Main Article

Transfer
2017, Vol. 23(3) 333–348
The digitalisation of service ª The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission:
work – social partner responses in sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1024258917702274
journals.sagepub.com/home/trs
Denmark, Sweden and Germany

Anna Ilsøe
FAOS, Department of Sociology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Summary
The discussion on the digitalisation of work has intensified in recent years. The literature points to
two main trends accelerated by digitalisation – work automation that eliminates or changes job
functions, and the creation of work without jobs via digital platforms. This article addresses the
question as to how social partners define digitalisation of work and their perception of its con-
sequences, while also looking at their recent responses to it. Drawing on interviews with unions
and employers’ organisations in Denmark, Sweden and Germany, it examines social partner
initiatives in the unilateral, tripartite and bipartite arenas on various forms of neo-corporatist
labour market regulation. The focus is on service work in the private sector, an area of the
economy currently under pressure from both automation and the trend towards work without
jobs. Whereas the social partners seem to be very active in the unilateral arena in all three
countries, responses differ in the tripartite and bipartite arenas. The article concludes by discussing
the strengths and weaknesses of the responses in the face of current digitalisation trends and
existing models of labour market regulation.

Résumé
Le débat sur la digitalisation du travail s’est fait de plus en plus intense ces dernières années. La
littérature spécialisée identifie deux tendances principales qui sont accélérées par la digitalisation :
l’automatisation du travail qui élimine ou qui modifie des postes de travail, et le développement
d’un travail sans emplois correspondants, via des plates-formes numériques. Cet article examine la
question de savoir comment les partenaires sociaux définissent la digitalisation du travail et leur
perception de ses conséquences, tout en examinant également les réponses qu’ils ont récemment
apportées à cette problématique. En s’appuyant sur des entretiens avec des syndicats et des
organisations d’employeurs au Danemark, en Suède et en Allemagne, il examine les initiatives des
partenaires sociaux dans des structures unilatérales, tripartites et bipartites concernant différentes
formes de réglementation du marché du travail dans une perspective néocorporatiste. L’accent est
mis sur les secteurs des services dans le secteur privé, un pan de l’économie actuellement mis sous

Corresponding author:
Anna Ilsøe, FAOS, Department of Sociology, University of Copenhagen, Oester Farimagsgade 5, building 16, PO Box 2099,
DK-1014 Copenhagen K, Denmark.
Email: ai@faos.dk
334 Transfer 23(3)

pression à la fois par l’automatisation et par la tendance vers le travail sans emplois correspondants.
Alors que, dans les trois pays concernés, les partenaires sociaux semblent s’être montrés très actifs
dans le cadre unilatéral, les réactions diffèrent s’agissant des instances tripartites et bipartites.
L’article conclut en analysant les forces et les faiblesses des réponses aux tendances actuelles à la
digitalisation et des modèles existants de réglementation du marché du travail.

Zusammenfassung
Die Diskussionen über die Digitalisierung der Arbeit werden in den letzten Jahren mit zuneh-
mender Intensität geführt. Die Literatur weist auf zwei wichtige Trends hin, die durch die Digi-
talisierung weiter beschleunigt werden – die Automatisierung der Arbeit, die bestimmte Aufgaben
obsolet macht oder verändert, und die Entstehung von Arbeit ohne Arbeitsplätze auf digitalen
Plattformen. Der vorliegende Artikel befasst sich mit der Frage, wie die Sozialpartner die Digi-
talisierung der Arbeit definieren, wie sie die sich daraus ergebenden Konsequenzen wahrnehmen
und welche aktuellen Antworten sie darauf haben. Auf der Grundlage von Gesprächen mit
Gewerkschaften und Arbeitgeberverbänden in Dänemark, Schweden und Deutschland werden die
Initiativen der Sozialpartner auf unilateraler, bilateraler und trilateraler Ebene zu unterschiedlichen
Formen der neokorporatistischen Arbeitsmarktregulierung untersucht. Der Schwerpunkt liegt
dabei auf Dienstleistungen in der Privatwirtschaft, die zurzeit aufgrund der Automatisierung und
des Trends zu Arbeit ohne Arbeitsplätze verstärkt unter Druck steht. Während die Sozialpartner
in der unilateralen Arena in allen drei Ländern sehr aktiv zu sein scheinen, gibt es ein diffe-
renzierteres Bild in der bipartiten und tripartiten Arena. Der Artikel schließt mit einer Diskussion
der Stärken und Schwächen der Antworten auf die aktuellen Digitalisierungstrends und die be-
stehenden Modelle der Arbeitsmarktregulierung.

Keywords
Digitalisation, service work, private sector, social dialogue, Denmark, Sweden, Germany

Digitalisation and work flexibility

Digitalisation of work and its consequences for labour markets and working conditions have been
debated for many years in the media, politics and research, with discussions intensifying in Europe
and the rest of the Western world in the 2010s. The European Commission has launched various
digital agendas as part of its Digital Single Market Strategy (European Commission, 2014, 2016),
and books and articles have addressed how digitalisation is now accelerating job losses and
changes of work processes (Ford, 2015; Gray et al., 2016; Hill, 2015; Huws, 2014; Rifkin, 2014).
The literature highlights two main trends. First and foremost, digitalisation is accelerating work
automation (Ford, 2015; Frey and Osborne, 2013), a process dating back to the early days of
industrialisation. However, the invention of the computer and later the Internet have contributed to
accelerating work automation in the form of increasingly sophisticated robots and software. Its
pace and the resultant job losses are expected to be further intensified by the increasing use of Big
Data in various professions.
Estimates point to automation eliminating many jobs in manufacturing but even more jobs in
the service industries such as sales assistants and secretaries. Calculations based on job categories
speak of a potential 47 per cent cut in the US workforce due to automation (Frey and Osborne,
2013). However, calculations based on skills and job functions are less pessimistic for both the US
and Europe, underlining that specific parts of each job will become obsolete, but not the entire job
Ilsøe 335

(Arntz et al., 2016; Chui et al., 2015, 2016). Automation is not only eliminating certain jobs but is
also changing the content of most jobs. The remaining jobs are likely to be characterised by new
functions, competence requirements and workplace reorganisation. Furthermore, automation is
helping to create new types of jobs such as e-commerce software development, etc. In sum,
automation in both its early and later forms alters the functional flexibility of work – which job
functions are needed or not and which combinations of job functions make a job (Benner, 2002).
Secondly, and more recently, digitalisation is creating work without jobs – work bought and
sold on-demand as single assignments and without longer commitments or contracts, the so-called
‘gigs’ (Hill, 2015; Huws, 2014; Rifkin, 2014). Over the past decades, non-standard employment
has grown in many Western countries, meaning that the standard full-time job on an open-ended
contract is under pressure (Gautié and Schmitt, 2009). Developments include temporary contracts,
zero-hour contracts, agency work, informal work, self-employment, freelance jobs, etc. (ILO,
2016; Manyika et al., 2016). In countries like the UK and the US, the growth in non-standard
work has been associated with a more general trend of increasing work precariousness (Kalleberg,
2011; Standing, 2011), whereas in other countries such as Germany non-standard employment has
been associated with a dualisation of the labour market distinguishing between standard and non-
standard jobs (Palier and Thelen, 2010; Schulten and Buschoff, 2015). Digitalisation is contribut-
ing to this trend by allowing more work to be performed through digital platforms without the legal
framework of a job and without a clear legal employer/employee identity.
It is important to distinguish between two different types of platforms. One group can be
characterised as labour platforms, i.e. forums for discrete freelance tasks (Farrell and Greig,
2016) such as Upwork.com or Freelancer.com, where single work assignments or projects are
traded. This category also includes micro-work forums such as Uber.com or TaskRabbit.com,
where small tasks are bought and sold. Other digital platforms can be characterised as capital
platforms. Here, participants sell goods or rent assets. Examples are Airbnb.com and Ebay.com
(Farrell and Greig, 2016). The latter type does not directly form part of the labour market. Certain
platforms were originally associated with the sharing economy (Schor, 2014). However, experi-
ence tells us that even platforms originally created with the intention of ‘sharing’ are now often
used for buying and selling services. A prominent example of this development is Airbnb.com
(Hill, 2015). Nevertheless, both labour and capital platforms offer new forms of economic activity
outside the regulatory framework governing the labour market and welfare state, a framework built
on the concept of full-time permanent jobs (Koch and Fritz, 2013).
The size of the platform economy is still relatively modest. Recent analysis of US banking data
shows that, in any given month, 1 per cent of adults earn income from the online platform economy
(Farrell and Greig, 2016). Although labour platforms are growing more rapidly than capital plat-
forms, the capital platform market is larger: 0.6 per cent of adults received income from capital
platforms, whereas 0.4 per cent of adults received income from labour platforms (Farrell and
Greig, 2016). The limited use of labour platforms is also confirmed by analysis of US survey data
(Katz and Krueger, 2016). Importantly, most participants used the platforms as a secondary source
of income. We find a similar picture in Europe. Surveys in Sweden, the UK, the Netherlands and
Austria indicate that most people use the platforms to supplement other forms of income (Huws
and Joyce, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c, 2016d). Platforms rarely account for an individual’s full income
today, but this segment is a growing market and expected to develop exponentially in the coming
years. Therefore, digital platforms seem to contribute to the increasing and increasingly diverse
forms of numerical flexibility of work – i.e. how many workers are needed and how these are
employed (if at all employed) –, even though the platform economy is still just a small part of the
total economy (Bernhardt, 2016; Bernhardt et al., 2016; Stone, 2004).
336 Transfer 23(3)

Generations of literature on workplace flexibility have drawn upon Atkinson’s famous concept
of the flexible firm and its core and peripheral workers (Atkinson, 1984). Under it, workers with
high skill levels are able to offer the firm a functional flexibility shielding them from numerical
flexibility. This trade-off makes them core workers – i.e. functional flexibility is rewarded with job
security. The other side of the coin is that workers with low skill levels have to deliver the
numerical flexibility needed. These become peripheral workers with just a loose attachment to
the firm (hiring/firing, non-standard terms, etc.). Digitalisation has the potential to alter these
traditional trade-offs, accelerating both functional flexibility (the destruction and creation of tasks)
and numerical flexibility (non-standard employment; work without jobs) and thereby increasing
the risk of dual flexibility pressure. Core workers can easily become peripheral and vice-versa.
This raises a number of important questions for the social partners – defined as trade unions,
employers’ organisations and the state – as to the future regulation of work and employment. If
jobs disappear on a massive scale in certain areas of the economy and/or are replaced by robots,
software or gigs, educational systems and labour market policies will be forced to adapt.
In this article, I examine how social partners are defining the digitalisation of work and
perceiving its consequences, while also looking at their recent responses to it. Drawing on inter-
views with unions and employers’ organisations in three European countries, I investigate initia-
tives in three arenas: the unilateral, tripartite and bipartite. The focus is on private sector services,
the private sector currently being the most affected by both automation, and the trend towards work
without jobs. Denmark, Sweden and Germany are compared, exploring similarities and differences
in social partner responses. All three countries represent neo-corporatist models of labour market
regulation, though the use of legislation as a regulatory instrument varies, being used more in
Germany than in Sweden, and more in Sweden than in Denmark.
The article is structured as follows. After this introductory section on work digitalisation and
flexibility, I briefly present the labour market models of Denmark, Sweden and Germany and
possible political arenas of social partner responses. This section is inspired by the neo-corporatist
literature. I go on to present the methods used in my analysis and my findings. I conclude with a
discussion of the findings.

Neo-corporatism and social partner responses in Denmark, Sweden

and Germany
Responses to digitalisation of work in Denmark, Sweden and Germany occur in labour market
models characterised by coordination and cooperation between the social partners. Danish, Swed-
ish and German labour market regulation has traditionally been described as a form of neo-
corporatism where social partners cooperate and negotiate a regulatory mix made up of collective
agreements, legislation and tripartite initiatives (Crouch, 1993; Visser, 1996). The different types
of labour market regulation supplement each other, demonstrating a tradition of coordination
covering different stakeholders and groups of interest.
However, there are also important country differences. Denmark and Sweden continue to
demonstrate comparatively high union densities and employer organisation membership rates
(albeit with a minor erosion), whilst these figures have dropped significantly in Germany (Visser,
2007, 2015) (see Table 1). Nevertheless, private sector services are under pressure when it comes
to union density in all three countries – also in Sweden and Denmark (Bechter et al., 2012;
Kjellberg and Ibsen, 2016). In Denmark, union density has dropped to a third in such service
segments as retail, hotels/restaurants and office work, and this is also the case inter alia in hotels/
restaurants in Sweden (Kjellberg, 2013; Toubøl et al., 2015). This background information is
Ilsøe 337

Table 1. Union densities and membership rates of employers’ organisations in Denmark, Sweden and
Germany.

Denmark Sweden Germany

Union density (% of employees)a 67 67 18

% of employees working in companies belonging 68 82 58
to an employers’ organisationb
a
Figures from 2012–2013.
b
Figures from 2010–2011.
Source: J Visser, ICTWSS Database. Version 5.0. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies AIAS.
October 2015.

important when it comes to social partner initiatives in neo-corporatist models. Bipartite and
tripartite initiatives depend on the legitimacy of the organisations participating in the coordination
and/or negotiation. Declining membership rates put a question-mark over the legitimacy of an
organisation’s bargaining mandate.
Legislation has historically played a larger role in German labour market regulation than in
Sweden and Denmark (Andersen, 2001; Ilsøe et al., 2007). While Germany recently introduced a
statutory minimum wage, Denmark and Sweden are two of the few European countries still
without one (Dølvik, 2016; Schulten, 2016). The introduction of the German minimum wage was
a response to the growing area of the German economy not covered by collective bargaining.
Bipartite regulation – i.e. collective bargaining – plays a dominant role in Sweden and Denmark in
combination with tripartite coordination of the unemployment benefit funds, further training
(CVET) and labour market policies (Dølvik, 2016; Mailand, 2008). Collective agreement coverage
in Sweden and Denmark is still comparatively high, and social partners (especially in Denmark)
have been hesitant to introduce more labour market legislation (Dølvik, 2016). However, employ-
ment protection legislation (EPL) is slightly stricter in Sweden than in Denmark, leaving Denmark
as the least legalistic of the three countries (Andersen et al., 2014).
Considering the key role of unions and employers’ organisations in Danish, Swedish and Ger-
man labour market regulation, this article will focus on these two players and their responses to the
digitalisation of work. Neo-corporatism theories distinguish between three different political are-
nas where social partners can seek influence: the unilateral arena, the tripartite arena and the
bipartite arena (Ebbinghaus, 2002; Mailand, 2008). I will use these three arenas to analyse union
and employer responses in Denmark, Sweden and Germany.
The unilateral arena is characterised by government regulation. In many ways this is the arena
with the weakest influence of unions and employers’ organisations. The state rules by legislation
and policy. Unions and employers’ organisations can try to influence policy and legislative pro-
cesses at national level (or at EU level) through lobbying initiatives (Mailand, 2008). They can
engage the media, publish and present analyses and reports, or leverage their formal and informal
interactions with politicians and government officials. Furthermore, they can take solo initiatives
and offer services to their members to cope with challenges experienced with existing regulations.
The influence of unions and employers’ organisations is potentially larger in the tripartite arena
(Mailand, 2008) where unions and employers’ organisations collaborate with the government.
Here, the three players coordinate or cooperate on policies and revisions of legislation in existing
formal forums or negotiate tripartite agreements. These formal forums exist at both national and
local level. Sometimes this arena will include other players and organisations with an interest or
competence in the topic under discussion.
338 Transfer 23(3)

Unions and employers’ organisations have the highest level of influence on labour market
regulations in the bipartite arena (Mailand, 2008), conducting self-regulatory collective bargain-
ing and concluding and implementing collective agreements. Negotiation and collaboration take
place at both national/sector level and local level. However, influence in the bipartite arena is very
much dependent on the bargaining power of unions and employers’ organisations. If membership
rates are dropping, this will affect collective agreement coverage quantitatively and qualitatively.
High coverage and the efficient implementation of agreements are important factors when gov-
ernments evaluate self-regulation via collective agreements.
The choice of arena has an impact on the degree of influence and the content, form and
implementation of any regulation. When responding to the digitalisation of work, unions and
employers’ organisations in Denmark, Sweden and Germany potentially have the highest degree
of influence in the bipartite arena, via for instance collective agreements. This is especially true for
Denmark and Sweden, where bipartite regulation plays an even more dominant role than in
Germany. Considering the declining union density in large parts of private sector services in all
three countries, this might, however, not be their first choice. In the case of digital platforms which
neither consider themselves to be employers nor are members of employers’ organisations, it can
be also difficult for unions to find a bargaining partner. This may lead the social partners to give
priority to government initiatives – commission work, legislation, etc. – and work in the tripartite
and unilateral arena. In the unilateral arena, organisations can for instance influence legislative
processes, whereas the tripartite arena can be important with regard to overall policy-making. In
many cases, organisations make use of more than one arena to influence future regulation. Forum
shopping is a known phenomenon in neo-corporatist models – if organisations cannot gain influ-
ence in one arena, they try the others until they get their message over (Due and Madsen, 2009).

Methodology
This article is based on desk research on the digitalisation of service work, background interviews
with researchers working on the topic, followed by interviews with unions and employers’ orga-
nisations on their responses to digitalisation. All empirical data were collected during 2016 and
included a total of 14 interviews. I started by doing desk research to formulate this article’s main
research questions. I then conducted four background interviews with researchers in the UK and
the US working on digitalisation of service work. These background interviews were used to
design semi-structured interview guides for social partners in the service sector in Denmark,
Sweden and Germany. Six interviewees from the social partners in the three countries were
carefully selected using the following criteria. First, they had to be at similar levels (sector level
in the case of private sector services) to facilitate a valid comparison of answers across unions and
employers’ organisations and across countries. Secondly, I used an information-oriented selection
strategy (Flyvbjerg, 1996), selecting the sector-level representative with the greatest knowledge
and experience within the field of digitalisation of work. This resulted in two interviews at
federation level in Denmark and two at EU level to identify the relevant interviewees. Finally, I
interviewed the sector-level representatives. Each interview lasted 1½–2 hours and was recorded.
The results of each interview were then condensed to summarise the conclusions. The analysis
addressed the following three research questions:

 How do unions and employers’ organisations in private sector services define digitalisation
of work? Do they include both the automation and the work without jobs debate?
Ilsøe 339

 What are – in their view – the consequences of digitalisation of service work?

 Which social partner initiatives have they been part of? Do initiatives have a unilateral,
tripartite or bipartite character?

Answers were coded according to these three questions in all six sector-level interviews and dis-
played in four tables, which were then sent to the interviewees for comments and revised accordingly.
Although the representatives from the sector-level organisations in all three countries answered all
questions from a service sector perspective, it quickly became clear that some of the initiatives were
not restricted to private sector services, as was the case for some forms of commission work.
Furthermore, the answers from the unions and the employers’ organisation in each country were
not always identical in the bipartite and tripartite arena. Sometimes, one side of the table would
mention certain initiatives not mentioned by the other side. Such initiatives were nevertheless
included in the analysis, as the two sides did not always participate in the same initiatives (for
instance company-level agreements, certain forms of commissions at federation level, etc.).

Analysis
In this section the results of our analysis are presented. We start by looking at how social partners
define digitalisation of work and its consequences in each country – and the differences and
similarities across the two sides of industry. These analyses are then compared across the three
countries. Next, social partner initiatives in three political arenas – unilateral, tripartite and bipar-
tite – are analysed in each country, with the findings again compared.

Digitalisation of work – definitions and consequences

Union and employer representatives seem to define digitalisation quite similarly in each country –
and across the three countries. However, when asked about their views on the consequences of
digitalisation, the two sides of industry in all three countries differed.
When asked how they would define digitalisation of work, both the union and the employer
representative in Denmark quickly pointed to the two main trends mentioned in the literature – how
digitalisation leads to work automation and creates work without jobs. However, they saw these
trends from different perspectives. The union representative underlined how automation led to job
losses and demands for new competences and further training, whereas the employer representa-
tive stressed the importance of ensuring an attractive business environment in Denmark to attract
economic activity (see Table 2). This also included providing employees with new competences.
When it came to the creation of work without jobs, the union representative was concerned with
how decent wages and working conditions could be guaranteed, whereas the employer represen-
tative was concerned with how to get rid of (or avoid) excessive regulation and welcome new
business models to Denmark.
Although the two parties defined digitalisation of work in a similar manner, they had differing
views on its consequences. Whereas the Danish union looked at them through the lens of labour
market policy (how to regulate wages and working conditions), the employers’ organisation
viewed them through the lens of business policy (how to attract and retain economic activity).
In Sweden, both the union and the employer representative were also quick to address both
issues – how digitalisation leads to work automation and creates work without jobs. However, they
did not disagree as much as in Denmark over its consequences. The union representative men-
tioned (as did his Danish colleague) job losses and the need for reskilling, whereas the employer
340
Table 2. Definition and consequences of digitalisation of service work – responses from unions and employers’ organisations in Denmark, Sweden and
Germany.

Denmark Sweden Germany

Employers’ Employers’ Employers’

Union organisation Union organisation Union organisation

Digitalisation Job losses, new Securing economic Job losses, reskilling Eliminates tasks – Job losses, new Job losses,
accelerates competences activity, new not jobs qualification evolution
work automation competences requirements
Digitalisation Securing pay Welcome new New ways of New forms of Freelance work, Test cases, unfair
creates work and working business models organising work – aggregating tasks – no employer, no competition
without jobs conditions how to unionise more employment workplace and no
and create portable opportunities, employee, digital
benefit systems? regulation challenges precariat
Digitalisation - - - - Digitalisation facilitates Digitalisation
facilitates employer control questions data
control and and calculation of security and
surveillance* worker tasks privacy for
firms (SMEs)
*The topic of how digitalisation facilitates control and surveillance was mentioned by both the union and the employers’ organisation in Germany, whereas this was not the case
in Denmark and Sweden.
Ilsøe 341

representative emphasised that automation would eliminate tasks – not jobs (see Table 2). There-
fore, he expected overall job losses to be lower than anticipated. Furthermore, the Swedish
employer representative stressed that the creation of work without jobs via online platforms was
a new form of aggregating tasks that actually created more employment opportunities. However,
such platforms also produced regulatory challenges. The Swedish union representative was less
optimistic about these new forms of work organisation and their implications. How can unions
organise workers performing tasks via platforms? How can these workers participate in the unem-
ployment benefit systems? Is it possible to create a portable benefit system? As in Denmark, the
Swedish employer representative was more concerned with job creation, while his union counter-
part was more concerned with job destruction. However, both sides viewed digitalisation as an
important issue in labour market politics.
Last but not least, the respective representatives in Germany also addressed how digitalisation
leads to work automation and creates work without jobs. However, both representatives also
mentioned a third aspect: how digitalisation facilitates control and surveillance (see Table 2). This
may reflect historical reasons – since the Second World War, Germany has been very cautious
about data privacy. However, they raised this topic for different reasons. The German union
representative feared that digitalisation of work would lead to more employer control and to the
calculation of a monetary value for every individual task, including small breaks during work.
Digitalisation allows employers to record everything by the second, facilitating a detailed control
of worker behaviour. The employer representative feared that digitalisation would lead to a loss of
data security and privacy – especially for SMEs who cannot afford to buy the competence needed
to secure their data. In conclusion, both sides feared the potential consequences of data recording
facilitated by digitalisation.
With regard to work automation, the answers from the German representatives were very
similar to those of their Swedish and Danish colleagues. The German union representative men-
tioned job losses and new qualification requirements as a consequence of automation, whereas the
employer representative accepted that there would be job losses but that this would happen slowly
and incrementally. Again, he was less pessimistic than his union counterpart. As regarded work
without jobs, the German representatives were very similar in their views, in contrast to their
Nordic colleagues. The German union representative assessed the situation rather pessimistically,
fearing that digitalisation would lead to the creation of a freelance labour market with no employ-
ers, no employees and no workplaces. In his view, there was a real danger that this would lead to a
digital precariat. The employer representative viewed the current platforms as test cases to be
addressed and regulated over time. However, he considered any expansion of the platform econ-
omy as a challenge, as this could trigger unfair competition between digital and physical firms.
In sum, union and employer representatives in Denmark, Sweden and Germany defined digi-
talisation of work in rather similar ways. All interviewees mentioned how digitalisation acceler-
ated work automation and how digital platforms created work without jobs. The German
interviewees added a third dimension, highlighting how digitalisation also facilitates the increased
control and surveillance of employees and of firms. Focusing on the consequences, there was
disagreement among the respective representatives in all three countries. Whereas the German,
Danish and Swedish union representatives mainly perceived the consequences of digitalisation as a
labour market policy issue, fearing job losses and increasingly precarious wages and working
conditions, the employer representatives mainly considered the consequences as a business policy
issue, fearing that excessive regulation would lead to fewer jobs and less economic activity. This
difference was most visible in the Danish case, whereas the differences were more moderate in the
Swedish and German ones.
342 Transfer 23(3)

Table 3. Social partner initiatives on digitalisation of work in Denmark – unilateral, tripartite and bipartite
arenas in private sector services compared.

Denmark Union Employers’ organisation

Unilateral Analyses/reports, media appearance Analyses/reports, media appearance

arena Political project Political project
Dialogue with government departments and Dialogue with government departments
political parties and political parties
Responses to EU strategies Dialogue with European forums and
Pension scheme for union members – employers’ organisations
including freelancers; freelancer network
Dialogue with European and international unions
Tripartite Tripartite cooperation on education and Tripartite cooperation on education
arena further training and further training
Roundtable at Copenhagen municipality Roundtable at Copenhagen municipality
Government-led strategy process on sharing Company forum
economy (open ended) Debate at Denmark’s Political Festival
Union-led conference on platform economy on Bornholm
Union-led expert panel on platform economy Tripartite meetings on unemployment
scheduled for 2017 benefits
Government-led disruption panel scheduled Tripartite negotiations on further training
for 2017 scheduled for 2017
Bipartite Informal contacts to employers’ organisations Informal contacts to unions
arena Contacts to new digital employers

Social partner initiatives on the digitalisation of work – unilateral, tripartite and/or

bipartite responses?
Our attention now turns to the three possible political regulatory arenas in neo-corporatist labour
market models. Here, the analysis focuses on the interviewees’ answers to the question of which
initiatives their organisation had participated in. In general, the unions and employers’ organisa-
tions in all three countries seem to have been very active in the unilateral arena, whereas activities
in the tripartite and the bipartite arena differ.
In Denmark, union and employer initiatives on digitalisation of work have been mainly in the
unilateral arena (see Table 3). The two have published analyses/reports, commented in the media,
conducted political projects, initiated dialogues with government departments and political parties,
and participated in dialogues in European organisations/forums. Furthermore, the union reported
having responded to EU strategies on the topic. It had also created a new pension scheme for union
members not covered by a collective agreement (including freelancers) and a freelancer network.
Initiatives in the tripartite arena were limited at the time of writing. Unions and employers’ organisa-
tions had exploited their existing tripartite cooperation on education and further training to discuss
and create further training opportunities within the field of digitalisation. Unions had organised a
conference on the platform economy, and the government had initiated a strategy writing process on
the platform economy. However, the latter had been a relatively closed and delayed process. Other
tripartite initiatives were scheduled for 2017. Initiatives in the bipartite arena were even more limited
and mainly informal. Unions and employers’ organisations had had informal talks with each other,
and the union had contacted new digital employers for informal talks.
In Sweden – as in Denmark – there have been a number of initiatives on digitalisation of work
triggered by the union and the employers’ organisation in the unilateral arena (see Table 4). The
Ilsøe 343

Table 4. Social partner initiatives on digitalisation of work in Sweden – unilateral, tripartite and bipartite
arenas in private sector services compared.

Sweden Union Employers’ organisation

Unilateral Analyses/reports, media appearance Analyses/reports, media appearance

arena Dialogue with government departments and
political parties
Dialogue with European and international unions
Responses to EU strategies
Website on automation
Attempt to build a private unemployment
insurance for white-collar workers
Tripartite Digitalisation commission (2013)
arena Taxi commission (2015)
Workplace safety in the new economy (2015)
þ five more commissions since 2015
Many new tripartite initiatives in the making on
platforms, lifelong learning and social security
Bipartite Informal contacts with employers’ organisations
arena Contact new digital employers
Think tank which deals with the issues
of education in a digital context
Dialogue with government departments
and political parties
Dialogue with European forums and
employers’ organisations
Commission on future work (Arbetet i
framtiden)
Informal contacts with unions

Swedish union has also (together with other white-collar unions) participated in an attempt to build
a private unemployment insurance for white-collar workers, able to deliver portable benefits.
Unlike Denmark, there have been several initiatives in the tripartite arena. The Swedish govern-
ment has set up at least eight commissions on digitalisation of work: a digitalisation commission, a
taxi commission, a commission on workplace safety in the new economy, a commission on future
work, etc. Furthermore, many new tripartite initiatives on digital platforms, lifelong learning, etc.
are in the making. As in Denmark, bipartite initiatives in Sweden are rare.
In Germany – as in Denmark and Sweden – there have also been several unilateral initiatives on
digitalisation of work by the union and the employers’ organisation (see Table 5). However, there
have been more bipartite initiatives. Alongside informal dialogue between unions and employers’
organisations on the topic, collective agreements have also been concluded, most at larger com-
panies within the framework of ‘Collective agreements to protect employees from redundancies as
a result of technical progress and automation’ (Rationalisieringsschutzverträge). The union
recently concluded an agreement with Telekom addressing job losses and reskilling needs as a
consequence of digitalisation. The German union and employers’ organisation have been very
active in the tripartite arena. As in Sweden, the German government has set up several commis-
sions on digitalisation (at least eight, and including Arbeiten 4.0 and Platform competitiveness)
made up of government representatives, unions, employers’ organisations and other stakeholders.
It has also launched a large research fund entitled ‘Innovations for the production, services and
labour of tomorrow’ that supports research into digitalisation of work.
In conclusion, both unions and employers’ organisations in all three countries seem to have
resorted primarily to the unilateral arena when it comes to overcoming the challenges posed by
digitalisation of work. However, the Danish and the Swedish unions differ from the German union in
the unilateral arena, as they have tried to create concrete benefits for freelancers and other non-
standard workers not covered by a collective agreement. The Danish union has successfully created a
favourable pension scheme for union members (not covered by collective agreements), whereas the
Swedish union unsuccessfully attempted to create a private unemployment insurance. The tripartite
344 Transfer 23(3)

Table 5. Social partner initiatives on digitalisation of work in Germany – unilateral, tripartite and bipartite
arenas in private sector services compared.

Germany Union Employers’ organisation

Unilateral Analyses/reports, media appearance Analyses/reports, media appearance

arena Dialogue with government departments and Dialogue with government
political parties departments and political parties
Dialogue with European and international unions Dialogue with European forums and
Responses to EU strategies (Digital Single Market employers’ organisations
Strategy, Refit strategy) Internal political project: Digitalisation
Responses to EU strategies
(Services Directive)
Participation in High Level Group
Tripartite Federal Ministry of Labour: Arbeiten 4.0 (Green Paper Participation in several commissions
arena 2015/White Paper 2016) initiated by ministries
Ministry of Economic Affairs: Platform competitiveness Conference 2015: Digital services
(Green Paper/White Paper) þ six other government-
initiated procedures with tripartite elements
Ministry of Education and Science: Innovations for
the production, services and labour of tomorrow
(research funding)
Bipartite Informal contacts to employers’ organisations Informal contacts to unions
arena Collective agreements to protect employees from
redundancies as a result of technical progress
and automation (Rationalisieringsschutzverträge)
Telekom agreement (2015): early retirement, reskilling.

arena has been used very differently in the three countries. While the Danish social partners have
discussed digitalisation of work more or less informally in the existing forums for tripartite coop-
eration on education and further training as well as in a couple of new forums and roundtable
discussions, in Sweden and Germany, the tripartite approach has been much more formal and
substantial. Both the Swedish and the German governments have set up at least eight commissions
on digitalisation of work in which the unions and employers’ organisations have participated. On top
of that, the German government has also launched a large research fund on the theme. The bipartite
arena has been used the least in all three countries. Most initiatives here are little more than informal
dialogues. However, the German union stands out, having negotiated collective agreements at
company level addressing the challenges of work automation, primarily in larger companies.

Conclusion and discussion

The discussion on digitalisation of work has intensified in recent years. The literature points to two
main trends accelerated by digitalisation – work automation which eliminates or changes job
functions and the creation of work without jobs via digital platforms. These trends are especially
strong in private sector services. This article raises the question as to how social partners in such
work define digitalisation of work and its consequences and what they are doing to overcome the
challenges posed. Drawing on interviews with unions and employers’ organisations at sector level
in private sector services in three European countries, our analysis explores social partner initia-
tives in the unilateral, tripartite and bipartite arenas.
Ilsøe 345

Our analysis suggests that the unions and employers’ organisations in all three countries agree
on how to define digitalisation and what the important trends are (automation and work without
jobs). The German social partners are also concerned about how digitalisation of work facilitates
control and surveillance. However, the social partners differ when it comes to how to address these
trends. Whereas the union representatives mainly view digitalisation as a labour market policy
issue, fearing job losses and precarious wages and working conditions, the employer representa-
tives mainly see digitalisation as a business policy issue, fearing that excessive regulation will lead
to a decline in jobs and other forms of economic activity. This difference is most visible in the
Danish case, whereas the difference is more moderate in the Swedish and the German case.
The varying views on digitalisation between unions and employers’ organisations might relate
to their respective use of political arenas. In all three countries, both sides of industry boast many
initiatives on digitalisation of work in the unilateral arena. In Denmark, there are few initiatives in
the tripartite and bipartite arenas, meaning that the unilateral arena plays the dominant role.
However, it is also the arena where the influence of unions and employers’ organisations is
potentially weakest. Moreover, in this arena, the two sides do not meet directly to create common
perspectives and policies. This can help explain why the Danish union and employers’ organisation
address the consequences of digitalisation from very different perspectives – and disagree more
than their Swedish and German colleagues. They have not to the same degree been forced to
engage in social dialogue on the topic in tripartite forums, allowing common concepts and percep-
tions to be developed. Government-initiated tripartite initiatives might be especially important in
private sector services in Denmark, since union densities are lower than in other parts of the private
sector and most companies are small or medium-sized. The bargaining mandate for unions is thus
relatively weak and bipartite initiatives not easy to establish.
The Swedish and the German governments have set up several large commissions on the
digitalisation of work. This might be a consequence of the larger extent of labour market legisla-
tion in the two countries. The commissions allow unions and employers’ organisations to combine
their unilateral initiatives with coordinated ones in the tripartite arena, giving them greater poten-
tial to create a common understanding of digitalisation of service work and influence future
legislation thereon. However, one may question whether all these commissions have had any
significant impact in practice. Have their recommendations been implemented at workplace level,
and what are their effects? In view of declining union densities in private sector services in Sweden
and Germany, the bargaining power of unions to implement recommendations via collective
agreement is limited. Enforcing legislation can also be a challenge. This is especially true with
regard to work via digital platforms when such work is not registered by the public authorities in
one way or another. This brings us back to the German discussion on data control – who owns and
has access to data? This will be a decisive aspect in any future regulation of digital work. In
addition to this, one can question whether the organisations and the government have the capacity
to process the data. It does not help to have data access if data cannot be analysed.
Our analysis suggests that only Germany has made formal use of the bipartite arena in the field
of digitalisation, with collective agreements on the consequences of digitalisation concluded at
enterprise level. Examples mainly cover larger, unionised companies like Telekom. The question
is of course whether bipartite initiatives will work also for SMEs which make up the majority of
private sector services in Germany, but are often less unionised.
In general, the unilateral arena seems to be the main arena for initiatives on digitalisation of
work by unions and employers’ organisations in all three countries. Tripartite coordination in
Sweden and Germany is initiated by the governments – unions and employers’ organisations are
participants. As yet, bipartite coordination only seems to function in Germany in larger companies.
346 Transfer 23(3)

These conclusions might reflect the declining union densities in private sector services in all three
countries. Union density is lowest in German private sector services – with the exception of certain
large companies –, though significant drops in union densities have also been observed in Danish
and Swedish private sector services over the last decade. Faced with weakened bargaining man-
dates and resources, the unions might prioritise lobbying initiatives to influence legislative pro-
cesses, as well as accepting invitations to participate in commissions.
One challenge facing the Danish and Swedish models of labour market regulation is that the
bipartite arena has not been used more, particularly when considering that the two are mainly
regulated by collective agreements. This is especially true for Denmark, where no government-led
commission on digitalisation has been set up, and where the social partners still talk about the topic
in quite different ways. Joint participation in commissions on digitalisation might therefore
enhance social dialogue in Denmark.
The creation of work without jobs via digital platforms is still in the making in the sense that this
part of the labour market only constitutes a small share of Western economies. However, if this
trend grows, it will challenge all sorts of regulation in the Western world – including legislation.
The German labour market is regulated by legislation to a larger extent than in Denmark and
Sweden, and it has a statutory minimum wage, meaning that in principle it has a safety net for new
forms of digital work. The question is, however, whether such regulation can be enforced for work
via online platforms. Many questions remain unanswered when it comes to implementing the
statutory minimum wage in a manner encompassing the platform economy in an efficient and
ethically sound way. This calls for future research into enforcing regulation of work via digital
platforms.

Acknowledgements
This article has been presented to a number of colleagues at the following conferences: The 8th
Annual TURI conference, Sesimbra, Portugal, 11–13 May 2016, Shaping the new world of work.
The impacts of digitalisation and robotisation, Brussels, Belgium, 27–29 June 2016, Delingsøko-
nomien møter den nordiske modellen, Fafo, Oslo, Norway, 27 September 2016, FAOS research
seminar, Nice, France, 28–30 September, the DSE 40th Anniversary Conference, 6–7 October
2016, Copenhagen, Denmark and Fri fugl eller frit fald – konference om platformsøkonomi, Danish
Parliament, Copenhagen, Denmark, 25 October 2016. The author thanks audiences for their fruit-
ful comments that have helped improve the final result. Furthermore, I would like to express my
gratitude to Mikkel Mailand and Trine P Larsen who read and commented on earlier drafts as well
as the two anonymous referees.

Funding
The empirical study presented in the article was funded by The Danish Chamber of Commerce
(Dansk Erhverv), The Union of Commercial and Clerical Employees – Retail (HK Handel), The
Union of Commercial and Clerical Employees – Private sector (HK/Privat) and FAOS programme
funding from 2014 to 2018. The author would like to thank all funding bodies for their generous
support of the empirical research.

References
Andersen SK (2001) Mellem politik og marked. Copenhagen: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag.
Andersen SK, Dølvik JE and Ibsen CL (2014) De nordiske aftalemodeller i a˚bne markeder -udfordringer og
perspektiver. Oslo: Fafo.
Ilsøe 347

Arntz M, Gregory T and Zierahn U (2016) The Risk of Automation for Jobs in OECD Countries: A Com-
parative Analysis, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 189. Paris: OECD
Publishing. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jlz9h56dvq7-en (accessed 20 March 2017).
Atkinson J (1984) Manpower strategies for flexible organisations. Personnel Management, August 16: 28–31.
Bechter B, Brandl B and Meardi G (2012) Sectors or countries? Typologies and levels of analysis in
comparative relations. European Journal of Industrial Relations 18(2): 185–202.
Benner C (2002) Work in the New Economy: Flexible Labor Markets in Silicon Valley. San Francisco: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Bernhardt A (2016) It’s Not All About Uber. Perspectives on Work. Champaign, IL: LERA, pp. 14–16.
Bernhardt A, Batt R, Houseman S et al. (2015) Domestic Outsourcing in the U.S.: A Research Agenda to
Assess Trends and Effects on Job Quality. IRLE Working Paper No. 102-16. Berkeley: University of
California, Berkeley.
Chui M, Manyika J and Miremadi M (2015) Four fundamentals of workplace automation. McKinsey Quar-
terly, November. Available at: mckinsey.com. (accessed 20 March 2017).
Chui M, Manyika J and Miremadi M (2016) Where machines could replace humans—and where they can’t
(yet). McKinsey Quarterly, July. Available at: mckinsey.com. (accessed 20 March 2017).
Crouch C (1993) Industrial Relations and European State Traditions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Due J and Madsen JS (2009) Forligsmagere og forumshoppere: Analyse af OK 2008 i den offentlige sektor.
Copenhagen: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag.
Dølvik JE (2016) The Danes’ uneasy relationship between collective bargaining and legislation in imple-
menting EU workers’ rights: The case of minimum wage setting. In: Larsen TP and Ilsøe A (eds) Den
danske model set udefra. Copenhagen: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, pp. 103–126.
Ebbinghaus B (2002) Varieties of Social Governance: Comparing the Social Partners’ Involvement in
Pension and Employment Policies. Cologne: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
European Commission (2014) Grand Coalition for Digital Jobs. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission (2016) Digital Skills and Jobs Coalition Initiative. Brussels: European Commission.
Farrell D and Greig F (2016) Paychecks, Paydays, and the Online Platform Economy. Big Data on Income
Volatility. Washington D.C.: The JPMorgan Chase Institute.
Flyvbjerg B (1996) Rationalitet og magt. Bind 1: Det konkretes videnskab. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.
Ford M (2015) Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future. New York: Basic Books.
Frey CB and Osborne MA (2013) The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerization?
Oxford: University of Oxford.
Gautié J and Schmitt J (eds) (2009) Low-Wage Work in the Wealthy World. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Gray ML, Suri S, Ali SS et al. (2016) The Crowd is a Collaborative Network. Computer-Supported Coop-
erative Work and Social Computing. Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported
Cooperative Work & Social Computing. San Francisco: CSCW, pp. 134–147.
Hill S (2015) Raw Deal: How the “Uber Economy” and Runaway Capitalism Are Screwing American
Workers. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Huws U (2014) Labor in the Global Digital Economy: The Cybertariat Comes of Age. New York: Monthly
Review Press.
Huws U and Joyce S (2016a) Size of the UK’s “Gig Economy” Revealed for the First Time. Hertfordshire:
University of Hertfordshire.
Huws U and Joyce S (2016b) Size of Sweden’s ‘Gig Economy’ Revealed for the First Time. Hertfordshire:
University of Hertfordshire.
Huws U and Joyce S (2016c) New Estimate of the Size of Dutch ‘Gig Economy’ Revealed for the First Time.
Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire.
348 Transfer 23(3)

Huws U and Joyce S (2016d) Character of Austria’s ‘Gig Economy’ Revealed for the First Time. Hertford-
shire: University of Hertfordshire.
ILO (2016) Non-standard Employment Around the World: Understanding Challenges, Shaping Prospects –
Overview. Geneva: International Labour Office.
Ilsøe A, Madsen JS and Due JJ (2007) Impacts of decentralization - erosion or renewal?: The decisive link
between workplace representation and company size in German and Danish industrial relations. Indus-
trielle Beziehungen 14(3): 201–222.
Kalleberg AL (2011) Good Jobs, Bad Jobs: The Rise of Polarized and Precarious Employment Systems in the
United States, 1970s–2000s. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Katz LF and Krueger AB (2016) The Rise and Nature of Alternative Work Arrangements in the United States,
1995–2015. Boston: Harvard University.
Kjellberg A (2013) Kollektivavtalens täckningsgrad samt organisationsgraden hos arbetsgivarfo¨rbund och
fackförbund. Department of Sociology, Lund University: Studies in Social Policy, Industrial Relations,
Working Life and Mobility. Research Reports 2013:1. Lund: Department of Sociology, Lund University.
Kjellberg A and Ibsen CL (2016) Attacks on union organising. Reversible and irreversible changes to the
Ghent systems in Sweden and Denmark. In: Larsen TP and Ilsøe A (eds) Den danske model set udefra.
Copenhagen: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, pp. 279–302.
Koch M and Fritz M (eds) (2013) Non-Standard Employment in Europe: Paradigms, Prevalence and Policy
Responses. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mailand M (2008) Regulering af arbejde og velfærd: mod nye arbejdsdelinger mellem staten og arbejds-
markedets parter. Copenhagen: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets forlag.
Manyika J, Lund S, Bughin J et al. (2016) Independent Work: Choice, Necessity and The Gig Economy. San
Francisco: McKinsey Global Institute.
Palier B and Thelen K (2010) Institutionalizing dualism: Complementarities and change in France and
Germany. Politics & Society 38(1): 119–148.
Rifkin J (2014) The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, the Collaborative Commons, and the
Eclipse of Capitalism. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schor J (2014) Debating the Sharing Economy. Boston: Great Transition Initiative.
Schulten T and Buschoff KS (2015) Sector-level Strategies against Precarious Employment in Germany.
Düsseldorf: Hans Böckler Stiftung (WSI).
Schulten T (2016) Danish, German and European perspectives on (statutory) minimum wages. In: Larsen TP
and Ilsøe A (eds) Den danske Model set udefra. Copenhagen: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, pp.
85–102.
Standing G (2011) The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Stone KVW (2004) From Widgets to Digits: Employment Regulation for the Changing Workplace. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toubøl J, Ibsen CL and Jensen DS (2015) Det mobile danske arbejdsmarked og organisering af lønmodta-
gere. LO-dokumentation. Copenhagen: LO.
Visser J (2007) Trade union decline and what next: is Germany a special case? Industrielle Beziehungen:
Zeitschrift für Arbeit, Organisation und Management 14(2): 97–117.
Visser J (2015) ICTWSS Database. Version 5.0. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour
Studies AIAS. October.
Visser J (2016) Variation in decentralization; articulation and legal culture. In: Larsen TP and Ilsøe A (eds)
Den danske model set udefra. Copenhagen: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, pp. 53–84.