Fragmentation in the Future of Work: A Horizon Scan Examining the Impact of the Changing Nature of Work on Vulnerable Workers

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-122507/v1

Download PDF

Research article

Fragmentation in the Future of Work: A Horizon Scan Examining the Impact of the Changing Nature of Work on Vulnerable Workers

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-122507/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background. The future of work is characterized by social, technological, economic, environmental and political changes that are expected to disrupt all aspects of the working world. Our study aims to understand how the future of work impacts vulnerable workers.

Methods. We conducted a horizon scan to systematically identify and synthesize diverse sources of evidence including academic research, gray literature and social media. Search terms were generated by members of the multidisciplinary research team, and combined with work outcome, future- and change-related and vulnerable worker search terms. Six search portals were used to uncover peer reviewed and gray literature across diverse disciplines. Search terms were also entered into Twitter’s standard search interface to identify social media resources. Literature was screened for eligibility (i.e., English language, documented a change in the nature of work, industrialized context and description of impact to vulnerable workers). Each relevant article was synthesized, and trend categories were developed by through iterative discussions among the research team.

Results. An initial search yielded 4,800 articles after removing duplicates. Following a title and abstract relevancy screen, 3,195 articles were excluded. A total of 342 articles were fully reviewed. A synthesis of articles found nine trend categories which included digital transformation of the economy, artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML)-enhanced automation, AI-enabled human resource management systems, skill requirements for the future of work; globalization 2.0, climate change and the green economy, Gen Zs and the work environment; populism and the future of work, and external shocks to accelerate the changing nature of work (The COVID-19 example). Some workers may be more likely to experience vulnerability in the future of work including greater exposure to job displacement or wage depression. However, some potentially positive future of work trends also existed and could be beneficial for the labor market engagement of certain groups.

Discussion. The changing nature of work can be fragmented for different groups of workers. Our research offers an important step towards understanding and supporting the involvement of vulnerable workers in the future of work.

Health Economics & Outcomes Research

Behavioral Economics

Sociology

Future of work

vulnerable workers

social determinants of health

labor market exclusion

social and health inequities

work arrangements

work environment

The nature of work is rapidly changing and an increasing amount of research within industrialized countries has focused towards understanding how changes in the future will impact workers and workplaces [1–3]. There are fewer studies that explore issues affecting how the future of work will impact specific labor market subgroups, especially those who could be disadvantaged by changing work arrangements and work conditions. To better understand these issues, we conducted an expansive scan of peer-reviewed and gray research to identify and describe trends that characterize the future of work for vulnerable workers. By synthesizing the literature, insight into potential challenges and opportunities for certain groups of workers can be revealed as the nature of work changes. These findings also provide important directions for additional research that can be used to inform the design of programmatic and policy responses that will support the inclusion of vulnerable workers in the future of work.

Labor market experts posit that we are entering a Fourth Industrial Revolution that is driven by large-scale and rapid digitization and automation of social, political, economic and environmental domains of life [4]. Literature on factors influencing work trends and related outcomes (‘the future of work’) also indicates that the advancement and adoption of different digital technologies can be coupled with sociodemographic (e.g., aging population), sociopolitical (e.g., globalization) and ecological changes (e.g., climate change) [5–7]. Not surprisingly, the future of work is characterized by the potential for dramatic change to every industry and the considerable transformation of the nature of work (e.g., work conditions, evolving job skills and training requirements, psychosocial resources and demands, environmental conditions and work arrangements) [8, 9]. Changes in the future of work will occur on top of ongoing shifts within industrialized labor markets that include a transition from manufacturing to a service-based economy, increased offshoring of work and growth in non-standard work arrangements (e.g., gig work) [10, 11]. Of concern, recent studies suggest that employers and policymakers report lacking the insights and tangible strategies to ensure workers and workplace are prepared for large-scale shifts in the nature of work [12]. This knowledge gap maybe especially significant for vulnerable workers who have traditionally faced barriers to engagement in the labor market that could be exacerbated by changes in the future of work.

Our definition of vulnerability is informed by research that considers the intersection between the characteristics of the work environment and the worker [13]. In particular, vulnerable workers refer to groups of workers who may face an adverse work arrangement or work environment such as those exposed to precarious work, low wage employment, hazardous conditions, and may face an absence of regulatory protections, career advancement opportunities or may have high job demands and low decision latitude [13–17]. Studies show that certain groups of workers have been more likely to be exposed to adverse work environments when compared to population averages including youth and young adults, women, racialized groups, recent immigrants, people with disabilities, members of the LGBTQ2 + community, Indigenous peoples, and those with low socioeconomic status [13, 15, 18–27]. Studies of past periods of technological advancement (e.g., introduction of personal computers to workplaces) or economic change (e.g., Great Recession) showed growth in social and health inequities with these groups of workers who were more likely to report barriers to high quality employment when compared to population averages [28, 29]. It is unclear how the anticipated changes in future of work will impact levels of vulnerability in the labor market. It is also unclear whether there may be a positive effect of change on vulnerable workers. A comprehensive scan of trends in the future of work is necessary to identify the changes to work arrangement or work environments that can contribute to disadvantages for different groups of workers. Moreover, our research has important implications for policy and programmatic directions that are specifically beneficial for workers who could be excluded from the future of work.

Promoting sustained employment for vulnerable workers represents a critical public health priority. A body of research demonstrates that working conditions are directly tied to physical and mental health of workers and may contribute to health and social inequalities in the working population [30, 31]. Research on the social determinants of health finds that employment income is positively associated with access to safe housing, education, food security, social services and medical care that provide pathways to better health [10, 14, 32–34]. Also, the importance of our study is further underscored by The United Nation’s (UN) Sustainable Development Goal #8 on Decent Work. According to the UN, promoting inclusive and decent work (i.e., productive work that delivers a fair income, job security and social protections) represents an important policy approach to foster health and well-being of the working population [35]. Within the context of the future of work, dedicated strategies are needed to ensure that vulnerable workers are protected from challenges that could emerge.

Using a comprehensive horizon scan of a diverse body of literature, our study aims to understand how the future of work might contribute to levels of vulnerability. Specific objectives of this study are to 1) To identify existing evidence on different trends that may span social, technological, economic, environmental and political domains and characterize the future of work; and 2) To synthesize and describe how each trend might impact vulnerability within the labor market.

To address study objectives, we utilized a novel horizon scan methodology. Horizon scanning is a systematic information-generating activity commonly used in the field of strategic foresight to identify trends that have the potential to emerge over time [36–38]. Similar to a scoping review, the horizon scanning process is inclusive and seeks to identify and synthesize diverse sources of evidence (e.g., academic research, gray literature and social media) [39, 40]. Our horizon scan was conducted between December 2019-January 2020. The process was subsequently updated in August 2020 to capture literature on the changes to the nature of work resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Our synthesis leveraged expert insight from a multidisciplinary research team with a background in industrial and organizational psychology, economics, public health, occupational health, public policy, and organizational behavior and human resource management. Members of the research team also had specific expertise on vulnerable workers and literature review and evidence synthesis methodologies.

Literature Search

Generation of future of work search terms

To develop the search terms for the scan, several steps were undertaken. First, members of our research team identified five seminal research reports that were published by reputable organizations and described anticipated changes to the future of work [3, 5, 41–43]. The seminal reports were used as a guide to extract an initial set of search terms which spanned social, technological, economic, environmental and political domains. Search terms were then finalized with input from a library scientist. Terms spanning social, technological, economic, environmental and political categories were searched using a Boolean OR operator and combined with work outcome search terms, future- and change-related search terms, and vulnerable worker terms using a Boolean AND operator [42, 44]. The list of search terms are presented in Supplement 1. To capture the most more recent changes in the nature of work, the search was restricted to articles published between 2015 to September 2020.

Peer reviewed and gray literature search

Six search portals were used to uncover peer reviewed and gray literature across diverse disciplines: Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA), Canadian Business & Current Business Source Premier, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS), PAIS Index, Sociological Abstracts and Worldwide Political Science Abstracts. Database-specific controlled vocabulary terms and keywords were included. Reference lists of included studies were also examined to identify references not found in the literature search. Once duplicates were removed, titles and abstracts were imported into a shared spreadsheet to facilitate the screening processes.

Social media search

A search of the social media site Twitter also was performed to capture ideas on changes in the nature of work and complement the findings from academic and gray literature searches [45]. Twitter is commonly used for the public communication of topics with policy relevance and provides an interactive platform that can capture insights from over 330 million users [46, 47]. Using the hashtag function, search terms described in the section above were entered into Twitter’s standard search interface [48]. Twitter searches occurred in January 2020. The search was repeated in August 2020 to capture changes attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the large number of tweets focusing on the future of work, we restricted our search to tweets where there was at least a moderate amount of engagement (i.e., \(\ge\)five likes or re-tweets) and where the tweet included a link to a specific resource (e.g., gray and peer reviewed literature or website).

Relevancy screen and thematic synthesis

Titles and abstracts or executive summaries of the literature uncovered from peer review and gray literature sources and the social media search were reviewed by a member of our research team to determine relevancy. Eligible English language literature that was carried forward in our synthesis documented a potential trend that would result in a change to the nature of work, focused on an industrialized context and described an explicit impact on levels of vulnerable for workers [49]. Next, a member of the research team reviewed each relevant article and synthesized the salient themes. In particular, the synthesis of literature involved summarizing the article, its impact on the future of work, and how it could contribute to vulnerability. Where possible, the team also documented specific groups of workers who could be most affected by a change in the nature of work. Discussions between members of the research team were held to categorize articles according to common themes. Through this iterative process trend categories were developed.

The search uncovered a large literature base on the future of work (see Fig. 1). However, fewer studies examined the impact of the future of work on vulnerable workers. An initial search yielded 4,800 articles after removing duplicates. Following an examination of the relevancy of titles and abstracts, 3,198 articles were screened out. Members of the research team reviewed titles and abstracts of 1,602 articles of which 342 articles were fully reviewed and synthesized. On the whole, articles that we identified were from peer-reviewed or gray literature sources and tended to span multiple disciplines to describe or project the impact of a dimension of the future of work on levels of vulnerability.

[Figure 1 about here]

Our in-depth synthesis of articles resulted in the identification of nine trend categories that spanned social, technological, economic, environmental and political domains, and cumulatively shaped work arrangements and work environment in the future. Trend categories included: 1) digital transformation of the economy; 2) artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning-enhanced automation; 3) AI-enabled human resource management systems; 4) skill requirements for the future of work; 5) globalization 2.0; 6) climate change and the green economy; 7) Gen Zs and the work environment; 8) populism and the future of work; and 9) external shocks to accelerate the changing nature of work (COVID-19 example). Table 1 lists the trend categories and provides a brief definition with examples. A more complete summary of each trend category and its impact on vulnerable workers is provided in the sections below. It is important to highlight that not one single group of workers was consistently represented across the literature, and, indeed, the trends we identified cut across multiple sources of worker vulnerability. As a result, in presenting our synthesis, we describe the impact of key trends broadly for vulnerable workers. Where possible, we highlight how a trend category could present challenges and opportunities for specific groups of workers.

Table 1

Summary of search terms
	Description
Population	Diverse groups who have traditionally experienced vulnerability in the labor market including youth and young adults, women, racialized groups, immigrants, people with disabilities, LGBTQ2+, Indigenous peoples, individuals with low socioeconomic status
Future of work trends^†	Social, technological, environmental, economic and political signals of change to the nature of work
Change terms^†	Terms reflecting a future change such as disruption, innovation, advancement, acceleration, shift
Work outcomes	Any measure of labor market activity
Note: Specific search terms are presented in Supplement 1; ^† = seminal reports were used as a guide to extract an initial set of search terms which spanned social, technological, economic, ecological and political changes, and change terms

Table 1

Summary of horizon scan examining future of work trend categories and their impact on vulnerable workers
Trend category	Description	Example	Change in levels of vulnerability
Digital transformation of the economy	Rapid advancement and large-scale application of large numbers of novel digital technologies resulting in hyperconnectivity between people, business, digital devices and data	• 3D printing of production inputs in manufacturing • Virtual reality and augmented reality to enhance telework	• Job displacement • Exclusion from growth opportunities • Forced gig work • Protection when employed in occupations with a greater requirement for soft skills*
AI/ML-enhanced automation	Increasing use of computerized systems within workplaces to replicate human intelligence and behaviours and to perform predictive job tasks	• Algorithmic stock trading in financial services • Self-driving vehicles in the transportation sector • Intelligent robots in manufacturing	• Job displacement • Wage depression • Protection when employed in occupations with a greater requirement for soft skills*
AI-enabled human resource management systems	The initial parameters of AI-enabled human resources management system have the potential to introduce or reinforce biases within workplaces	• ML applied to evaluate facial expressions and language of a job applicant and make comparison to a workplace benchmark	• Exclusion from job opportunities • Discrimination at work
Skill requirements for the future of work	Workers across all industries are required to possess advanced technical competencies, digital literacy and soft skills	• Importance of STEM training in all industries • Soft skills (e.g., emotional intelligence) are expected to be less automatable and are increasingly required by employers	• Job skills gaps • Barriers to upskilling and reskilling
Globalization 2.0	Advancement of technologies will facilitate exchange of ideas, services and goods from physical to virtual environments across the globe	• Tele-migration of workers performing blue- and white-collar jobs • Growth of online marketplaces consisting of international freelancers	• Job displacement
Climate change and the green economy	A changing climate and extreme weather events will impact employment opportunities and work conditions. New jobs designed to address the effect climate change will also be developed	• Climate events will interrupt certain industries and occupation • Development of jobs in new sectors (e.g., biodesign, renewable energy)	• Job displacement • Productivity loss • Exclusion from job opportunities • Increased exposure to health and safety risks
Gen Z workers and the work environment	Growing numbers of Gen Z workers (born 1995–2005) could bring greater diversity to workplaces and facilitate more inclusive employer attitudes and behaviors	• Gen Z workers will prioritize employment in an organization whose values align with their own	• Accessible work environments* • Skill development opportunities*
Populism and the future of work	Growth in populist values within industrialized can contribute to discrimination according to personal characteristics and exclusion of some groups of workers from the labor market	• Growing numbers of industrialized countries are electing political leaders with populist platforms	• Exclusion from job opportunities • Discrimination at work
External shocks to accelerate the changing nature of work (COVID-19 example)	External shocks have the potential to accelerate trends in the future of work.	• COVID-19 increased employer use of digital technologies to support work-from-home arrangements • Companies employer investment in AI to improve productivity and COVID-19-related safety concerns	• Job displacement • Wage depression • Increased exposure to health and safety risks
Notes: AI = artificial intelligence; ML = Machine learning; STEM = Science, technology, education, math training; * = opportunity for vulnerable workers in the future.

[Table 1 about here]

Trend 1: Digital transformation of the economy

A body of peer-reviewed and gray literature uncovered in our scan described the impact of advanced digital technologies on the changing nature of work like 5G technology, Internet of Things (IoT), smart sensors, cloud computing, virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR), 3D printing, robotics and blockchain technology [1]. Although very different, the studies noted that digital technologies contribute to hyperconnectivity between people, business, digital devices, and data [1, 50]. For example, the increasing use IoT devices or advanced robots could mean that workers will increasingly find themselves performing job tasks that are closely integrated with machines [51, 52]. Other workers, especially those employed in occupations characterized by repetitive and low skilled job tasks may be at risk of displacement or wage depression as a result of digital technologies that facilitate automation. Some data indicate that every advanced robot introduced into the labor market per 1,000 workers will reduce the employment-to-population ratio by 0.2% and contribute to a decline of wages by 0.42% [53, 54].

Some digital technologies (e.g., cloud computing and online collaboration tools) were reported as having contributed to advanced telepresence where a worker’s skills and knowledge can be projected anywhere in the world to perform a range of job tasks (e.g., operating of machinery or virtual brainstorming sessions) which could be beneficial for workers requiring location flexibility or those with mobility impairments [55–57]. Studies also described the use of VR/AR to combine physical and virtual worlds that may enhance sensory experiences required for high quality telework experiences [58, 59]. In the manufacturing sector, 3D printing has contributed to direct development of inputs required for the production of goods rather than relying on a more complex supply chain spread across geographical locations [58, 60]. Advancements in digital technologies (e.g., smartphones, 5G technology) has also facilitated the exponential growth of a marketplace of gig workers that can perform on-demand physical (e.g., transport, couriering, food delivery and cleaning), repetitive (e.g., data entry, clerical work) or cognitive job tasks (e.g., website developers, editors, graphic designers) [61–64].

Literature we identified showed workers who have been traditionally disadvantaged in the labor market may also be more likely to be excluded from an economy undergoing a digital transformation. Studies point to groups of workers, such as those who are employed in lower skilled or routinized occupations, as being more likely to have job tasks or functions replaced by a digital technology and less likely to be employed in an occupation where wages are expected to grow over time [65–67]. Exclusion from the digital economy can be exacerbated by workers who hold lower levels of education or possess less technological literacy [66, 68]. Another body of research suggests that the digital transformation of the economy may increase the likelihood that vulnerable workers are more likely to be forced into gig work and exposed to wage instability, job insecurity or unsafe working conditions [66, 69]. At the same time, some literature in our review showed that gig work could also provide certain groups (e.g., youth, immigrants) with job opportunities and work experiences that are necessary to facilitate labor market entry and career advancement [69, 70]. Gig work may also provide scheduling and location flexibility for groups of workers who may report activity limitations (e.g., people with disabilities) or have more caregiving responsibilities (e.g., women) [69, 70].

Trend 2: artificial intelligence (AI)/ machine learning (ML)-enhanced automation

Discourse on the future of work has tended focus on the automation of job tasks. It is estimated that up to 60% of occupations consist of job tasks where one third of the tasks are automatable [71]. Other more dire estimates suggest that up to 50% of occupations are expected to be completely replaced by automated systems [71–74]. A majority of earlier studies on the automation of work have found that repetitive and low skilled jobs are among the most likely to be automated [72, 74]. More recent literature highlighted the role of computerized systems within workplaces to drawing on AI to replicate human intelligence and behaviours in performing complex and cognitive job tasks [60]. Furthermore, advancements in the development of ML, neural networks, and deep learning has increased the likelihood of computerized systems performing advanced information processing and predictive jobs tasks (e.g., data analysis, communication, prediction and problem solving) [63, 75–80]. Studies indicated that outcomes of the growing use of AI and ML applications in the labor market have been mixed. AI/ML-enhanced automation of job tasks could minimize the availability of employment opportunities but also drive innovation and create new jobs [50, 81, 82]. Also, a growing number of employers report utilizing AI to assist workers and increase productivity [83]. Literature uncovered in our scan noted numerous examples of AI applications in diverse sectors including finance (e.g., algorithmic stock trading), manufacturing (e.g., intelligent robots), transportation (e.g., autonomous vehicles) and retail (e.g., chatbot customer service assistants) [60, 84]. In many of these cases, workers and machines may be required to jointly complete job tasks [83].

Of concern is that literature consistently highlighted that AI/ML-enhanced automation has the potential to adversely to increase vulnerability for certain groups of worker [71, 85]. Labor market studies in our scan found that workers employed in occupations that are at risk of automation of work (e.g., those employed in low skilled and repetitive jobs) and, as a result, may experience job displacement and wage depression from the growing application of AI and ML within workplaces. Some studies have sought to identify specific groups of workers who are more likely to work in occupations affected by the automation of work. For example, an analysis of labor market data from the United States (US) found that Black Americans are at a 10% greater likelihood of working in occupations at risk of displacement from automated systems when compared to White Americans [85]. Moreover, this same study found that being of younger age and holding low levels of educational attainment increased susceptibility Black Americans could face to job displacement from automated systems [85, 86]. A case study of the Australian mining sector showed that automation disproportionately affected Indigenous workers who were overrepresented in entry-level roles and underrepresented in higher skilled jobs (i.e., engineering and geological roles) [87]. Recent literature suggested that AI has the potential to exacerbate displacement for workers affected by automation [88–90]. What is more, the growing application of ML within workplaces also has the potential to impact higher skilled jobs that require greater levels of prediction and could potentially contribute to a growing number of workers in jobs that are at risk of job displacement [91]. It is important to highlight that data comparing gender groups finds that women are overrepresented in occupations (e.g., nurse, social worker, teacher) that have a greater requirement for emotional intelligence and could be less likely to be at-risk from displacement from AI or ML applications [92, 93].

Trend 3: AI-enabled human resource management systems

Increasingly, AI is being integrated into a growing number of human resource management systems including job applicant tracking, job matching selection software and human resource and performance management systems which intend on making fairer management decisions [50, 94–96]. In an employee selection context, for example, ML technologies have been applied to evaluate facial expressions and the language used by job candidates who are filmed and compared to workplace benchmarks (e.g., high performers within an organization) to examine tone and inflection of voice, emotion and facial reactions [97]. However, our review indicates that AI-enabled human resource management systems may collect personal information without explicit consent from the worker (e.g., disability status, lifestyle, age) and contribute to discrimination or the exclusion of certain groups according to their individual traits that are not relevant to the job rather than by their ability [98]. The potential for discrimination may stem from decisions made during the development of algorithms used to inform the initial parameters of an AI-enabled human resource management system [95, 99–101]. For instance, socioeconomic status, culture, and experience (e.g., White male non-disabled software engineers who may predominantly develop human resource management systems) can implicitly bias the development of human resource management systems and inadvertently reinforce gender, racial or disability biases [68, 102, 103]. What is more, unconscious biases have the potential to be reinforced through the application and testing of these system in non-diverse samples.

Examples where AI-enhanced human resource management systems can adversely affect vulnerable workers include the application of predictive job interview tools which analyze facial or behavioural cues. There is the potential to discriminate against candidates based on personal characteristics (e.g., disability, health, race or age) who may look or behave differently from a benchmark [104, 105]. As another example, some companies have used gamified assessments (e.g., video game-based pre-employment assessments) that could contribute to discriminatory hiring practices for older adults who are less likely to use these technologies in their daily lives when compared to younger job candidates [104]. What is more, gamified assessments could also be more complex to accommodate for workers with disabilities [105]. Our review also found that AI-facilitated productivity systems that actively monitor and optimize productivity and outputs of workers could disadvantage persons with disabilities who have physical or cognitive impairment and could perform job tasks in ways that differ from a pre-defined benchmark or may require job accommodations or adaptations to perform work responsibilities [79, 104].

Trend 4: Skill requirements for the future of work

Related to the digital transformation of the economy and increasing application of AI and ML within workplaces, our review highlighted growing research that the future of work will be marked by the creation of new jobs requiring specialized skills. Surveys show that by 2022, at least half of employers report that their workers will be required to undertake significant reskilling or upskilling to adapted to changing technological and social demands within their workplaces [1]. To meet emerging skill requirements, the literature indicated that workers across all industries will need to possess advanced technical competencies and digital literacy (i.e., ability to find, evaluate and convey information via digital mediums) [106, 107]. Additionally, studies highlighted the importance of workers possessing a range of soft skills (e.g., creativity, critical thinking, collaboration skills and empathy) that are less likely to be automated and would enable human workers to complement digital technologies and AI/ML-enhanced systems within workplaces [14, 41, 82, 108–113]. At the same time, research suggested that some workers may lack the technological or soft skills required by employers in the future of work [114, 115]. A survey of 300 business executives in the US found that 87% of the workforce may be incorrectly anticipating the skills required for future employment [116]. Similarly, projections of Canada’s labor force posit that by 2031 the country will experience a labor shortage of two million workers [117]. Shortages are expected to be highest in professions requiring training in science, technology, engineering and/or mathematics (STEM) [117].

When compared to population averages, groups that traditionally have been considered vulnerable workers like women, Indigenous peoples, people with low socioeconomic status and people living with disabilities are less likely to possess job skills that meet employer needs and may face more barriers to upskilling and reskilling opportunities, which may increase the digital divide [6, 118]. Vulnerable workers may also be more likely to experience barriers to accessing digital skilling programs that are needed obtain necessary technological competencies [65, 66, 68, 107, 118–122]. For instance, a Canadian population-level study found that among those aged 25–54 years with a STEM degree, less than one percent identified as a member of the Indigenous community [123]. At the same time, literature uncovered in our scan indicates that some groups (e.g., women) may be more likely to work in occupations that have greater soft skill requirements that are reported as being valued by employers in the future [66, 124]. Research also suggested that skills and training gaps may result in employers being more likely to hire from a broader talent pool to address skills gaps [125, 126]. Accordingly, the future of work could be characterized by emerging opportunities for those who may have been traditionally excluded from the workforce [125, 126].

Trend 5: Globalization 2.0

In Globalization 2.0, the advancement of technologies in the future of work is catalyst for the global exchange of ideas, services and goods in both physical and virtual spaces across the globe as well as increased interaction and integration of people, companies and governments [127–130]. Globalization 2.0 has contributed to a decreasing number of companies and workers across different industries (e.g., health care/social services, retail trades) being required to operate outside of the local jurisdiction in which goods and services are delivered [131]. As an example, studies described an increase in tele-migration where white-collar jobs can be done remotely by workers who are geographically distant and may be hired at a lower wage [64]. Advancements in digital technology in the future of work are also expected to increase the number of online marketplaces where freelancers can bid for work and take on employment contracts in any country [64]. Literature suggested that within a changing global economic structure, workers who have been traditionally disadvantaged within industrialized labor markets (e.g., those working in low skilled jobs or in occupations with fewer educational requirements) could be at a greater risk of displacement by tele-migrants who could command lower wages, and where organizations who outsource work would not pay local income taxes or contribute to social security and may be exempt from existing labor standards [65, 132, 133]. Some literature posited that the continued digital transformation of labor markets could result in those working in high-skilled occupations and where job tasks are more complex could also be at risk of displacement by tele-migrants. Additionally, the literature suggested that globalization may create adverse virtual working environments for workers for those who provide remote knowledge, expertise or services but will have less control over work conditions or their compensation [131].

Trend 6: Climate change and the green economy

The impact of climate change (i.e., impact of human activity on Earth’s ecosystem and weather patterns) and associated interventions in the green economy can impact work conditions, and the availability of jobs in the future [134–137]. A synthesis of literature in our scan highlighted that climate change and related extreme weather events (e.g., wildfires, droughts) is anticipated to contribute to the forced migration of workers, damage to workplaces, lost productivity and impact worker health and safety (e.g., infectious disease, air pollution, heat-related illnesses) [137–149]. Workers within specific sectors (e.g., industrial services, agriculture, travel and tourism industries) are more likely to work outdoors and are considered to be particularly susceptible to climate change and extreme weather events [138, 139]. Research from the United States indicated that by 2100, six percent of labor hours could be lost to heat exposure in southern states (e.g., Texas or Florida). Alternatively, our horizon scan found that business and policy responses to curb the impact of climate change has resulted in the growth of a green economy that includes the development of new job opportunities in diverse sectors including renewable energy, bioengineering and biodesign [138, 139, 150–158]. While a shift to a green economy could mean that workers in certain industries (e.g., oil and gas) are at risk of job displacement, some researchers project that by 2030, with policy supports, up to 24 million new jobs could be created globally [159].

Research indicated that the adverse impact of climate change on work may be disproportionately experienced by groups of workers who have traditionally experienced vulnerability in the labor market [140, 148]. In particular, our horizon scan found that vulnerable workers maybe be more likely to be employed in occupations that are prone to job displacement as a result of climate change and may also have less access to social protections that support employment interruptions resulting from an extreme weather event [140]. Several studies identified groups most affected by climate change including racialized communities, Indigenous peoples, youth and young adults, older adults, and those with low socioeconomic status) [140, 148]. For instance, we found that Indigenous persons may be especially affected by climate change because of their reliance on natural resources for financial, cultural, and physical well-being [140, 160]. Studies suggested that workers exposed to precarious work environments (e.g., seasonal or casual workers) or those employed in industries (e.g., farming, construction) are more susceptible to workplace health and safety hazards and interruptions to employment resulting from climate change [159]. In addition, attributed to discrimination faced in the labor market and greater barriers to upskilling and reskilling, some groups of workers (e.g., women and Indigenous persons) could be at-risk of exclusion from new jobs that emerge in the green economy [161–163].

Trend 7: Gen Z workers and the work environment

As Baby Boomers transition into retirement, the labor market will consist of a growing proportion of ‘Gen Z’ workers (those born 1995–2005). Currently, over one-third of the labor market is composed of Gen Z workers [164–166]. As the number of Gen Z workers grows, it is anticipated that they could bring greater diversity to workplaces and facilitate more inclusive and supportive employer attitudes and behaviors [76, 167, 168]. The positive impact of Gen Z workers on workplace can be attributed to several factors. First, Gen Zs report higher educational attainment, on average, than previous generations and are characterized as digital natives - the first generation to be born into era where advanced digital technologies are commonplace [164, 169, 170]. Second, Gen Zs are also the most racially diverse generation in the workforce [171]. An analysis of US census data shows that Gen Zs are more likely to belong to a racial or ethnic minority group (48%) when compared to Millennials (39%) or Baby Boomers (18%) [169]. Third, the career trajectory of Gen Zs are more likely to have been shaped by the 2009 Great Recession and exposure to income inequality when compared to previous generations [166]. Studies suggested that Gen Zs are more likely to report valuing employment that provides a higher salary, greater job stability and access to health benefits compared to previous generations [164–166]. For instance, a recent survey of over 1,531 Gen Zs found that over three quarters (77%) reported prioritizing employment in an organization whose values align with their own [164, 166].

The growing proportion of Gen Z workers in the labor market could improve working conditions for groups who have been traditionally disadvantaged in the labor market. Literature highlighted that Gen Zs desire to be employed in workplaces that value inclusiveness, diversity, and social responsibility, which could contribute to work environments that are more accessible to vulnerable groups [172–174]. Growing numbers of Gen Zs within the labor market could motivate employers to implement policies that support work-life balance, access to work-from-home arrangements and environmental sustainability practices that could be beneficial to all workers, especially those that experience vulnerability [175–180]. Also, some research suggested that Gen Zs may also be more likely to encourage their employers to provide on-the-job skills development and training opportunities so that they may develop competencies that match the speed of innovation and can address the digital divide [76, 166, 181].

Trend 8: Populism and the future of work

Hypothesized as stemming from both technological advancement and changes in globalization, the future of work could also be shaped by changing sociopolitical sentiment. Literature in the fields of political science, economics and sociology uncovered in our scan described the impact of populism on the work environment [182, 183]. Populism can refer to a diverse set of sociopolitical movements that include an antiestablishment orientation, broad anti-elite policies, and opposition to liberal economics and globalization [184]. At the time of this scan, political parties with populist views had grown in popularity in several industrialized countries (e.g., US, United Kingdom, France and Netherlands) [185–188]. Growth in populist values has been attributed to at least two expected future of work trends that have previously described in this paper – globalization 2.0 and the digital transformation of the economy [187]. First, although changes in globalization have contributed to economic benefits for employers and the governments [187], it has also partially contributed to an increased number of jobs being outsourced, offshored or filled by tele-migrants [182–184]. Second, advancements in digital technologies and their application within workplaces has meant that an increasing number of jobs have been displaced [90]. Both trends have the potential to contribute to conditions that foster populism including a decrease in employment opportunities, growing income inequality, and increased perceptions of unfairness, anxiety and frustration held by a large proportion of the population [187, 189].

The growth in populist views has the potential to contribute to discrimination according to personal characteristics and exclusion of some groups of workers from the labor market. As highlighted in recent examples within industrialized contexts where populist views have grown, politicians may build a base of supporters by constructing an in-group and tapping into the grievances of that in-group (e.g., lack of job opportunities, income inequality). The same politician may blame out-groups, often among the most vulnerable segments of the labor market (e.g., racialized minorities, immigrants) for economic hardships faced by the same in-group [187, 190, 191]. The result are policy responses that may perpetuate populist values and may contribute an exclusion of traditionally vulnerable workers from higher quality employment opportunities (e.g., full-time and secure employment) [183, 188, 192, 193]. Within the literature on the future of work, it has been suggested that growing job losses and automation of employment resulting from advancements in digital technologies and AI applications may increase support for populist political positions [75, 90]. For instance, a recent survey of 1,995 Canadian workers examined how exposure to automation and AI could be relate to policy preferences. Participants in the study who were more likely to fear job loss as a result of automation or AI were significantly more likely to hold populist views [90]. Given the expected digitization of the future of work highlighted in our scan, populism could continue to limit employment opportunities for some already vulnerable groups.

Trend 9: External shocks that accelerate the changing nature of work. The COVID-19 example.

External shocks (e.g., economic recessions or depressions, natural disasters or pandemics) have the potential to increase the level of change to the nature of work [194, 195]. The impact of the spread of COVID-19 on the availability of jobs and working conditions is a prime example of an external shock that has accelerated trends in the future of work. At the time of this scan, the COVID-19 pandemic had fast tracked numerous work-related trends highlighted in this horizon scan including companies increasing their investment towards diverse digital technologies to sustain productivity while also addressing potential workforce safety concerns (e.g., 3D printing, cloud computing infrastructures, robotics, virtual teleconference software and AI) [196–199]. In 2018, labor market estimates suggested that less than one-third of the US workforce were able to work from home and most of those were in higher paying and higher skilled jobs [200]. However, following the pandemic, several surveys found that up to two-thirds of workers in the US transitioned to a work-from-home arrangement [57, 159, 201, 202]. Studies indicated that the shift to work-from-home arrangements can have advantages (e.g., flexibility, opportunity to self-accommodate tasks) and disadvantages (e.g., isolation) for workers [203–205].

Of significance, the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionately negative impact on traditionally vulnerable workers (e.g., certain racialized communities, low wage workers, and immigrants) [206–212]. Data from industrialized contexts indicated that these groups of vulnerable workers were disproportionately more likely to be employed in jobs at risk of exposure to COVID-19 and where health and safety protections were less likely to be provided [213–220]. As an example, a survey of 8,572 workers in the US found that the top quintile of earners were more likely to access a work-from-home arrangement (71%) compared to the bottom quintile of earners (41%) [210]. Data also suggests that certain groups of workers may be more likely to be employed in industries or occupations which are at a higher risk of displacement as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic [211, 217, 221–228]. For instance, US labor force data indicates that occupations predominantly held by women were at least 1.8 times at greater risk of displacement from the COVID-19 pandemic compared to men [217, 229]. Also, in a survey of 4,917 US adults, Black (44%) and Hispanic (61%) respondents were more likely to report job or wage loss to compared to their White counterparts (38%) [229, 230]. The increasing use of digital technologies within workplaces during the COVID-19 pandemic coupled with barriers to upskilling opportunities for vulnerable workers could widen digital skills gaps and increase the likelihood of job displacement [57]. Highlighting its interrelationship with sociopolitical tends, some studies also indicated that the economic shocks of the COVID-19 pandemic have increased the populist sentiment in groups that have the power to hinder future employment opportunities for certain groups of workers [197, 211, 231].

Involvement in paid work represents a critical social determinant to health. However, the conditions within the labor market are quickly changing in the future of work. The result could be work arrangements and work environments that are fragmented. While growing research has described the labor market impact of the future of work, our study is one of the first to identify and synthesize available evidence that is tied to factors that may impact vulnerability. We uncovered nine specific future of work trends that have unique challenges and opportunities for vulnerable workers. Our study provides a foundation for subsequent scholarship on social and health inequities that could emerge as a result of the future of work trends. Also, findings highlight potential policy and programmatic priorities that can ensure that workers who have been traditionally excluded from the labor market can obtain opportunities for meaningful employment as working conditions change.

Taking a novel horizon scan approach, we synthesized a wide range of existing literature on the future of work. Nine trend categories were identified that spanned social, technological, economic, environmental and political domains and can change work arrangements and work environments. Our horizon scan showed that the operationalization and measurement of vulnerability in studies of the future of work remains limited with few studies examining the interface between working conditions and characteristics of the worker. We highlight the need for additional research that aims to define and measure vulnerability and is relevant to research on the future of work. We found that the future of work could be marked by disparity. The trend categories we identified could have benefits for some groups of workers but also be harmful for others. Of particular concern, some groups of workers may enter the future of work at a position of disadvantage and could lack resources (e.g., access to upskilling opportunities) or be exposed to adverse working conditions (e.g., employment in occupations most susceptible to disruption) that impact their ability to navigate changes in the nature of work [232]. Indeed, the future of work represents a critical public health concern. The potential disadvantages faced by vulnerable workers could results in barriers to resources (e.g., income, health benefits, social support) that reinforce or widen health and social inequities. Interventions that promote the inclusion of vulnerable workers in the future of work represents an important pathway towards better health for the working population.

Technological innovation is a defining feature of the future of work. The advancement and application of diverse digital technologies coupled with the integration of AI/ML into all aspects of working life can contribute to greater efficiency and productivity for employers [50] but could also contribute to job displacement and wage depression for vulnerable workers. Of concern, some workers have the potential to experience a job skills trap where they may be less likely to possess the technical competencies, work in occupations with fewer advancement opportunities and face barriers to accessing reskilling programs. Studies conducted in the late 1980s and 1990s show that the application of personal computers contributed to displacement for those employed in entry-level or mid-level jobs (e.g., data entry clerks) that were more likely to be occupied by vulnerable groups and contributed to income polarization [28, 129, 233]. Compared to past examples, current technological advancements are occurring at a faster pace and are disrupting a greater number of industries and occupations [6, 64]. Our scan highlights the importance of additional research to examine the impact of technological innovation on the employment conditions to which vulnerable workers are exposed. In particular, in-depth studies are needed to examine how different digital technologies or particular AI/ML applications within the workplace may impact different groups of workers. Also, our study adds to a growing discourse on the importance of specialized upskilling and reskilling initiatives to ensure that the workforce is prepared for the digitization of work [234]. Skills-based training should be tailored towards specific groups of workers who are more likely to experience vulnerability to ensure equitable workforce involvement [71].

Interestingly, we highlighted an intersection between technological innovation and social and political changes that can impact involvement of vulnerable groups in the future of work. Our review uncovered literature showing that the digital transformation of the economy and AI/ML-enhanced automation has contributed to changes in globalization and influenced political sentiments [64, 90]. These sociopolitical shifts have the potential to exacerbate challenges faced by vulnerable workers. Our horizon scan can be contextualized using previous research showing that periods of technological advancement and growing globalization have contributed to wage depression and increases in precarious work that were more likely to increase levels of vulnerability for certain groups of workers [235–238]. It is expected that the rapid degree of technological change will further catalyze the sociopolitical trends we identified and increase their impact on vulnerable workers. Additional research within multidisciplinary teams is required to further unpack how the relationship between technological change, sociopolitical shifts and specific work experiences and are conditions experienced by different groups of workers.

Importantly, our scan highlighted some opportunities for traditionally vulnerable workers in the future of work. The digital transformation of the economy, AI/ML applications that increase productivity, growing access to work-from-home arrangement, and an emerging green economy will create new jobs that will demand workers with specialized technical and soft skills, and serve as an entry point for worker into the labor market of the future. Our review also found that those working in certain occupations or in specific work environments may be less likely to be disrupted by digital technologies or automated systems [239]. What is more, a generational shift in the workforce (i.e., decreasing Baby Boomers and growing Gen Zs in the labor market) has the potential to foster inclusive employer practices. It is unclear to what extent vulnerable workers will experience barriers or facilitators to accessing the potential opportunities within the context of the changing nature of work. Research is required to elaborate on our study findings to further examine the extent to which vulnerable workers may access opportunities in the future of work and address anticipated labor market shortages [71, 240]. Furthermore, identifying opportunities in the future of work represents an important direction to meet the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal #8 of Decent Work. Policy responses that are tailored to vulnerable worker to promote access to high quality employment opportunities and barrier-free working conditions can be critical in ensuring decent work and productivity.

The future of work is a dynamic research topic that is constantly changing and can be drastically altered by external shocks. Our horizon scan was updated to account for changes in working conditions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Results showed that the COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected vulnerable workers who were more likely to report elevated health and safety risks and job disruptions. Findings from our scan also suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic may have contributed to an acceleration of many of the trend categories that we identified and may exacerbate challenges and opportunities faced vulnerable groups in the future of work. Our findings can be viewed within the context of previous research that has highlighted the impact of external shocks on the labor market. For instance, studies of the Great Recession show that the impact of the economic downturn in the late 2000s were more likely to contribute to loss of employment, income inequality and an erosion of standard work opportunities for certain groups of workers (e.g., youth, low skilled workers) [241]. Markedly, numerous studies also show that the Great Recession contributed to detrimental physical and mental health consequences that were disproportionately experienced by vulnerable workers, especially in contexts with weak social and health protections [242–245]. Drawing from the experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic, an external shock (e.g., climate events, periods of recession) has the potential to unexpectedly change the nature of work and impact pathways to health [195]. Continued scanning of new trends is required to continue capture the dynamics of the changing nature of work and identify the work- and health-related impacts of these shocks. Furthermore, within the context of a changing labor market, research is also required to continue to understand social policies and labor protections that can be implemented to ensure that vulnerable workers are protected from unpredictable shocks.

There are strengths and limitations of our study that should be acknowledged. Our horizon scan methodology enabled the research team to synthesize diverse literature on the future of work to identify salient tend categories. Our scan took an inclusive approach to identify peer reviewed, gray literature and social media sources with implications for vulnerable workers. At the same time, we acknowledge that there may be additional trends that can drive changes in the nature of work that may not have been detected. Additionally, our horizon scan aimed to uncover research on how levels of vulnerability may be affected by changes in the future of work and specific groups of workers who may be more likely to experience disadvantage. No one particular group of workers was consistently represented in the literature we uncovered. As a result, we take a broader perspective towards vulnerability and examine how the future of work could impact work arrangements and work conditions. It is important to highlight the heterogeneity of experiences faced by different workers. Accordingly, studies are needed to capture the diverse challenges and opportunities for specific groups who have been traditionally been exposed to vulnerable work conditions (e.g., youth and young adults, women, racialized groups, immigrants, people with disabilities, members of the LGBTQ2 + community, Indigenous persons, and those with low socioeconomic status). Interestingly, several studies identified in our scan found that workers belonging to more than one vulnerable group may exacerbate susceptibility to displacement and disadvantage in the future of work [85, 246]. Additional research applying an intersectional lens could elaborate on the overlapping identities and macrolevel structures that may contribute to inequalities.

The future of work represents and emerging public health concern. Our scan and synthesis of existing literature identified nine trend categories that pose challenges and opportunities for the sustained employment of vulnerable workers in the future. Notably, exclusion from the future of work has the potential to widen existing social and health inequities already facing vulnerable groups of workers. Overall, our study provides an important first step in understanding the work and health implications of the future of work and directs research and practice towards a focus on vulnerable workers.

3D = Three dimensional

AI = Artificial intelligence

AR = Augmented reality

ML = Machine learning

STEM = Science, technology, engineering, mathematics

UN = United Nation

US = United States

VR = Virtual reality

Ethics and consent to participate

No primary data was collected as part of this horizon scan.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

CN is the principal and president of Cense LTD. CN has no financial or personal conflicts of interest related to the study. No other authors have competing interests related to this research to report.

Funding

The study was supported by a New Frontiers in Research Fund - Exploration Grant from Canada’s Tri-Agency Programs Secretariat (NFRFE-2018-00873). Funding bodies had no role in study design, data collection, data interpretation or manuscript writing.

Availability of data and materials

No data was collected as part of this study. The search terms we have utilized in this horizon scan have been included as a supplement

Author contributions

AJ and AS conceived the study idea. AS, AJ, SB, MG, LT, ET, UB, CN, CB, PS led the development of the methodology. AJ and AS implemented the study methodology and led data collection and analysis. All authors substantially contributed to the writing of this manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Maggie Tiong, Jonna Liu, Jocelyn Dollack and Maia Sinkins for their support with literature searching. We also appreciate Jocelyn Dollack’s assistance with manuscript preparation.

World Economic Forum: The future of jobs report 2018. In.: World Economic Forum Geneva; 2018.
Lucker J, Hogan S, Bischof T: Navigating the future of work: can we point business, workers and social institutions in the same direction? In.: Deloitte Review; 2017: 202.
Bakhshi H, Downing J, Osborne M, Schneider P: The future of skills: employment in 2030. In.: London: Pearson and Nesta; 2017: 124.
The fourth industrial revolution: what it means, how to respond [https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/]
Thornton J, Russek H, O'Neil T: Turn and face the strange: changes impacting the future of employment in Canada. In.: Brookfield Institute; April 2019: 114.
Leopold T, Ratcheva V, Zahidi S: The Future of Jobs Report 2018. In. Switzerland: Centre for the New Economy and Society; 2018: 147.
Schneider P, Bakhshi H, Armstrong H: The Future of Skills: Trends impacting on UK employment in 2030. London: Nesta and 2017.
The future of work [https://www.oecd.org/employment/future-of-work/.]
Manyika J, Chui M, Miremadi M, Bughin J, George K, Willmott P, et al.: A future that works: Automation, employment, and productivity. In.: Mckinsey Global Institute; 2017: 28.
Benach J, Vives A, Amable M, Vanroelen C, Tarafa G, Muntaner C: Precarious employment: understanding an emerging social determinant of health. Annu Rev Public Health 2014, 35:229-253.
Marmot M, Friel S, Bell R, Houweling TA, Taylor S, Commission on Social Determinants of Health: Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. The lancet 2008, 372(9650):1661-1669.
Fuller JB, Wallenstein JK, Raman M, de Chalendar A: Future Positive: How Companies Can Tap Into Employee Optimism to Navigate Tomorrow's Workplace. 2019.
Saunders R: Defining vulnerability in the labour market. In.: Canadian Policy Research Networks Incorporated; 2003.
Chetty R, Hendren N, Kline P, Saez E: Where is the land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States *. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 2014, 129(4):1553-1623.
Cheng S, Tamborini CR, Kim C, Sakamoto A: Educational Variations in Cohort Trends in the Black-White Earnings Gap Among Men: Evidence From Administrative Earnings Data. Demography 2019, 56(6):2253-2277.
Economic Policy Institute: The Productivity–Pay Gap. In. Washington, DC; 2019.
Cranford C, Vosko L: Conceptualizing precarious employment: Mapping wage work across social location and occupational context. In: Precarious employment: Understanding labour market insecurity in Canada. edn. Edited by Vosko LH. Canada: McGill-Queen's University Press; 2006: 43-66.
Ross M, Nicole B: Low-wage work is more pervasive than you think, and there aren’t enough “good jobs” to go around. In.: Brookings; 2019.
Chesters J, Smith J, Cuervo H, Laughland-Booy J, Wyn J, Skrbiš Z, Woodman D: Young adulthood in uncertain times: The association between sense of personal control and employment, education, personal relationships and health. Journal of Sociology 2019, 55(2):389-408.
Bishu SG, Alkadry MG: A systematic review of the gender pay gap and factors that predict it. Administration & Society 2017, 49(1):65-104.
Martin JC, Lewchuk W: The Generation Effect: Millennials, employment precarity and the 21st Century workplace. In.: McMaster University

Poverty and Employment Precarity in Southern Ontario; 2018.

Kamerāde D, Richardson H: Gender segregation, underemployment and subjective well-being in the UK labour market. Human Relations 2018, 71(2):285-309.
Campos-Serna J, Ronda-Pérez E, Artazcoz L, Moen BE, Benavides FG: Gender inequalities in occupational health related to the unequal distribution of working and employment conditions: a systematic review. International Journal for Equity in Health 2013, 12(1):57.
Azmat G, Güell M, Manning A: Gender gaps in unemployment rates in OECD countries. Journal of Labor Economics 2006, 24(1):1-37.
Daenzer P: Unemployment and minority immigrants in Canada. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 1991.
Waite S, Ecker J, Ross LE: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of Canada’s LGBTQ2S+ employment, labour market and earnings literature. PloS one 2019, 14(10):e0223372.
Hajizadeh M, Hu M, Bombay A, Asada Y: Socioeconomic inequalities in health among Indigenous Peoples living off-reserve in Canada: trends and determinants. Health Policy 2018, 122(8):854-865.
Autor DH, Dorn D: The Growth of Low-Skill Service Jobs and the Polarization of the US Labor Market. American Economic Review 2013, 103(5):1553-1597.
Autor DH, Katz LF, Krueger AB: Computing Inequality: Have Computers Changed the Labor Market?*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 1998, 113(4):1169-1213.
Marmot MG, Smith GD, Stansfeld S, Patel C, North F, Head J, White I, Brunner E, Feeney A: Health inequalities among British civil servants: the Whitehall II study. Lancet 1991, 337(8754):1387-1393.
Ferrie JE, Shipley MJ, Davey Smith G, Stansfeld SA, Marmot MG: Change in health inequalities among British civil servants: the Whitehall II study. Journal of epidemiology and community health 2002, 56(12):922-926.
Marmot M, S. F, Bell R, Houweling T, Taylor S: Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. The Lancet November 2008, 372(9650):1661-1669.
Raphael D: Social determinants of health: present status, unanswered questions, and future directions. Int J Health Serv 2006, 36(4):651-677.
Benach J, Benavides FG, Platt S, Diez-Roux A, Muntaner C: The health-damaging potential of new types of flexible employment: a challenge for public health researchers. American Journal of Public Health 2000, 90(8):1316-1317.
Sachs JD: From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals. The Lancet 2012, 379(9832):2206-2211.
Hines A: Thinking About the Future: Guidelines for Strategic Foresight

In: Management Forum Series. Washington; March 5, 2008: 8.

Voros J: Reframing environmental scanning: an integral approach. Foresight-The journal of future studies, strategic thinking and policy 2001, 3(6):533-551.
Van Rij V: Horizon scanning: monitoring plausible and desirable futures. In: Knowledge Democracy. 1st Edition edn. Edited by J. R: Springer Verlag; February 2010: 227-240.
Saritas O, Smith J: The Big Picture – trends, drivers, wild cards, discontinuities and weak signals. Futures April 2011, 43(3):292–312.
Arksey H, O'Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International journal of social research methodology 2005, 8(1):19-32.
Royal Bank of Canada: Humans wanted: how Canadian youth can thrive in the age of disruption. In.; 2018: 44.
Antal K, Dixon L, Evans S, Jamieson D, O'Rourke J, Padbury P, Richardson K, Schultz W, Schirmer S, Steeves J: The Next Generation of Emerging Global Challenges. In. Canada: Government of Canada; October 19, 2018.
Treverton G: Global trends: paradox of progress. In.: National Intelligence Council; January 2017: 235.
Amanatidou E, Butter M, Carabias V, Könnölä T, Leis M, Saritas O, Schaper-Rinkel P, van Rij V: On concepts and methods in horizon scanning: Lessons from initiating policy dialogues on emerging issues. Science and Public Policy 2012, 39(2):208-221.
Bruns A, Stieglitz S: Towards more systematic Twitter analysis: metrics for tweeting activities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 2013, 16(2):91-108.
King D, Ramirez-Cano D, Greaves F, Vlaev I, Beales S, Darzi A: Twitter and the health reforms in the English National Health Service. Health Policy 2013, 110(2-3):291-297.
Ovadia S: Exploring the Potential of Twitter as a Research Tool. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian 2009, 28(4):202-205.
Small TA: WHAT THE HASHTAG?Information, Communication & Society 2011, 14(6):872-895.
About the OECD. Secondary About the OECD [http://www.oecd.org/about/.]
Manyika J: Technology, jobs and the future of work. 2017.
Sheridan K: Meet Your New Co-Workers - Robots: 9 key factors contributing to this burgeoning trend In.; 2017.
Viscelli S: Driverless? Autonomous Trucks and the Future of the American Trucker. In. California: UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education; 2018
Acemoglu D, Restrepo P: Robots and jobs: Evidence from US labor markets. Journal of Political Economy 2020, 128(6):2188-2244.
Acemoglu D, Restrepo P: Artificial Intelligence, Automation and Work. In. Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research January 2018: 43.
Aldrich J: Remote work is more than a job perk—for people with chronic illness, it’s life changing. In.: The Startup; November 2019.
Hoffman S, Friedman HH: Machine Learning and Meaningful Careers: Increasing the Number of Women in STEM. Labor: Human Capital eJournal 2017.
Bick R, Hazan E, Khan H, Lacroix S, Sarrazin H, Welchman T: The future of work: Reskilling and remote working to recover in the ‘next normal’. In.: McKinsey Global Institute; 2020.
Widell N, Keränen A, Badrinath R: What is semantic interoperability in IoT and why is it important? In.: Ericsson Technology Review; July 23, 2020.
Johnson S: Employees at this company work on a virtual reality island. In.: World Economic Forum; 2018.
Policy Horizons Canada: The Next Digital Economy. In. Canada; 2019.
Wood AJ, Graham M, Lehdonvirta V, Hjorth I: Good gig, bad gig: autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work, Employment and Society 2019, 33(1):56-75.
Howcroft D, Bergvall-Kåreborn B: A typology of crowdwork platforms. Work, Employment and Society 2019, 33(1):21-38.
Lepore J: Are Robots Competing for Your Job? In: The New Yorker, Annals of Technology. New York; February 25, 2019.
Baldwin R: The Globotics Upheaval: Globalization, Robotics, and the Future of Work: Oxford University Press; 2019.
Rubery J: A Gender Lens on The Future of Work. Journal of International Affairs January 2019, 73, (No. 1 - FALL/WINTER).
World Economic Forum: Global Gender Gap Report 2020. In: Insight Report. Switzerland: World Economic Forum 2020: 371.
Brumley KM: “It’s More Appropriate for Men”: Management and Worker Perceptions of the Gendered Ideal Worker. Sociological Spectrum 2018, 38(6):406-421.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): Bridging the digital gender divide: include, upskill, innovate. In.: OECD; 2018: 151.
Hua J, Ray K: Beyond the precariat: race, gender, and labor in the taxi and Uber economy. Social Identities 2018, 24(2):271-289.
Lasson E: Why are fewer teenagers taking summer jobs? (Clue: it's not because they're lazy). In: Global Agenda. World Economic Forum in collaboration with The Conversation; August 2018.
Manyika J, Lund S, Chui M, Bughin J, Woetzel J, Batra P, Ko R, Sanghvi S: Jobs lost, jobs gained: Workforce transitions in a time of automation. In: McKinsey Global Institute. vol. 150; 2017.
Frey CB, Osborne MA: The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?Technological forecasting and social change 2017, 114:254-280.
Eden M, Gaggl P: On the welfare implications of automation. In. Washington, D.C: World Bank Group; 2015.
Lamb CP, Doyle S: The Talented Mr. Robot: The Impact of Automation on Canda's Workforce: Brookfield Institute for Innovation+ Entrepreneurship; 2016.
Levy F: Computers and populism: artificial intelligence, jobs, and politics in the near term. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 2018, 34(3):393-417.
O’Boyle C, Atack J, Monahan K: Generation Z enters the workforce: Generational and technological challenges in entry-level jobs. In: Deloitte Insights. Deloitte; 2017.
Knight W: AI Is Coming for Your Most Mind-Numbing Office Tasks. In: Wired, Business Section. WIRED; 2020.
Muro M, Whiton J, Maxim R: What jobs are affected by AI? Better-paid, better-educated workers face the most exposure. In. Washington: Brookings November 2019: 46.
Dzieza J: How hard will the robots make us work? . In: The Verge. February 2020.
Webb M: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Labor Market. In.: Stanford University; January 2019: 61.
Simonite T: Will AI Take Your Job—or Make It Better? In: Wired, Business Section. San Francisco; December 2019.
Winick E: Every study we could find on what automation will do to jobs, in one chart. In: MIT Technology Review. January 2018.
Volini E, Denny B, Schwartz J: Superteams: Putting AI in the group. In: Deloitte. UK

; 2020.

Rao A, Verweij G: Sizing the prize: What’s the real value of AI for your business and how can you capitalise? In.: PwC; 2017: 32.
Cook K, Pinder D, Stewart S, Uchegbu A, Wright J: The future of work in black America. In: McKinsey Insights. McKinsey Global Institute; October 2019.
Holcombe S, Kemp D: Indigenous peoples and mine automation: An issues paper. Resources Policy 2019, 63:101420.
Winick E: Where you live in the US can tell you how likely your job is to be automated. In: MIT Techonology Review. January 2019.
Eden E, Gaggl P: On the Welfare Implications of Automation. In: Policy Research Working Paper. World Bank; November 2015: 47.
Dvorkin M, Bharadwaj A: The Impact of Robots on the U.S. Labor Market. In.: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; November 2019.
Loewen P, Stevens B: Automation, AI and anxiety: policy preferred, populism possible. In: Brave New Work, Key Issues Series. Toronto: University of Toronto; 2019: 32.
Acemoglu D, Restrepo P: Low-skill and high-skill automation. Journal of Human Capital 2018, 12(2):204-232.
Peetz D, Murray G: Women’s employment, segregation and skills in the future of work. Labour & Industry: a journal of the social and economic relations of work 2019, 29(1):132-148.
Baird M, Cooper R, Hill E, Probyn E, Vromen A: Women and the Future of Work. In: Australian Women’s Working Futures project. Sydney, Australia: University of Sydney Business School; 2018.
Van Nederynan B: How AI, Machine Learning And Chatbots Are Changing The Future Of HCM: HR as an industry is evolving. In.: HR.com; November 2017.
Houser K: This robot could be conducting your next job interview. In: Global Agenda. World Economic Forum; March 2019.
Hiring Algorithms Raise Questions of Validity and Bias. [https://money.usnews.com/careers/applying-for-a-job/articles/hiring-algorithms-raise-questions-of-validity-and-bias]
Chandler S: Artificial Intelligence Has Become A Tool For Classifying And Ranking People. In: Forbes. 2019.
Dattner B, Chamorro-Premuzic T, Buchband R, Schettler L: The legal and ethical implications of using AI in hiring. Harvard Business Review 2019, 25.
Hao K: This is how AI bias really happens—and why it’s so hard to fix. In.: MIT Technology Review; February 2019.
Metz C: A.I. is learning from human. Many humans. In.: New York Times; 2019.
Manyika J, Silberg J, Presten B: What Do We Do About the Biases in AI? In: Harvard Business Review. Boston, USA; 2019.
Goodman R: Why Amazon’s Automated Hiring Tool Discriminated Against Women. In.: American Civil Liberties Union; October 2018.
Dastin J: Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women. In. San Francisco: Reuters; October 2018.
Barnes P: Artificial Intelligence Poses New Threat to Equal Employment Opportunity. In: Forbes. 2019.
Seymour A, Anthony S, Boyce NR, Martin RC, Dreibelbis E: Technology in staffing. In: The State of Technology-Enabled Simulations from Part II - edn. Edited by Landers RN: Cambridge University Press; 2019: 208-231.
Riddle S: The robots are coming for your job! Why digital literacy is so important for the jobs of the future. In: The Conversation. Canada; August 2015.
Huynh A, Do A: Digital Literacy in a Digital Age. In.: Brookfield Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (BII+E); August 2017: 22.
Lamb C, Doyle S: Future-proof: Preparing young Canadians for the future of work. In. Toronto: Brookfield Institute for Innovation + Entrepreneurship (BII+E); March 2017: 24.
Cobert B, Chang M: Future-Proofing The Workforce: Why Digital Literacy Is Key. In: Forbes. 2019.
Rutgers J: How job seekers can combat automation and temp work In.: The Globe and Mail; November 2018.
Venn D, Biddle N: Employment Outcomes, 2016 Census Papers. Canberra: Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University 2018.
Nadworny E, Larkin M: Fewer Students Are Going To College. Here's Why That Matters. In.: NPR; December 2019.
O'Brien C: IBM: AI will change every job and increase demand for creative skills. In.; October 2019.
Rumbens D, Richardson C, Lee C, Mizrahi J, Roche C: The path to prosperity: Why the future of work is human. In.: Sydney, Australia: Deloitte; 2019.
Ratcheva V, Leopold TA, Zahidi S: Jobs of tomorrow: mapping opportunity in the new economy. In: 2020: World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland; 2020.
Agrawal S, De Smet A, Poplawski P, Reich A: Beyond hiring: How companies are reskilling to address talent gaps. In.: McKinsey Global Institute; 2020.
Miner R: The Great Canadian Skills Mismatch: People Without Jobs, Jobs Without People and MORE. In. Canada: Miner Management Consultants March 2014: 30.
Chetty K, Aneja U, Mishra V, Gcora N, Josie J: Bridging the digital divide in the G20: Skills for the new age. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal 2018, 12(2018-24):1-20.
Hango DW: Gender differences in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and computer science (STEM) programs at university: Statistics Canada= Statistique Canada; 2013.
Council of Canadian Academies. Expert Panel on STEM Skills for the Future: Some Assembly Required: STEM Skills and Canada's Economic Productivity: Council of Canadian Academies; 2015.
Tromel S, Menze J, Fremlin PT: Making the future of work inclusive of people with disabilities. In.: ILO GBDN and Fundación ONCE; 2019.
Chau VS, Quire C: Back to the future of women in technology: insights from understanding the shortage of women in innovation sectors for managing corporate foresight. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 2018, 30(6):747-764.
Frank K: A Gender Analysis of the Occupational Pathways of STEM Graduates in Canada. Analytical Studies Branch Research Paper Series. Statistics Canada 2019.
Hawksworth J, Berriman R, Goel S: Will robots really steal our jobs? An international analysis of the potential long term impact of automation. PricewaterhouseCoopers, http://pwc co uk/economics, access 2018, 13.
Casselman B: As Labor Pool Shrinks, Prison Time Is Less of a Hiring Hurdle. In: The New York Times, Economy section. January 2018.
Nagele-Piazza L: Top 10 Workplace Trends for 2019. In: HR News. SHRM; June 2019.
Samans R: Globalization 4.0: Shaping a new global architecture in the age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution: A call for engagement. In: World Economic Forum Report. 2019.
Baldwin R: Globalization is Close to its ‘Holy Cow’ Moment. In: Chicago Booth Review. 2018.
Dorn D: The Rise of the Machines: How Computers Have Changed Work. In. Zurich: University of Zurich; December 2015: 32.
McKinsey Global Institute: Globalization, robots, and universal basic income: Jason Furman on the future of work

. In: McKinsey Insights. McKinsey Global Institute; 2019.

Burrow S: Globalization 4.0 must build a better world for working people. In: Global Agenda. World Economic Forum; November 2018.
Donnan S: Davos 2019 Is All About ‘Globalization 4.0.’ So What is That? In.: BNN Bloomberg; January 2019.
Elsby MW, Hobijn B, Şahin A: The decline of the US labor share. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2013(2):1-63.
Hwang R: The IPCC Report Isn’t a Death Knell. It’s a Wake-Up Call. In.: NRDC; October 2018.
Gregory A: Climate change: Greenhouse gas levels hit record high ‘with no sign of slowdown’, UN warns. In. UK: Independent; November 2019.
Box JE, Colgan WT, Christensen TR, Schmidt NM, Lund M, Parmentier F-JW, Brown R, Bhatt US, Euskirchen ES, Romanovsky VE: Key indicators of Arctic climate change: 1971–2017. Environmental Research Letters 2019, 14(4):045010.
Kjellstrom T, Maître N, Saget C, Otto M, Karimova T: Working on a warmer planet: The effect of heat stress on productivity and decent work. In. Geneva: International Labour Organization (ILO); 2019: 98.
Policy Horizons Canada: Canada 2030: Scan of Emerging Issues – Sustainability. In. Edited by Canada PH. Canada: Government of Canada; October 2016: 3.
European Commission: Aggravating resource scarcity. In.: European Union; 2019.
USGCRP: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II. In. Edited by Reidmiller DR, C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.), vol. 2. Washington, DC, USA: U.S. Global Change Research Program; 2018.
Watts N, Amann M, Arnell N, Ayeb-Karlsson S, Belesova K, Boykoff M, Byass P, Cai W, Campbell-Lendrum D, Capstick S et al: The 2019 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: ensuring that the health of a child born today is not defined by a changing climate. Lancet 2019, 394(10211):1836-1878.
Simon M: How the Climate Crisis Is Killing Us, in 9 Alarming Charts. In: Wired. 2019.
Frequently Asked Questions on Climate Change and Jobs [https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/green-jobs/WCMS_371589/lang--en/index.htm]
Levi M, Kjellstrom T, Baldasseroni A: Impact of climate change on occupational health and productivity: a systematic literature review focusing on workplace heat. Med Lav 2018, 109(3):163-179.
Bush E, Lemmen DS, editors Canada’s Changing Climate Report. In. Ottawa, ON.; 2019: 444.
Kiefer M, Rodríguez-Guzmán J, Watson J, van Wendel de Joode B, Mergler D, da Silva AS: Worker health and safety and climate change in the Americas: issues and research needs. Rev Panam Salud Publica 2016, 40(3):192-197.
Council of Canadian Academies: Canada’s Top Climate Change Risks. In. Ottawa (ON): The Expert Panel on Climate Change Risks and Adaptation Potential, Council of Canadian Academies.; 2019: 88.
Cho R: How Climate Change Impacts the Economy. In: State of the Planet. Earth Institute, Columbia University; 2019.
Nelson S: Flight attendants know the real job killer isn’t the Green New Deal. It’s climate change. In.: Vox; 2019.
Weber B: Clean energy fast track to employment growth in Canada, study says. In: Toronto Star. Toronto, ON; 2019.
Pittis D: Job killer or job creator? Experts predict a climate employment boom: Don Pittis. In: CBC News Online. Toronto ON; 2019.
Smith M: The Fast Lane Tracking the Energy Revolution 2019. In: Clean Energy Canada. Morris J. Wosk Center for Dialogue at Simon Fraser University; 2019: 16.
Vyas K: AgriTech: 3+ Ways We Plan to Feed the Future. In: Interesting Engineering. 2019.
Walch K: How AI Is Transforming Agriculture. In: Forbes, Cognitive world. 2019.
Faife C: Scientists Are Contemplating a 1,000-Year Space Mission to Save Humanity. In: One Zero. 2019.
Pearce F: Geoengineer the Planet? More Scientists Now Say It Must Be an Option. In.: YaleEnvironment360, Yale School of the Environment; 2019.
Talati S: Confronting Solar Geoengineering: What You Need to Know. In: Union of concerned scientists. Climate & Energy program; 2019.
Roberts-Islam B: The Rise Of Biodesign - Growing Our Way To A More Sustainable Future. In: Forbes. 2019.
International Labour Organization: World employment and social outlook: trends 2015: International Labour Organization Geneva, Switzerland; 2015.
Estes N: Indigenous People Are Already Working “Green Jobs” — but They’re Unrecognized and Unpaid. In: The Intercept_Voices. 2019.
Ellerman D: Making the future of work inclusive of people with disabilities In. Spain: European Union; June 2019: 43.
Sax S: Geoengineering’s Gender Problem Could Put the Planet at Risk. In: Wired, Science. 2019.
Baruah B: Renewable inequity? Women's employment in clean energy in industrialized, emerging and developing economies. Natural Resources Forum 2017, 41(1):18-29.
Link J: Engaging the Workforce of the Future. In: SHRM: Thought Leaders Retreat. Randstad North America; 2019: 63.
Robison J: Why Millennials Are Job Hopping. In: Workplace. Gallup; 2019.
Mawhinney T, Betts K: Understanding Generation Z in the workplace. In: Deloitte Insights. 2020: 24.
Burjeck A: Generation Z’s Job Interests Lie in Future-proof Jobs. In: Northstate SHRM. 2018.
Fry R: Baby Boomers are staying in the labor force at rates not seen in generations for people their age. In. Washington, DC: PEW Research Center; 2019.
Fry R, Parker K: Early Benchmarks Show ‘Post-Millennials’ on Track to Be Most Diverse, Best-Educated Generation Yet. In. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center 2020.
Randstad Interim Inc.: Move over millennials, generation z workers are coming to town. In. Toronto, ON; 2019.
Gomez K, et al: Welcome to Generation Z. In.: Deloitte Network of Executive Women; 2019: 24.
Lorenz T: OK Boomerʼ Marks the End of Friendly Generational Relations. In: The New York Times. New York; 2019.
Parker K, Graf N, R. I: Generation Z Looks a Lot Like Millennials on Key Social and Political Issues. In. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center 2019.
Here’s what you need to know about Gen Z, boss [https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/gen-z-boss-0816]
Casey LJ, Vogel MD: Preparing for the Next Generation: Profiles of Millennial City Managers and Their Approach to the Job. State and Local Government Review 2019, 51(2):122-133.
Rikleen L: Why millennials have the power to change the workplace — for good. In: Fortune. Rikleen Institute for Strategic Leadership; 2015.
Cain Miller C, Yar S: Young people are going to save us all form office life. In.: New York Times; 2019.
Salyer K: How young people are shaping the future of sustainable fashion. In: Global Agenda. World Economic Forum; 2019.
Stevens S: 5 things to know about Gen Z employees and sustainability. In: Green Biz. 2018.
Knowledge@Wharton: Make Way for Generation Z in the Workplace. In.: Wharton University of Pennsylvania; 2019.
Jenkins R: Generation Z Wants These 10 Things in a Job. In: Inccom. 2018.
Miliband D: Brexit, Populism, and the Future of British Democracy. Horizons: Journal of International Relations and Sustainable Development 2020(15):150-165.
Horak S, Farndale E, Brannen MY, Collings DG: International human resource management in an era of political nationalism. Thunderbird International Business Review 2019, 61(3):471-480.
Rodrik D: Populism and the Economics of Globalization. Journal of international business policy 2018, 1(1-2):12-33.
Pew Research Center: Political Polarization in the American Public. In.: Pew Research Center; 2014.
Oliver JE, Rahn WM: Rise of the Trumpenvolk:Populism in the 2016 Election. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 2016, 667(1):189-206.
Guiso L, Herrera H, Morelli M, Sonno T: Demand and Supply of Populism. In.: Einaudi Institute for Economics and Finance; 2017: 50.
Serhan Y: Populism Is Morphing in Insidious Ways. In: The Atlantic. 2020.
Graves F: Why Canadians need to wake up about populism. In: Toronto Star. Toronto ON; 2019.
Salam R: The Next Populist Revolution Will Be Latino. In: The Atlantic. 2018.
Cecchi S: 'It's s all their Fault'. Immigrants as Scapegoats and a Mirror Revealing Social Contradictions. In: Italian Sociological Review. vol. 9; 2019: 21.
Capehart J: Working-class whites can’t handle their status as ‘the new minority’. In: The Washington Post. Washington, DC; 2017.
Salmela M, von Scheve C: Emotional roots of right-wing political populism. Social Science Information 2017, 56(4):567-595.
Chappell B: EU Faces 'Recession Of Historic Proportions,' Economic Forecast Warns. In: npr. 2020.
Weikle B: What the COVID-19 employment crisis tells us about the future of work. In: CBC News Online. 2020.
MIT Technology Review Panel: Amid the covid-19 pandemic, shifting business priorities. In: Insights. MIT Technology Review 2020: 10.
Cassidy J: Will the Coronavirus Create a More Progressive Society or a More Dystopian One? In: The New Yorker. New York; 2020.
Solon O, Glaser A: 'A worldwide hackathon': Hospitals turn to crowdsourcing and 3D printing amid equipment shortages. In.: NBC News; 2020.
Corkery M, Gelles D: Robots Welcome to Take Over, as Pandemic Accelerates Automation. In.: New York Times; April 2020.
Guyot K, Sawhill I: Telecommuting will likely continue long after the pandemic. In.: Brookings; 2020.
Brennan M: U.S. Workers Discovering Affinity for Remote Work. In. Washington, D.C.: Gallup; 2020.
Beatty C: Covid-19 and the workforce. In.: MIT Technology Review Insights, The global AI agenda series; 2020: 9.
Rubin O, Nikolaeva A, Nello-Deakin S, te Brömmelstroet M: What can we learn from the COVID-19 pandemic about how people experience working from home and commuting?Centre for Urban Studies, University of Amsterdam 2020.
Schur LA, Ameri M, Kruse D: Telework After COVID: A “Silver Lining” for Workers with Disabilities?Journal of occupational rehabilitation 2020:1-16.
Kaushik M, Guleria N: The Impact of Pandemic COVID-19 in Workplace. European Journal of Business and Management 2020, 12(15):1-10.
Piyapromdee S: Low-income workers disproportionally affected by COVID-19. In: ScienceDaily. University College London; 2020.
Kinder M, Ross M: Reopening America: Low-wage workers have suffered badly from COVID-19 so policymakers should focus on equity. In: Brookings Metro's Covid-19 Analysis The Brookings Institute; 2020.
Jones R: People of colour make up 66% of Ottawa's COVID-19 cases. In: CBC News Online. Ottawa, ON; 2020.
Cavalleri M, Causa O: COVID-19: How governments can protect vulnerable workers In: Global Agenda. World Economic Forum; 2020.
Reeves R, Rothwell J: Class and COVID: How the less affluent face double risks. In: Middle Class Memos. The Brookings Institution; 2020.
Khazan O: How the Coronavirus Could Create a New Working Class. In: The Atlantic. 2020.
Lopez M, Rainie L, Budiman A: Financial and health impacts of COVID-19 vary widely by race and ethnicity. In: Facttank. Washington, DC Pew Research Center; 2020.
European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE): Frontline workers. In: EuroGender. European Institute for Gender Equality; 2020.
Jee C: Coronavirus is revealing the gig economy’s sharp inequalities. In: MIT Technology Review. 2020.
Grodach C: Why coronavirus will deepen the inequality of our suburbs. In: The Conversation. Australia; 2020.
Alon T, Doepke M, Olmstead-Rumsey J, Tertilt M: The impact of Covid-19 on gender equality In: NBER Working Paper Series. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research 2020.
He E, Torres N: Women Are Bearing the Brunt of the Covid-19 Economic Pain. In: Bloomberg Opinion. 2020.
Toronto Public Health: Covid-19 and the social determinants of health: what do we know? . In. Toronto, ON; 2020: 4.
Bouka A, Bouka Y: Canada's Covid-19 blind spots on race, immigration and labour. In: Policy Options. 2020.
Causa O, Cavalleri M: Distributional risks associated with nonstandard work: Stylised work and policy considerations. In: Tackling Coronavirus. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Lewsey F: Women bear brunt of coronavirus economic shutdown in UK and US. In: Research. The University of Cambridge; 2020.
Valentino-DeVries J, Lu D, Dance G: Location Data Says It All: Staying at Home During Coronavirus Is a Luxury. In.; April 2020.
Madgavkar A, White OK, Krishnan M, Mahajan D, Azcue X: COVID-19 and gender equality: Countering the regressive effects. In.: McKinsey Global Institute; 2020.
Gamboa S: Latinos hardest hit by coronavirus job losses, with a staggering 18.9% unemployed. In: NBCNewscom. 2020.
Jolly J: 'UK youth employment prospects crumbling' in coronavirus crisis. In: The Guardian, Business. 2020.
Lund S, Ellingrud K, Hancock B, Manyika J, Dua A: Lives and livelihoods: Assessing the near-term impact of COVID-19 on US workers. In.: McKinsey Global Institute; 2020.
Canadian workforce unevenly protected from COVID-19 [https://behindthenumbers.ca/2020/03/16/canadian-workforce-unevenly-protected-from-covid-19/.]
Wherry A: One country, two pandemics: what COVID-19 reveals about inequality in Canada. In: CBC News Online. 2020.
Division of Current Employment Statistics: Employment status of the Hispanic or Latino population by sex and age. In: Economic News Release. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of labor statistics; 2020.
Parker K, Horowitz J, Brown A: About Half of Lower-Income Americans Report Household Job or Wage Loss Due to COVID-19. In. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center 2020.
Houtz M: Would-be autocrats are using covid-19 as an excuse to grab more power. In: The Economist. 2020.
OECD: OECD Employment Outlook 2019: The future of work. In.: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); 2019: 27.
Goos M, Manning A: Lousy and Lovely Jobs: The Rising Polarization of Work in Britain. The Review of Economics and Statistics 2007, 89(1):118-133.
Moueddene K, Wauters P, Coppola M, Ansaloni V, Ivanova M, Paquette J: Expected skills needs for the future of work. In: Insights. UK: Deloitte; December 2019.
Sipma T, Lubbers M, Spierings N: Precarious Work in Times of the Economic Recession and Voting for Populist Radical Right Parties. In: European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) General Conference. University of Oslo, Oslo; 2017.
Vlahov D, Boufford JI, Pearson CE, Norris L: Urban health: global perspectives, vol. 18: John Wiley & Sons; 2010.
Caldbick S, Labonte R, Mohindra K, Ruckert A: Globalization and the rise of precarious employment: the new frontier for workplace health promotion. Global health promotion 2014, 21(2):23-31.
Standing G: Labour market policies, poverty and insecurity. International Journal of Social Welfare 2011, 20(3):260-269.
Peng I: Why Canadians should care about the global care economy. In: Open Canada. 2018.
Prising J: The Talent Shortage. In: ManpowerGroup’s Talent Shortage survey. ManpowerGroup; 2020.
Jenkins SP, Brandolini A, Micklewright J, Nolan B, editors: The great recession and the distribution of household income: OUP Oxford; 2012.
Margerison-Zilko C, Goldman-Mellor S, Falconi A, Downing J: Health Impacts of the Great Recession: a Critical Review. Current Epidemiology Reports 2016, 3(1):81-91.
Burgard S, Kalousova L: Effects of the Great Recession: Health and Well-Being. Annual Review of Sociology 2015, 41(1):181-201.
Labonté R, Stuckler D: The rise of neoliberalism: how bad economics imperils health and what to do about it. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2016, 70(3):312-318.
Karanikolos M, Mladovsky P, Cylus J, Thomson S, Basu S, Stuckler D, Mackenbach JP, McKee M: Financial crisis, austerity, and health in Europe. The Lancet 2013, 381(9874):1323-1331.
Liu J: The Precarious Nature of Work in the Context of Canadian Immigration: An Intersectional Analysis. Canadian Ethnic Studies 2019, 51:169 - 185.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Fragmentation in the Future of Work: A Horizon Scan Examining the Impact of the Changing Nature of Work on Vulnerable Workers

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

Generation of future of work search terms

Peer reviewed and gray literature search

Social media search

Relevancy screen and thematic synthesis

Results

Trend 1: Digital transformation of the economy

Trend 2: artificial intelligence (AI)/ machine learning (ML)-enhanced automation

Trend 3: AI-enabled human resource management systems

Trend 4: Skill requirements for the future of work

Trend 5: Globalization 2.0

Trend 6: Climate change and the green economy

Trend 7: Gen Z workers and the work environment

Trend 8: Populism and the future of work

Discussion

Conclusion

Abreviations

Declarations

References

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1