work commute” recorded the most answers (54.4%) for grade 1. The
second benefit, “elimination of stress caused by congestion in traffic or public transport”
recorded the most answers (43.4%) for grade 2. The third benefit, “a greater level of
flexibility in organizing one’s own program” recorded the most responses (46.4%) for grade
3. The fourth benefit, “more time spent with family” recorded the most answers (43.1%) for
grade 4. The fifth benefit, “a higher level of promptness in organizing business meetings
due to the use of technology” recorded the most answers (57.3%) for grade 5.
Using the semantic differential method for processing results, the ranking of criteria
for the challenges of professional activity is as follows: duration of work schedule, work-
Sustainability 2021, 13, 271 ing in the same space with other family members, adaptation to new means/communica- 13 of 23
tion tools and access to modern technology, as shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Score obtained regarding the challenges of carrying out the professional activity. Source: own processing based
on data obtained from the centralization of questionnaire responses.
The seventh question, “What are the main benefits you consider in carrying out pro-
fessional activities in telework, on a scale from 1 (most important benefit) to 5 (least im-
portant benefit)?”, was aimed at identifying the benefits in carrying out professional ac-
tivity.
allocated to the home-work commute” recorded the most answers (54.4%) for grade 1.
The second benefit, “elimination of stress caused by congestion in traffic or public
transport” recorded the most answers (43.4%) for grade 2. The third benefit, “a greater
level of flexibility in organizing one’s own program” recorded the most responses (46.4%)
Figure 8. Score obtained for grade
regarding
Figure 8. Score obtained regarding the 3.
the The fourth
challenges
challenges of benefit,out
ofcarrying
carrying “more
out time spentactivity.
theprofessional
the professional with family”
activity. recorded
Source:
Source: own
own the most
processing
processing answers
based
based on
on data obtained from the (43.1%) for
centralization grade
of 4. The fifth
questionnaire benefit,
responses.
data obtained from the centralization of questionnaire responses. “a higher level of promptness in organizing business
meetings due to the use of technology” recorded the most answers (57.3%) for grade 5.
The seventh question, “What are the main benefits you consider in carrying out pro-
fessional activities in telework, on a scale from 1 (most important benefit) to 5 (least im-
portant benefit)?”, was aimed at identifying the benefits in carrying out professional ac-
tivity.
allocated to the home-work commute” recorded the most answers (54.4%) for grade 1.
The second benefit, “elimination of stress caused by congestion in traffic or public
transport” recorded the most answers (43.4%) for grade 2. The third benefit, “a greater
level of flexibility in organizing one’s own program” recorded the most responses (46.4%)
for grade 3. The fourth benefit, “more time spent with family” recorded the most answers
(43.1%) for grade 4. The fifth benefit, “a higher level of promptness in organizing business
meetings due to the use of technology” recorded the most answers (57.3%) for grade 5.
Figure 9. Identification of benefits in carrying out professional activity, depending on age and gender. Source: own
processing based on data obtained from the centralization of questionnaire responses.
the answers for each possible benefit in carrying out the professional activity.
Using the semantic differential method for processing the results, the hierarchy of cri-
teria regarding the benefits of carrying out the professional activity, is the following: saving
time resources otherwise allocated to commuting between home and work, elimination
of stress caused by congestion in traffic or public transport, a greater level of flexibility
in organizing one’s own program, more time spent with family and a higher level of
promptness in organizing business meetings due to the use of technology, as shown in
Figure 10.
The eighth question, “How did the period of the COVID-19 pandemic influence
you from the perspective of income level?”, aimed at determining the influence that the
pandemic had on income.
the answers for each possible benefit in carrying out the professional activity.
Table 2. The importance given to the criteria regarding the benefits of carrying out the professional activity.
What Are the Main Benefits you Consider in Carrying out Professional Activities in the Telework Regime, on a
Sustainability 2021, 13, 271 Scale from 1 (the Most Important Benefit) to 5 (the Least Important Benefit)? 14 of 23
Saving Important Time More a Higher Level of
Elimination of Stress a Greater Level of
Scale Resources Allocated to the Time Promptness in Organiz-
Caused by Conges- Flexibility in Or-
TableRoad Saving
2. The Important
importance given to the criteria regarding the benefits of carrying outSpent ing Business
the professional activity. Meetings
tion in Traffic or ganizing One’s
Time Resources Allocated with Fam- Due to the Use of Tech-
What Public Transport
Are the Main Benefits you Consider in Own Program
Carrying out Professional
to the Road ily Activities in the Telework
nology
Regime, on a Scale from 1 (the Most Important Benefit) to 5 (the Least Important Benefit)?
1 298 64 56 66 64
2 Saving
88 Important 238 110 66 46
a Higher Level of
3 Time58 Resources 108 254 86 42
Elimination of Promptness in
4 Scale Allocated
46 to the 82 A Greater Level
102 of 236 82
Stress Caused by Organizing
Road Saving Flexibility in More Time Spent
5 58 56 in
Congestion 26 94 314
Business
Important Time Organizing One’s with Family
Total 548 Traffic or Public
548 548 548 Meetings
548 Due to
Resources Own Program
Final Score 3.95 Transport
3.31 3.12 2.59 the
2.02Use of
Allocated to the
Source: own processing based on data obtained from the centralization of questionnaire responses. Technology
Road
1 298 64 56 66 64
2 88
Using the semantic
238
differential method
110
for processing66
the results, the hierarchy
46
of
3 criteria
58 regarding the
108 benefits of carrying
254 out the professional
86 activity, is the following:
42
4 saving time resources
46 82 otherwise allocated
102 to commuting between
236 home and work, 82 elimi-
5 nation of stress caused
58 56 by congestion in 26traffic or public transport,
94 a greater level
314 of flexi-
Total 548
bility in organizing548
one’s own program,548more time spent 548 548
with family and a higher level
Final Score 3.95 3.31 3.12 2.59 2.02
of promptness in organizing business meetings due to the use of technology, as shown in
Source: ownFigure
processing
10.based on data obtained from the centralization of questionnaire responses.
Figure 10.
Figure 10. The
Thescore
scoreobtained
obtainedregarding
regardingthethe benefits
benefits of carrying
of carrying out out the professional
the professional activity.
activity. Source:
Source: own processing
own processing based
based on data obtained from the centralization of questionnaire
on data obtained from the centralization of questionnaire responses.responses.
According to Figure 11, among the interviewees, 65.7% obtained the same level of
income, 25.9% obtained lower income and 8.4% obtained higher income. Among the
people who obtained the same level of income, 3.3% people obtained an income of less than
1000 lei, 6.2% people obtained an income between 1001–2000 lei, 20.1% people obtained an
income between 2001–3000 lei, 16.1% people obtained an income between 3001–4000 lei,
6.6% people obtained an income between 4001–5000 lei, 4% people obtained an income
between 5001–6000 lei and 9.5% of people obtained an income higher than 6000 lei.
The ninth question, “Have you identified the need to develop certain skills in the
field?”, aimed to identify the need to develop certain skills.
Regarding the need to develop certain skills, as can be seen in Figure 12, 47.4% of
respondents consider the need for development in the digital field, 44.9% of respondents
consider the need for development in communication and 27.7% of respondents consider
the need for development in management. Of those who opted for the “Digital” variant,
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 23

The eighth question, “How did the period of the COVID-19 pandemic influence you
from the perspective of income level?”, aimed at determining the influence that the pan-
demic had on36.9%,
respectively income.
23% are aged between 18–29 years, 6.2% are aged between 30–39 years,
5.1%According
are between to40–49
Figure 11, among
years and 2.6% theare
interviewees,
between 50–5965.7% obtained
years. Amongthe thesame level of
interviewees
who opted
income, forobtained
25.9% the “Digital,
lowerCommunication”
income and 8.4%variant,
obtainedrespectively,
higher income. 5.5%, 3.6% are
Among the aged
peo-
between
ple 18–29 years,
who obtained the1.1%
sameare aged
level of between
income, 30–39 years and
3.3% people 0.7% are
obtained anbetween 40–49
income of lessyears
than
old, among
1000 lei, 6.2%the interviewees
people obtainedwho opted for
an income the “Digital,
between 1001–2000Management” variant,
lei, 20.1% people respec-
obtained
tively,
an 0.7%between
income are between 18–29lei,
2001–3000 years old.
16.1% Among
people the interviewees
obtained who opted
an income between for the
3001–4000
“Digital, Management,
lei, 6.6% people Communication”
obtained an income between variant, respectively,
4001–5000 lei, 4%4.4%,
people3.6% are aged
obtained anbetween
income
between 5001–6000 lei and 9.5% of people obtained an income higher than 6000 lei.old.
18–29 years, 0.4% are aged between 30–39 years and 0.4% are between 50–59 years
Sustainability
Figure2021, 13, x FOR PEER
11. Determining REVIEW
the 16 of 23
influence that the pandemic had on revenues, according to studies. Source: own processing
based
based on
on data
data obtained
from the centralization of
of questionnaire
responses.
The ninth question, “Have you identified the need to develop certain skills in the
field?”, aimed to identify the need to develop certain skills.
Regarding the need to develop certain skills, as can be seen in Figure 12, 47.4% of
respondents consider the need for development in the digital field, 44.9% of respondents
consider the need for development in communication and 27.7% of respondents consider
the need for development in management. Of those who opted for the “Digital” variant,
respectively 36.9%, 23% are aged between 18–29 years, 6.2% are aged between 30–39 years,
5.1% are between 40–49 years and 2.6% are between 50–59 years. Among the interviewees
who opted for the “Digital, Communication” variant, respectively, 5.5%, 3.6% are aged
between 18–29 years, 1.1% are aged between 30–39 years and 0.7% are between 40–49
years old, among the interviewees who opted for the “Digital, Management” variant, re-
spectively, 0.7% are between 18–29 years old. Among the interviewees who opted for the
“Digital, Management, Communication” variant, respectively, 4.4%, 3.6% are aged be-
tween 18–29 years, 0.4% are aged between 30–39 years and 0.4% are between 50–59 years
old.
Figure
Figure 12.
12. Identifying
Identifying the
the need
need to
to develop
develop certain
certain skills,
skills, depending
depending on
on age.
age. Source:
Source: own
own processing
processing based
based on
on data
data obtained
obtained
from the centralization of questionnaire responses.
The
The tenth
tenth question,
question, “What
“What do
do you consider
consider to be the optimal way to carry out your
professional
professional activity, given the experience you have had so far?”, aimed to identify the
optimal way to carry out your professional activity.
activity.
According to Figure 13, among the interviewees, 51.8% of people opted for the Mixed
version (telework, flexible schedule), 10.3% of people opted for the Flexible schedule op-
tion, 22.8% of people opted for the Normal program option and 15.1% of people they
opted for the Teleworking variant. Among those who prefer the Mixed version (telework,
flexible schedule), 30.1% of people aged 18–29, 11.4% of people aged 30–39, 7% of people
aged between 40–49 years and 3.3% people are between 50–59 years old.
Figure 12. Identifying the need to develop certain skills, depending on age. Source: own processing based on data obtained
The tenth question, “What do you consider to be the optimal way to carry out your
Sustainability 2021, 13, 271 professional activity, given the experience you have had so far?”, aimed to identify the
16 of 23
optimal way to carry out your professional activity.
According to Figure 13, among the interviewees, 51.8% of people opted for the Mixed
version (telework,
(telework, flexible
flexibleschedule),
schedule),10.3%
10.3%ofofpeople
peopleopted
optedforfor
thethe
Flexible schedule
Flexible option,
schedule op-
22.8%22.8%
tion, of people opted opted
of people for thefor
Normal programprogram
the Normal option and 15.1%
option of 15.1%
and peopleofthey optedthey
people for
the Teleworking
opted variant. Among
for the Teleworking variant.those
Amongwho prefer
those who the Mixed
prefer theversion
Mixed (telework, flexible
version (telework,
schedule),
flexible 30.1% of
schedule), people
30.1% aged 18–29,
of people 11.4% of
aged 18–29, people
11.4% aged 30–39,
of people 7% of 7%
aged 30–39, people aged
of people
between
aged 40–4940–49
between yearsyears
and 3.3%
and people are between
3.3% people 50–5950–59
are between years years
old. old.
Figure 13. Identification

Identification of
of the
the optimal
optimal variant
variant of
of the
the way
way of
of carrying
carrying out
out the
the professional
professional activity,
activity, depending
depending on
on age.
age.
Source:
Source: own
own processing based on
data obtained
obtained from
from the
the centralization
centralization of
of questionnaire
responses.
The eleventh
eleventhquestion,
question,“During
“During this period,
this diddid
period, youyou
consider becoming
consider an entrepreneur?”,
becoming an entrepre-
aimed ataimed
neur?”, determining the degree
at determining to which
the degree to respondents thoughtthought
which respondents about becoming an en-
about becoming
trepreneur.
an entrepreneur.
According to
According toFigure
Figure14,
14,during
duringthis
thisperiod,
period, 36.1%
36.1% of of people
people thought
thought of becoming
of becoming en-
entrepreneurs and 63.9% of people did not think of becoming entrepreneurs.
trepreneurs and 63.9% of people did not think of becoming entrepreneurs. Among Among the
people who thought of becoming entrepreneurs, 27.4% of people are between 18–29 years
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 o
old, 5.1%
old, 5.1% of people are between
between 30–39 years old, 2.9% of people are between the ages of
between 40–49
between 40–49 years
years and
and 0.7%
0.7% of
of people
people are
are between 50–59 years
between 50–59 years old. Among the
old. Among the people
people
who did not think about becoming entrepreneurs, 38% of people are between 18–29 years
who did not think about becoming entrepreneurs, 38% of people are between 18–29 years
old, 12% ofold,
people
12%are
of between 30–39
people are years30–39
between old, 9.1%
yearsofold,
people
9.1%areof between 40–49
people are years40–49 ye
between
and 4.7% ofandpeople
4.7%are
of between 50–59
people are years50–59
between old. years old.

Figure 14.the degree to which
Determining respondents
the degree to which considered
respondentsbecoming
consideredentrepreneurs, according to
becoming entrepreneurs, age. Source:
accord-
own processinging
based on data obtained from the centralization of questionnaire responses.
to age. Source: own processing based on data obtained from the centralization of questionnaire
responses.
The twelfth question, “What field of activity would you consider appropriate duri
The twelfth question,aimed
this period?”, “Whattofield of activity
identify would you
respondents’ viewsconsider
on workappropriate
field duringduring
this period.
this period?”, aimed to identify
According respondents’
to Figure views
15, the field onindicated
most work fieldbyduring this period.with a weight
the respondents,
According
26.2%toofFigure 15, thewas
the answers fieldthat
most indicated byand
of informatics thetelecommunications,
respondents, with a outweight
of this perce
age 23.1% are respondents with higher education. The field most indicated by the
spondents, with a weight of 26.2% of the answers was that of informatics and telecomm
nications, out of this percentage 23.1% are respondents with higher education. The n
field according to frequency was health and social assistance with a share of 12.8% of t
answers. Of these, 10.3% with higher education, 2.1% with high school education and 0.
Figure 14. Determining the degree to which respondents considered becoming entrepreneurs, according to age. Source:
own processing based on data obtained from the centralization of questionnaire responses.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 271 The twelfth question, “What field of activity would you consider appropriate during 17 of 23
this period?”, aimed to identify respondents’ views on work field during this period.
According to Figure 15, the field most indicated by the respondents, with a weight of
26.2% of the answers
of 26.2% was
of that
the of informatics
answers and telecommunications,
was that out of this percent- out of this
of informatics and telecommunications,
age 23.1% arepercentage
respondents with higher education. The field most indicated
23.1% are respondents with higher education. The field by the re- indicated by
most
spondents, with a weight of 26.2% of the answers was that of informatics and telecommu-
the respondents, with a weight of 26.2% of the answers was that of informatics and
nications, outtelecommunications,
of this percentage 23.1% out ofare respondents
this percentagewith
23.1%higher education. with
are respondents The next
higher education.
field according
Theto next
frequency was health
field according and social was
to frequency assistance
health with a share
and social of 12.8%with
assistance of the
a share of 12.8%
answers. Of these,
of the10.3% with Of
answers. higher
these,education,
10.3% with2.1% with high
higher school 2.1%
education, education
with and
high0.5%
school education
with secondaryand 0.5% with
education. secondary
The third field education. Theofthird
with a share field
10.8% with
of the a share
total of 10.8% of the total
respondents
respondents was agriculture, forestry and fishing, followed by
was agriculture, forestry and fishing, followed by the field of wholesale and retail trade the field of wholesale and
retail
with a share of trade
10.3%. Thewith a share
areas of 10.3%. the
that recorded Thelowest
areas that recorded
shares (0.5%) the lowest
were: localshares
gov- (0.5%) were:
localand
ernment, culture government,
entertainment,culture and entertainment,
graphic graphicservices.
design and wellness design and wellness services.
Figure 15.the
Figure 15. Identifying Identifying the respondents’
respondents’ opinion
opinion on the on the
work field workthis
during field during
period. this period.
Source: Source: own
own processing based on data
processing based on data obtained from the centralization
obtained from the centralization of questionnaire responses. of questionnaire responses.
The thirteenth question, “If you were aiming to change/find a job, what importance
would you give to the following elements, on a scale from 1 (most important element) to
4 (least important element)?”, was aimed at determining the importance criteria for starting
a new job. The weight of the answers can be seen in Figure 16.
the answers for each criterion regarding the start of a new job.
Using the semantic differential method for processing the results, the hierarchy of
criteria regarding the benefits of carrying out the professional activity, is the following:
satisfactory salary package, flexible work schedule, complex health insurance and ensuring
the conditions for preventing and combating COVID-19, as shown in Figure 17.
For the first criterion, when it comes to starting a new job, the flexible work schedule
was considered, and the respondents’ most chosen grade on importance was grade 1,
with 44.1% of responses, of this percentage. 31.6% are people aged between 18–29. The sec-
ond criterion, “complex health insurance”, obtained the highest share of the answer for
grade 1 with 29.8% of the answers. The third criterion, concerning “ensuring the conditions
for preventing and combating COVID-19”, obtained marks of 1 in proportion of 32.5%.
The last criterion, the salary one, registered the most marks of 1, with a weight of 60.5%.
Of this percentage, 19% are people with incomes between 2–3 thousand lei, 14.7% have an
income between 3–4 thousand lei, and 9.7% have an income of over 6000 lei, those who
have an income small, under 1000 lei, opted for this criterion and this grade in proportion
of only 2.7%.
The thirteenth question, “If you were aiming to change/find a job, what importance
would you give to the following elements, on a scale from 1 (most important element) to
Sustainability 2021, 13, 271 4 (least important element)?”, was aimed at determining the importance criteria for18start-
of 23
ing a new job. The weight of the answers can be seen in Figure 16.

Determining the importance
importance of
of the criteria for starting a new job, according to age and
and income.
income. Source: own
processing based on
data obtained
obtained from
from the
the centralization
centralization of
of questionnaire
responses.
In order
Table 3. Theto determine
Importance ofthe
the general scores,
criteria for a summary
starting a new job. table (Table 3) was created with
the answers for each criterion regarding the start of a new job.
If You Were Aiming to Change/Find a Job, What Importance Would You Give to the Following
Elements, on Importance
Table 3. The a Scale fromof1the
(Most Important
criteria Element)
for starting a newtojob.
4 (Least Important Element)?
Ensuring the
If You Were Aiming to Change/Find a Job, What Importance Would You Give to the Following Elements, on a Scale
Scale Flexible Work Complex Health Conditions for Satisfactory Salary
from 1 (Most Important
Schedule Element) to 4 (Least Important
Insurance PreventingElement)?
and Package
Scale
Flexible Work Complex Health In- Ensuring the ConditionsCombating for Preventing and Com- Satisfactory Salary
COVID-19
Schedule surance bating COVID-19 Package
1 230 150 168 312
1 2 230 152 150 134 168 100 312
64
2 3 152 64 134 152 100 116 4264
3 4 64 72 152 84 116 128 10242
4 Total 72 518 84 520 128 512 520
102
Final Score 3.0 2.7 2.6 3.1
Total 518 520 512 520
Final Score Source: own processing2.7
3.0 based on data obtained from the centralization
2.6 of questionnaire responses. 3.1
Source: own processing based on data obtained from the centralization of questionnaire responses.
From the interpretation of the questionnaire, the results indicate that over 70% of
the respondents, during differential
Using the semantic the pandemic period,
method forworked in telework
processing regime,
the results, at a certain
the hierarchy of
moment,
criteria respectively,
regarding 46% worked
the benefits exclusively
of carrying out theinprofessional
telework regime, and
activity, 25%following:
is the in mixed
regime. It should
satisfactory salaryalso be noted
package, that only
flexible work27.7% of respondents
schedule, are fully
complex health suited to
insurance this
and way
ensur-
of working.
ing the conditions for preventing and combating COVID-19, as shown in Figure 17.
Analyzing retrospectively, approximately 70% of the respondents claimed that they
obtained better results, under these conditions, 37% claimed that they worked more hours,
and 32% claimed that they obtained better results with fewer hours worked.
The main inconvenience faced by respondents was access to modern technology
(devices, internet connection, etc.), but they nevertheless appreciated the benefits of a
higher level of promptness in organizing business meetings due to the use of technology
and more time spent with family.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 23
Figure 17. Score

Figure 17. Score obtained
obtained on
on the criteria for
the criteria for starting
starting aa new
new job.
job. Source:
Source: own
own processing
processing based
based on
on data
data obtained
obtained from
from the
the
centralization of questionnaire responses.
centralization of questionnaire responses.
For the firstthe

Analyzing criterion,
level ofwhen it comes
earnings to starting
obtained during a new
this job, the flexible
period, work schedule
it was established that
was considered,65%
approximately andofthe respondents’
respondents most chosen
obtained grade
a similar on importance
income. It should be was grade
noted, 1, with
however,
44.1%
that theofsurvey
responses,was of this percentage.
conducted shortly 31.6%after theareend
people
of the aged betweenperiod
lockdown 18–29.andThethesecond
start
criterion, “complexactivities
of major economic health insurance”,
in Romania. obtained the highest share of the answer for grade
1 with 29.8%
The mainofareas
the answers. The thirdbelieve
that respondents criterion, concerning
should be further“ensuring
exploredthe as conditions for
a result of this
preventing
health situationand combating
are the digitalCOVID-19”, obtained marks
and communications fields.ofHowever,
1 in proportion
more thanof 32.5%.
half ofThe
the
respondents
last criterion,say thethat they
salary would
one, prefer to
registered thework
mostinmarks
a mixed way
of 1, within the near future.
a weight of 60.5%. Of
We believe 19%
this percentage, that are
thispeople
healthwith crisisincomes
has alsobetween
influenced 2–3 the mentality
thousand of employees,
lei, 14.7% have an
respondents
income between stating
3–4that in the event
thousand lei, and of 9.7%
a changehaveofanjob, they would
income of overconsider
6000 lei,itthose
important
who
for the
have annew
incomeemployer
small, to ensure
under 1000the lei,conditions
opted for for thispreventing
criterion and and combating
this COVID-19,
grade in proportion
as only
of well 2.7%.
as complex health insurance.
Considering not only theofresults
From the interpretation of the survey,the
the questionnaire, butresults
also the macroeconomic
indicate that over 70%indicators,
of the
we consider it appropriate to study the unemployment rate
respondents, during the pandemic period, worked in telework regime, at a certain mo- in Romania, comparatively,
in the respectively,
ment, first three quarters of 2019exclusively
46% worked and 2020, subsequently
in telework regime,determining
and 25% theinexistence or not
mixed regime.
ofshould
It significant
also differences.
be noted that only 27.7% of respondents are fully suited to this way of work-
ing. As can be seen in Figure 18, although the data are slightly similar, the unemployment
rate experienced different dynamics
Analyzing retrospectively, in the two years
approximately 70% ofanalyzed. If, in the first
the respondents threethat
claimed quarters
they
obtained better results, under these conditions, 37% claimed that they worked more2.9–3%,
of 2019, there was decreasing dynamics of the unemployment rate from 3.3% to hours,
respectively
and 32% claimed an average
that theymonthly
obtaineddecrease of 1.18%,
better results within the first
fewer hoursthree quarters of 2020,
worked.
an exactly
The main inconvenience faced by respondents was access to modernremaining
opposite trend is observed, registering an increase from the technologyvalue(de-
of 3% to 3.3%, respectively, an average monthly increase
vices, internet connection, etc.), but they nevertheless appreciated the benefits of 1.19%, so we canof consider
a higher
that the
level period of theinhealth
of promptness crisis and
organizing the immediate
business meetings period
due to wasthe usea turning point of and
of technology this
national indicator.
more time spent with family.
Although ifthe
Analyzing welevel
analyze on average,
of earnings between
obtained duringthese
thistwo periods,
period, it wasnoestablished
significantthatdif-
ferences will be noticed, but taking into account the fact that the state of emergency was
approximately 65% of respondents obtained a similar income. It should be noted, how-
applied in March, and only in May some restrictions were lifted and economic activities
ever, that the survey was conducted shortly after the end of the lockdown period and the
were able to start again, we considered it useful to analyze the significant differences
start of major economic activities in Romania.
between the last five months of 2020, compared to the same months of 2019, assuming that
The main areas that respondents believe should be further explored as a result of this
the average unemployment rate in these months differs significantly in the periods taken
health situation are the digital and communications fields. However, more than half of
into account.
the respondents say that they would prefer to work in a mixed way in the near future.
We believe that this health crisis has also influenced the mentality of employees, re-
spondents stating that in the event of a change of job, they would consider it important
ters of 2019, there was decreasing dynamics of the unemployment rate from 3.3% to 2.9%–
3%, respectively an average monthly decrease of 1.18%, in the first three quarters of 2020,
an exactly opposite trend is observed, registering an increase from the remaining value of
3% to 3.3%, respectively, an average monthly increase of 1.19%, so we can consider that
Sustainability 2021, 13, 271 the period of the health crisis and the immediate period was a turning point of this na-
20 of 23
tional indicator.
3.4
3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3
3.3
3.2 3.2
3.2
3.1
%
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3
2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9
2.9
2.8
2.7
Jan Feb Mar Aprilie May June July Aug Sept
2019 2020
Figure
Figure 18.
18. Dynamics
Dynamics of
of unemployment
unemployment rate
rate in
in the
the first
first three quarters of
three quarters of 2019
2019 and
and 2020.
2020. Source:
Source: own
own processing
processing based
based on
on
NIS data.
NIS data.
Although
It can be seenif we analyze
from Tableon average,
4 that betweenparameter
the statistical these two tperiods, no significant
(t Stat), measured differ-
in absolute
ences
value,will be noticed,
is higher but critical
than the taking into
level,account
and the thelevel
fact of
that the state of
significance is emergency
lower thanwas the
applied
maximum in March,
accepted and only in May
threshold; thus,some
it canrestrictions werethe
be stated that lifted
nulland economicisactivities
hypothesis rejected,
were able to start
respectively, as the again, we considered
average it useful to
of May–September analyze
2019 is notthe significant
equal to the differences
average of be-the
tween the last of
same months five months
2020. of 2020,
In other compared
words, to the
there are same months
significant of 2019,
differences assuming
between the that
two
averages,
the average and as can be seenrate
unemployment in 2020, theremonths
in these was a greater level of unemployment.
differs significantly in the periodsThrough
taken
this account.
into analysis, we can consider that the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the labor market,
reducing
It canthe
be number
seen from of Table
employees
4 thatonthethe market, parameter
statistical on averagetby 0.16 percentage
(t Stat), measured in points.
abso-
lute value, is higher than the critical level, and the level of significance is lower than the
Table 4. Statistical
maximum accepted analysis of the unemployment
threshold; thus, it can berate in thethat
stated last 5the
months compared to is
null hypothesis last year.
rejected,
respectively, as the average of May–September 2019 is not equal to the average of the same
2019 2020
months of 2020. In other words, there are significant differences between the two aver-
Mean
ages, and as can be seen in 2020, there was a2.98 greater level of unemployment. 3.14Through this
Variance 0.002 0.033
analysis, we can consider that the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the labor market, re-
Observations 5 5
ducingPearson
the number of employees on the market,
Correlation 0.73855 on average by 0.16 percentage points.
Hypothesized Mean
0
Difference
df 4
t Stat −2.35907
P(T <= t) one-tail 0.03887
t Critical one-tail 2.13185
P(T <= t) two-tail 0.07774
t Critical two-tail 2.77645
Source: own processing based on data obtained from the centralization of questionnaire responses.
5. Conclusions
In order to highlight the characteristics of the labor force during the COVID-19 pan-
demic, with the emphasis on the particularities of the Romanian labor market, we used a
mix of research methods to lead us, as much as possible, to relevant results. We started
studying literature. The analysis of the documentation provided surprising results about
perhaps the most important aspects of the global labor force during the pandemic. Since its
inception, more and more authors have debated this issue, knowing that governments have
taken drastic measures to limit its spread with a major impact on the workforce. In many
countries of the world, as in Romania, the state of emergency was declared, entire sectors
of activity were closed, telework or work at home was generalized and territories were
quarantined.
To highlight the particular characteristics of the effects of the pandemic on the Roma-
nian workforce, we used a quantitative method based on opinion polls. The questionnaire
was completed online and consisted of 18 questions answered by over 500 people. For its
interpretation, we used the method of semantic differential and the method of ordering the
ranks. The semantic differential method for processing the results allowed the hierarchy of
criteria regarding the benefits of carrying out the professional activity. The resulting hierar-
chy was as follows: saving significant time resources allocated to roads saving important
time resources allocated to the road, eliminating stress caused by congestion in traffic or
public transport, a higher level of flexibility in organizing one’s own program, more time
spent with family, a higher level of promptness in organizing business meetings due to the
use of technology.
In conclusion, we can say that the changes in the labor market have been and will be
directly influenced by the evolution of the pandemic situation. It was an expected fact, with
the novelty of our research being to highlight both the background and the perspective.
In the future, we would see if the results obtained by us in this research will keep their
image or will be completely reorganized.
Through this study, we wanted to create a static vision of active people in Romania,
with the help of empirical research. As a limitation in determining the optimal impact of the
health crisis on the Romanian labor market, it could be emphasized that the survey research
was conducted in a fairly short time since the resumption of economic activities, perhaps
this impact, under all its forms will be observed in a longer time. However, to provide
a more realistic view, longitudinal research should be carried out following the present
study, on a larger scale.
Author Contributions: The authors worked together for this research, but, per structure: conceptu-
alization C.V.R., G.-R.L. and I.L.P.; methodology, software validation and resources, G.-R.L., I.L.P.
and F.C.; formal analysis, G.-R.L., C.V.R. and S.B.; writing—original draft preparation, and writing—
review and editing, G.-R.L., C.V.R., C.I. and I.L.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Informed Consent Statement: The collection of information through the questionnaire was done
anonymously, without requiring respondents to specify personal information.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Hui, D.S.; I Azhar, E.; Madani, T.A.; Ntoumi, F.; Kock, R.; Dar, O.; Ippolito, G.; Mchugh, T.D.; Memish, Z.A.; Drosten, C.; et al. The
continuing 2019-nCoV epidemic threat of novel coronaviruses to global health—The latest 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak in
Wuhan, China. IJID Off. Publ. Int. Soc. Infect. Dis. 2020, 91, 264–266. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Marcu, N.; Siminică, M.; Noja, G.C.; Cristea, M.; Dobrotă, C.E. Migrants’ Integration on the European Labor Market: A Spatial
Bootstrap, SEM and Network Approach. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4543. [CrossRef]
3. Nica, M. Study on Labour Force in Romanian Agriculture. Int. J. Sustain. Econ. Manag. 2018, 7, 36–44. [CrossRef]
4. McKibbin, W.J.; Sidorenkol, A.A. Global Macroeconomic Consequences of Pandemic Influenza; Centre for Applied Macroeconomic
Analysis: Acton, ACT, Australia, 2006.
5. Sadique, M.Z.; Adams, E.J.; Edmunds, W.J. Estimating the costs of school closure for mitigating an influenza pandemic. BMC
Public Health 2008, 8, 1–7. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Schanzer, D.L.; Zheng, H.; Gilmore, J. Statistical Estimates of Absenteeism Attributed to Seasonal and Pandemic Flu from the
Canadian Labour Force Survey. 2011. Available online: https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2334-11
-90 (accessed on 5 November 2020).
7. Jordà, Ò.; Singh, S.R.; Taylor, A.M. Longer-Run Economic Consequences of Pandemics. J. Chem. Inf. Model 2019, 53, 1689–1699.
[CrossRef]
8. Arndt, C.; Lewis, J.D. The HIV/AIDS pandemic in South Africa: Sectoral impacts and unemployment. J. Int. Dev. 2001, 13,
427–449. [CrossRef]
9. Baldwin, R.; Tomiura, E. Thinking Ahead about the Trade Impact of COVID-19. Available online: https://voxeu.org/content/
mitigating-covid-economic-crisis-act-fast-and-do-whatever-it-takes (accessed on 16 November 2020).
10. Alon, T.; Doepke, M.; Olmstead-Rumsey, J.; Tertilt, M. The Impact of Covid-19 on Gender Equality. J. Chem. Inf. Model 2019, 53,
1689–1699. [CrossRef]
11. Martinez, D.A.; Jayawarna, D. Bios, mythoi and women entrepreneurs: A Wynterian analysis of the intersectional impacts of the
COVID-19 pandemic on self-employed women and women-owned businesses. Int. Small Bus. J. Res. Entrep. 2020, 38, 391–403.
[CrossRef]
12. Verick, S. Female labor force participation in developing countries. IZA World Labor. 2014, 87, 1–10. [CrossRef]
13. Keogh-Brown, M.R.; Jensen, H.T.; Edmunds, W.J.; Smith, R.D. The impact of Covid-19, associated behaviours and policies on the
UK economy: A computable general equilibrium model. SSM Popul. Health 2020, 12, 100651. [CrossRef]
14. Huang, A.; Makridis, C.; Baker, M.; Medeiros, M.; Guo, Z. Understanding the impact of COVID-19 intervention policies on the
hospitality labor market. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 91, 102660. [CrossRef]
15. Greenberg, N.; Docherty, M.; Gnanapragasam, S.; Wessely, S. Managing mental health challenges faced by healthcare workers
during covid-19 pandemic. BMJ 2020, 368, 1–4. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Kuznetsova, A.; Askarov, A.; Gusmanov, R.; Askarova, A.; Pypłacz, P. Differentiation of labor productivity level and wages as a
basis for changes in labor market. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2019, 20, 345–357. [CrossRef]
17. Pană, M.C.; Fanea-Ivanovici, M. Institutional Arrangements and Overeducation: Challenges for Sustainable Growth. Evidence
from the Romanian Labour Market. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6459. [CrossRef]
18. Khanna, A. Impact of Migration of Labour Force due to Global COVID-19 Pandemic with Reference to India. J. Health Manag.
2020, 22, 181–191. [CrossRef]
19. Kim, A.T.; Kim, C.H.; Tuttle, S.E.; Zhang, Y. COVID-19 and the decline in Asian American employment. Res. Soc. Stratif. Mobil.
2021, 71, 100563. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Arthi, V.; Parman, J. Disease, downturns, and wellbeing: Economic history and the long-run impacts of COVID-19. Explor. Econ.
Hist. 2020, 9, 101381. [CrossRef]
21. Coibion, O.; Gorodnichenko, Y.; Weber, M. Labor Markets during the COVID-19 Crisis: A Preliminary View. SSRN Electron. J.
2020, 41. [CrossRef]
22. Couch, K.A.; Fairlie, R.W.; Xu, H. Early evidence of the impacts of COVID-19 on minority unemployment. J. Public Econ. 2020,
192, 104287. [CrossRef]
23. Forsythe, E.; Kahn, L.B.; Lange, F.; Wiczer, D. Labor demand in the time of COVID-19: Evidence from vacancy postings and UI
claims. J. Public Econ. 2020, 189, 104238. [CrossRef]
24. Dasgupta, P.; De, O. Sustainable Recovery with Jobs and more: This Is a Pandemic, Not a War. IEG Insights 2020 Fighting
COVID-19: Assessments and Reflection, Insitute of Economic Growth. 2020, Volume 61, pp. 61–69. Available online: http:
//iegindia.org/upload/uploadfiles/insight_covid_2.pdf#page=74 (accessed on 16 November 2020).
25. Dang, H.-A.H.; Viet Nguyen, C. Gender Inequality during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Income, Expenditure, Savings, and Job Loss.
World Dev. 2020, 105296. [CrossRef]
26. Ghimire, S.; Flury, M.; Scheenstra, E.J.; Miles, C.A. The COVID-19 outbreak in Sri Lanka: A synoptic analysis focusing on trends,
impacts, risks and science policy interaction processes. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 8, 135577. [CrossRef]
27. Cajner, T.; Crane, L.; Decker, R.; Hamins-Puertolas, A.; Kurz, C. Tracking Labor Market Developments during the COVID-19
Pandemic: A Preliminary Assessment. Financ. Econ. Discuss. Ser. 2020. Available online: https://www.federalreserve.gov/
econres/feds/files/2020030pap.pdf (accessed on 16 November 2020). [CrossRef]
28. Dingel, J.I.; Neiman, B. How many jobs can be done at home? J. Public Econ. 2020, 189. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Seetharaman, P. Business models shifts: Impact of Covid-19. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 54, 1–4. [CrossRef]
30. Petrosky-Nadeau, N.; Valletta, R.G. Unemployment Paths in a Pandemic Economy. Fed. Reserv. Bank San. Fr. Work Pap. Ser. 2020,
13294, 1–20. [CrossRef]
31. Sánchez-Sellero, M.C.; Sánchez-Sellero, P.; Martínez-Filgueira, X.M. Effects of socio-demographic changes on the labour market
of Galicia in Spain. Argum. Oeconomica 2017, 38, 41–62. [CrossRef]
32. Zandi, G.; Shahzad, I.; Farrukh, M.; Kot, S. Supporting role of society and firms to COVID-19 management among medical
practitioners. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7961. [CrossRef]
33. Lemieux, T.; Milligan, K.; Schirle, T.; Skuterud, M. Initial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Canadian labour market.
Can. Public Policy 2020, 46, S55–S65. [CrossRef]
34. Guido, M.C. Heterogeneous Labor Market Impacts During the Early Stages of The Covid-19 Pandemic. Rimini Cent. Econ. Anal.
2020, 20–327. [CrossRef]
35. Jones, C.J. Optimal Mitigation Policies in a Pandemic: Social Distancing and Working from Home. NBER Work Pap. Ser. 2020, 34.
Available online: http://www.nber.org/papers/w26984 (accessed on 17 November 2020).
36. Desson, Z.; Lambertz, L.; Peters, J.W.; Falkenbach, M.; Kauer, L. Europe’s Covid-19 outliers: German, Austrian and Swiss policy
responses during the early stages of the 2020 pandemic. Health. Policy Technol. 2020, 9, 405–418. [CrossRef]
37. Alon, T.; Tertilt, M.-R. This Time It’S Different: The Role of Women’s Employment in a Pandemic Recession. NBER 2020, 53,
1689–1699. [CrossRef]
38. Kristal, T.; Yaish, M. Does the coronavirus pandemic level the gender inequality curve? (It doesn’t). Res. Soc. Stratif. Mobil. 2020,
68, 100520. [CrossRef]
39. del Rio-Chanona, R.M.; Mealy, P.; Pichler, A.; Lafond, F.; Farmer, D. Supply and demand shocks in the COVID-19 pandemic: An
industry and occupation perspective. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 2020, 36, 1–38. [CrossRef]
40. Bonadio, B.; Huo, Z.; Levchenko, A.; Pandalai-Nayar, N. Global Supply Chains in the Pandemic. Natl. Bur. Econ. Res. 2020, 27224,
1–53. [CrossRef]
41. Lichter, A.; Schiprowski, A. Benefit duration, job search behavior and re-employment. J. Public Econ. 2021, 193, 104326. [CrossRef]
42. Vieira, T. The lose-lose dilemmas of Barcelona’s platform delivery workers in the age of COVID-19. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open 2020,
2, 100059. [CrossRef]
43. Mbizvo, G.K.; Bennett, K.; Simpson, C.R.; Susan, E.; Chin, R.F.M. Unemployment Insurance Claims and COVID-19 Revised.
Epilepsy Res. 2019, 106192. [CrossRef]
44. Fana, M.; Tolan, S.; Torrejón, S.; Urzi Brancati, C.; Fernández-Macías, E. The COVID Confinement Measures and EU Labour
Markets, EUR 30190 EN; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2020; p. 17. ISBN 978-92-79-18812-4. Available
online: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC120578/jrc120578_report_covid_confinement_measures_
final_updated_good.pdf, (accessed on 17 November 2020).
45. Albu, L.L.; Preda, C.I.; Lupu, R.; Dobrotă, C.E.; Călin, G.M.; Boghicevici, C.M. Estimates of Dynamics of the Covid-19 Pandemic
and of its Impact on the Economy. Rom. J. Econ. Forecast. 2020, 13, 5–17.
46. Coşkun, A.; Özbük, R.M.Y. What influences consumer food waste behavior in restaurants? An application of the extended theory
of planned behavior. Waste Manag. 2020, 117, 170–178. [CrossRef]
47. Marina, M.; Asma’, A.; Jaafar, S.N.A.; Abdul Wahab, M.R.; Wan Zainal Shukri, W.H. Nutrition menu labelling in Terengganu:
A cross-sectional study of knowledge, attitudes, perception and their relationship with healthy food choices. Food Res. 2020, 4,
1573–1581. [CrossRef]
48. Cappelli, L.; D’ascenzo, F.; Ruggieri, R.; Rossetti, F.; Scalingi, A. The attitude of consumers towards “Made in Italy” products. An
empirical analysis among Italian customers. Manag. Mark. Chall. Knowl. Soc. 2019, 14, 31–47. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 13 00271

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 13 00271

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Received: 26 November 2020

Sustainability 2021, 13, 271. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010271 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

It is generally appreciated that, depending on the extent to which differences and

Sustainability 2021, 13, 271 15 of 23

Figure 13. Identification

Figure 14. Determining

Figure 16. Determining

Figure 17. Score

For the firstthe

You might also like