Study exploring the social, economic and legal context and trends of telework and the right to disconnect, in the context of digitalisation and the future of work, during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic : annex 8 : factual summary of each consultation activity.
Date: 2024-04-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
Subjects: arrangement of working time, case study, case-law, coronavirus disease, digitisation, economic consequence, labour law, online platform worker, rest period, social impact, teleworking, work-life balance, working environment

Study exploring the social, 
economic and legal context and 
trends of telework and the right to 
disconnect, in the context of 
digitalisation and the future of work, 
during and beyond the COVID-19 
pandemic 

Annex 8 Factual summary of each consultation activity 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion  
Directorate Jobs and Skills  
Unit Future of Work, Youth Employment  
Contact: Krisztina Boros  

E-mail: EMPL-B1-UNIT@ec.europa.eu European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Study exploring the social, 
economic and legal context and 
trends of telework and the right to 
disconnect, in the context of 
digitalisation and the future of work, 
during and beyond the COVID-19 
pandemic 
Annex 8 Factual summary of each consultation activity 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

2024 

Manuscript completed in December 2022 

This  document  has  been  prepared  for  the  European  Commission  however  it  reflects  the  views  only  of  the  authors,  and  the 
European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication. More information on the 
European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2024 

© European Union, 2024 

2011 

The  reuse  policy  of  European  Commission  documents  is  implemented  based  on  Commission  Decision  2011/833/EU  of  12 
December 
39). 
Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 
4.0)  licence  (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).  This  means  that  reuse  is  allowed  provided  appropriate 
credit is given and any changes are indicated. 

of  Commission 

14.12.2011, 

documents 

reuse 

330, 

(OJ 

the 

on 

p. 

L 

For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to be sought directly 
from the respective rightholders.  

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-68-13716-1  doi: 10.2767/014197 

KE-09-24-137-EN-N 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Annex 8A. Weighted employee survey results 

Part A – Your current experience 
Figure 1. My contracted hours per week were… 

15%

4% 5%

30%

Up to 20 h

20-29 h

30-35 h

36-39 h

40 h

More than 40 h

14%

32%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N=10940 

Figure 2. For this section, please reply considering your experience at your current workplace. Take January-June 
2022 as reference.   

I could decide when to start or end my work day

18%

15%

13%

34%

I had flexibility to take time off to attend private matters

14%

11%

17%

40%

20%

19%

Part of my time was devoted to stand-by-work

37%

23%

19%

15%

6%

I had flexibility to work longer some days and compensate with
time off other days

25%

15%

16%

27%

17%

I was often requested to work outside my working hours

I worked more than contracted hours without compensation

I was often requested to work at clients' premises, patients'
home or similar locations

35%

33%

25%

15%

17%

8%

20%

14%

20%

12%

57%

18%

19%

4%

3%

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

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N=10957 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Figure 3. I teleworked (that is, worked from home or other places such as a coworking space or a vehicle) 

[Please note: the share of teleworkers is significantly higher than the shares reported by EUROSTAT, based on LFS 
survey. The differences could be due to sampling strategy] 

27%

Daily

10%

Several times a week

Several times a month

36%

Less often

Never

15%

12%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N= 11010 

Figure 4. I did not telework because …(tick all that applies) 

47%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

5%

5%

7%

2%

20%

I was not given the
option by my
employer

I do not have
space at home

I do not have good
internet
connection at
home

I do not have
appropriate
equipment

Working from
home is expensive
(e.g., heating
costs)

I prefer to work
with my
colleagues in
person

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N= 2819 

39%

Other

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Part B – Your experience with telework 

Figure 5. I teleworked this % of my working hours 

[Please note: the share of teleworkers is significantly higher than the shares reported by EUROSTAT, based on LFS 
survey. The differences could be due to sampling strategy] 

14%

20%

13%

14%

21%

18%

0-10%

11-20%

21-40%

41-60%

61-80%

81-100%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N= 7767 

Figure 6. I could decide when to work from home and when to work from my employer's premises 

17%

11%

16%

1 - Strongly disagree

2 - Disagree

3 - Neutral

4 - Agree

5 - Strongly agree

31%

25%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N= 7739 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Figure 7. I teleworked because …(tick all that applies) 

I could save commuting time and costs

I could concentrate better at home

63%

45%

I needed to work extra time at home to finish my work

I had to attend work requests outside my working hours

12%

10%

It was easier to take care of my children

It was easier to take care of relatives/friends in need

13%

It was easier to deal with my domestic duties

It was easier to deal with my social commitments or leisure

21%

20%

24%

I was requested to telework by my employer

33%

Other

16%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N= 7669 

Figure 8. Did you telework when you were residing in a country which is not the country where your employer’s 
workplace is?  

[please note: The analysis excluded responses from NL, ES, IT and DE. These countries produced outliers due to 
weights being applied to small N.] 

2,42%

97,58%

Yes

No

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N= 9991 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Part C – Your experience with telework from another country 

Figure 9. I teleworked residing in another country this % of my work time 

[please note: The analysis excluded responses from NL, ES, IT and DE. These countries produced outliers due to 
weights being applied to small N.] 

24%

3%

4%

17%

8%

44%

0-10%

11-20%

21-40%

41-60%

61-80%

81-100%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N=275 

Figure 10. The country where I teleworked from was … 

[please note: The analysis excluded responses from NL, ES, IT and DE. These countries produced outliers due to 
weights being applied to small N.] 

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

89%

7%

2%

An EU country

A country sharing the
border with the
country where my
employer's workplace
is

EFTA country, i.e.
Iceland, Liechtenstein,
Norway or Switzerland

5%

UK

12%

Other non-EU country

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N= 250 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Figure 11. I teleworked residing in another country because … (tick all that applies) 

[please note: The analysis excluded responses from NL, ES, IT and DE. These countries produced outliers due to 
weights being applied to small N.] 

It is my country of residence, where I usually live

It was my country of residence until I moved

I have personal ties in that country (e.g., relatives, friends)

It was easier to take care of relatives/friends in need

11%

11%

It has attractive telework facilities

7%

It is better for taxation or social security purposes

2%

35%

34%

I like that country better (for example for climate)

23%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N= 227 

Figure 12. Have you experienced any administrative difficulties when you teleworked while residing in another 
country? 

[please note: The analysis excluded responses from NL, ES, IT and DE. These countries produced outliers due to 
weights being applied to small N.] 

23%

Yes

No

77%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N= 238 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Figure 13. Select all that applies 

[please note: The analysis excluded responses from NL, ES, IT and DE. These countries produced outliers due to 
weights being applied to small N.] 

35%

21%

40%

32%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Difficulties related to taxation Difficulties related to social

security

Difficulties related to other
contractual issues

Other

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N= 40 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Part D: Working arrangements at your workplace 

Figure 14. Regarding "telework" (the ability to work from anywhere) my employer … (tick all that applies) 

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

15%

39%

39%

31%

6%

Some supervisors have
informal agreements with
workers

There is a company
telework policy
communicated to workers

There is a formal telework 
agreement signed by 
management and 
employees’ 
representatives

There is a sectorial social
partners agreement
relevant to telework

None of the above applies

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N= 9891 

Figure 15. Regarding the "right to disconnect" (the right of workers to "swich off" from work when not on duty), 
my employer … (tick all that applies) 

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

12%

23%

16%

7%

55%

Some supervisors have
informal agreements with
workers

There is a company policy
on the right to disconnect
communicated to
workers

There is a formal 
agreement on the right to 
disconnect signed by 
management and 
employees’ 
representatives

There is a sectorial social
partners agreement
relevant to right to
disconnect

None of the above
applies

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N= 9825 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Part E: Your current work arrangement 

Figure 16. For this section, please reply considering your experience at your current workplace. 

I have good opportunities for training and career development

15%

15%

31%

31%

8%

I have little autonomy at work

21%

31%

23%

16%

9%

I have a good trusting relationship with my supervisors

4%

6%

19%

39%

32%

I receive help and support from my colleagues

2%

4%

18%

53%

22%

I am exposed to intrusive control or constant surveillance

34%

29%

21%

9%

6%

My supervisors do not help or support me enough

27%

32%

23%

11%

6%

I am satisfied with my performance

1%

3%

17%

55%

24%

I often feel discriminated

44%

26%

17%

10%

3%

I spend little time in commuting to work and save costs

16%

16%

23%

22%

22%

My employer compensates me for the additional costs I incur
working from home

46%

19%

20%

10%

5%

I cannot keep stable boundaries between private and
professional life

24%

26%

24%

18%

8%

My work is positive for my health and wellbeing

11%

16%

36%

28%

9%

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

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N=9637 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Part F: Your preferences 

Figure 17. From the list below, please select the most important issues 

53%

52%

48%

34%

26%

25%

22%

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

More freedom to
set my working
schedule

More freedom to
work from
anywhere

More freedom to
take some hours
off for attending
private issues

Not to be
contacted outside
of my working
hours

More regular and
predictable
schedules

More transparent
and clearer
monitoring
procedures

More in-person
work with my
supervisors and
colleagues

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N= 9213 

Part G: Main areas for improvement 

Figure 18. From the list below, please select the most important issues 

62%

59%

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

37%

34%

33%

29%

9%

8%

Compensation
of costs related
to working from
home

A right to
disconnect

Clarity on
eligibility rules
for telework

Ensuring
protection of
safety and
health when
working from
home

Clarity on data
protection and
digital
surveillance

Protection of
teleworkers
from
discriminatory
treatment

Clarity on tax
obligations
when
teleworking
from abroad

Clarity on social
protection rules
when
teleworking
from abroad

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N= 9009 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Part H: About you 

Figure 19. What type of organization do you work for? 

[Please note: due to sampling strategy, this distribution does not perfectly represent the structure of employment in 
the EU] 

9%

11%

Private company

36%

Public administration

12%

Public company operating in the market

32%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N= 9193 

Public provider of service

Non-profit sector

Figure 20. What is the main activity of your organization? 

[Please note: due to sampling strategy, this distribution does not perfectly represent the structure of employment in 
the EU] 

Agriculture
1%

Commerce and 
hospitality
2%

Construction
2%

Education
6%

Financial services
10%

Health
11%

Don’t know
1%

Other
26%

Transport
3%

Public administration
22%

Industry
16%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N= 9204 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Figure 21. How many employees work for your organization? 

[Please note: due to sampling strategy, this distribution does not perfectly represent the structure of employment in 
the EU] 

8%

9%

18%

65%

1-9

10-49

50-249

250 or more

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N= 9184 

Figure 22. Are there employees’ representatives in your organization? 

[Please note: due to sampling strategy, this distribution does not perfectly represent the structure of employment in 
the EU] 

4%

11%

Yes

No

Don't know

85%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N= 9167 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Figure 23. What best describes your role or activity? 

[Please note: due to sampling strategy, this distribution does not perfectly represent the structure of employment in 
the EU] 

Technician or junior 
professional
10%

Skilled agricultural 
forestry and fishery 
worker
0,3%

Armed forces 
occupation
1%

Service worker
17%

Sales worker
6%

Clerical support worker
27%

Craft and related trade 
worker
1%

Elementary occupation
2%

Professional
19%

Manager
15%

Plant and machine 
operator or assembler
2%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N= 9134 

Figure 24. In which country do you live in? 

2.64% 
1.63% 
0.23% 
2.58% 
24.54% 
1.62% 
0.35% 
1.35% 
8.73% 
1.43% 
13.90% 
1.00% 
2.42% 
1.23% 
11.66% 
0.63% 
0.34% 

BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LV 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 

0.10% 
3.63% 
8.45% 
2.39% 
4.34% 
2.87% 
0.51% 
1.44% 

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N= 11010 

Figure 25. What best describes the area where you live? 

6%

28%

15%

A farm or home in the countryside

A country village

A town or a small city

The suburbs or outskirts of a big city

16%

35%

A big city

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N= 9181 

Figure 26. How distant is your home from your workplace? 

5%

38%

21%

16%

20%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N= 9188 

Less than 1 km

1-5 km

6-10 km

11-20 km

21 km or more

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Figure 27. What means of transport do you usually use to go to work (tick all that applies) 

69%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

23%

16%

15%

13%

Car

Bus / Underground

Bike

On foot

Train

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N= 9177 

4%

Other

Figure 28. What is your education background? 

1%

10%

33%

10%

Primary education

Lower secondary education

Upper secondary education

46%

Post-secondary non-tertiary education

Tertiary education (bachelor or above)

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N= 9182 

Figure 29. How would you describe yourself? 

Other
1%

Prefer not 
to answer
1%

Woman
48%

Man
50%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N= 9177 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

2024 

Figure 30. Regarding your private life, how often do you… 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

30%

11%

8%

13%

37%

14%

10%

15%

22%

38%

54%

21%

20%

5 - Often

4

3

2

1- Never

Care for children

Care for elderly

6%
2%
Cook and do housework

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employee survey data. N= 9180 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Annex 8B. Weighted employer survey results 

Figure 1. The % employees working part-time is... 

0%

up to 10%

11-20%

21-40%

41-60%

61-80%

81-100%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employer survey data. N=2241 

Figure 2. Employees can decide when to start or end their work day, at least to some extent 

19%

18%

Few employees

Most employees

No employee

Some groups of employees

20%

43%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employer survey data. N=2230 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Figure 3. Employees have flexibility to take time off to attend private matters 

14%

13%

11%

Few employees

Most employees

No employee

Some groups of employees

62%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employer survey data. N=2219 

Figure 4. Employees sometimes are on stand-by-work (that is, anywhere but available to telework) 

11%

22%

Few employees

Most employees

No employee

Some groups of employees

47%

20%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employer survey data. N=2216 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Figure 5. Employees have flexibility to work longer some days and compensate with time off other days 

14%

16%

Few employees

Most employees

No employee

Some groups of employees

28%

41%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employer survey data. N=2216 

Figure 6. Employees are sometimes requested to work outside their working hours 

22%

13%

17%

48%

Few employees

Most employees

No employee

Some groups of employees

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employer survey data. N=2220 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Figure 7. Employees are sometimes requested to work at clients' premises, patients' home or similar locations 

18%

17%

Few employees

11%

Most employees

No employee

Some groups of employees

53%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employer survey data. N=2210 

Figure 8. Employees are sometimes working from home or other places such as a coworking space or a vehicle 
(that is, teleworking) 

21%

19%

Few employees

Most employees

No employee

Some groups of employees

22%

39%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employer survey data. N=2218 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Figure 9. Employees do not telework because... 

Telework is not feasible

57%

Employees have not requested this option

23%

My organisation does not offer this option

19%

Other. Please specify

11%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employer survey data. N=382 

Figure 10. Most teleworkers work from home this % of their time 

14%

7%

16%

26%

14%

0-10%

11-20%

21-40%

41-60%

61-80%

81-100%

23%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employer survey data. N=1684 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Figure  11.  Most  teleworkers  can  decide  when  to  work  from  home  and  when  to  work  from  my  organisation's 
premises 

23%

20%

1 Strongly Disagree

2

3

4

14%

5 Strongly Agree

27%

16%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employer survey data. N=1679 

Figure 12. My organisation offers the option to telework because… 

Employees have better work-life balance

Employees save commuting time

Employees concentrate better at home

We can save real estate and office costs

66%

64%

30%

29%

Other. Please specify

17%

We can hire talent worldwide

10%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employer survey data. N=1654 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Figure 13. Did any employee telework while residing in a country that is not the country where your organisation 
is placed?    

9%

No

Yes

91%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employer survey data. N=1654 

Figure 14. Did any employee telework while residing in a country that is not the country where your organisation 
is placed?    

s
t
n
e
d
n
o
p
s
e
r

f
o
t
n
e
c
r
e
P

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

2024 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Estimated share of employees teleworking while residing in another country

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

 
 
Source: own elaboration based on weighted employer survey data. N=216 

Figure  15.  Have  you  experienced  any  administrative  difficulty  concerning  teleworkers  residing  in  another 
country? 

20%

No

Yes

80%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employer survey data. N=247 

Figure  16.  Have  you  experienced  any  administrative  difficulty  concerning  teleworkers  residing  in  another 
country? Select all that apply. 

Difficulties related to other contractual issues

Difficulties related to taxation

73%

70%

Difficulties related to social security

63%

Other. Please specify

26%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employer survey data. N=2260 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Figure 17. Regarding ‘telework’ (the ability to work from anywhere) my organisation... 

There is a company telework policy
communicated to workers

42%

None of the above applies

30%

Some supervisors have informal agreements
with workers

There is a formal telework agreement signed 
by management and employees’ 
representatives

There is a sectorial social partners agreement
relevant to telework

4%

24%

17%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employer survey data. N=1597 

Figure 18. Regarding the ‘right to disconnect’ (the right of workers to ‘switch off’ from work when not on duty), 
my organisation... 

None of the above applies

51%

Some supervisors have informal agreements
with workers

There is a company policy on the right to
disconnect communicated to workers

23%

20%

There is a formal agreement on the right to 
disconnect signed by management and 
employees’ representatives

6%

There is a sectorial social partners agreement
relevant to right to disconnect

3%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employer survey data. N=1973 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Figure  19.  For  this  section,  please  reply  considering  your  experience  with  current  work  arrangements  in  your 
organisation. 

We attract and retain highly skilled professionals, no matter where
they live

13%

17%

35%

20%

16%

We have difficulties for sustaining organisational culture and
workers' attachment

28%

29%

20%

21%

3%

We favour trust-based relationships between supervisors and
employees

3%

3%

13%

27%

54%

We have difficulties enhancing knowledge sharing and innovation

18%

36%

29%

14%

2%

We dedicate additional efforts to organise and supervise work

7%

19%

32%

33%

8%

We have difficulties integrating employees working on-site and
teleworking

20%

32%

37%

9%

3%

We have implemented new procedures for control and surveillance

28%

24%

37%

9%

3%

We have increased productivity

4%

9%

53%

25%

10%

We compensate employees for expenses due to working from
home

20%

18%

39%

16%

8%

We have reduced real estate and office costs

17%

21%

37%

14%

11%

Overall, we have reduced costs

15%

20%

35%

23%

8%

The sickness absence rate has decreased

10%

13%

51%

17%

9%

We have dedicated additional efforts for protecting the health and
safety of employees working from home

10%

9%

53%

23%

4%

1 - Strongly disagree

2 - Disagree

3 - Neutral

4 - Agree

5 - Strongly agree

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

2024 

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employer survey data. N=1823 

Figure 20. From the list below, please select the three most important issues 

Avoid contacting employees out of their
working hours

Provide more freedom to employees to work
from anywhere

Provide more freedom to employees to set
their working schedule

Provide more freedom to employees to take
some hours off for attending private issues

Implement more regular and predictable
schedules

Implement more transparent and clearer
monitoring procedures

Increase in-person work at the organisation's
premises

51%

48%

38%

37%

29%

28%

23%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employer survey data. N=1728 

Figure 21. From the list below, please select the three most important areas for improvement 

Clarity on eligibility rules for telework

Compensation of costs related to working
from home

A right to disconnect

Clarity on data protection and digital
surveillance

Ensuring protection of safety and health
when working from home

Protection of teleworkers from discriminatory
treatment

Clarity on tax obligations when teleworking
from abroad

Clarity on social protection rules when
teleworking from abroad

54%

46%

46%

35%

27%

25%

13%

12%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employer survey data. N=1706 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Figure 22. What type of organisation do you represent? 

[Please note: due to sampling strategy, responses to this question do not ideally match the structure of organisations 
in the EU] 

4%

6%

3%

Non-profit sector

28%

Private company

Public administration
(ministry, municipality, etc)

Public company operating in
the market (e.g. electricity
provider)

Public provider of service
(hospital, school, etc.)

59%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employer survey data. N=1744 

Figure 23. What is the main activity of your organisation? 

[Please note: due to sampling strategy, responses to this question do not ideally match the structure of organisations 
in the EU] 

2%

1%

2%

1%

18%

19%

6%

1%

4%

4%

35%

8%

Agriculture

Arts, entertainment and recreation

Commerce and hospitality

Construction

Don’t know

Education

Health

Industry

Knowledge-intensive services

Other

Public administration

Transport

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employer survey data. N=1709 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Figure 24. How many employees work for your organisation? 

[Please note: due to sampling strategy, responses to this question do not ideally match the structure of organisations 
in the EU] 

2% 3%

10%

1-9

10-49

250 or more

50-249

85%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employer survey data. N=1745 

Figure 25. Are there employees’ representatives in your organisation? 

[Please note: due to sampling strategy, responses to this question do not ideally match the structure of organisations 
in the EU] 

14%

1%

Don't know

No

Yes

86%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employer survey data. N=1737 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Figure 26. What is your current position within your organisation? 

7%

21%

Human resources specialist

Manager (for instance,
director, human resources
manager or similar)

Other. Please specify

71%

Source: own elaboration based on weighted employer survey data. N=1741 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

1.1.1.  Annex 8C. Overview of the results of interviews with 

national stakeholders 

1.1.2. 

How likely is it that telework is here to stay? What are the likely trends in telework after the COVID-
19 pandemic? 

Respondents almost unanimously argued that in the future, a high share of employees would continue to 
work from home. They identified the following drivers as being behind this trend: 

• Continuing high demand for such arrangements from employees;

• Changes in work organisation that support telework have become accepted by both employees and
employers.  This  has  transformed  some  occupations  that  were  previously  considered  not
‘teleworkable’. For example, in the healthcare sector, this has allowed general practitioners to carry
out some functions online or over the phone, which has led to efficiency improvements;

• Costs savings (office rental, commuting etc.);

• Recruiters can hire talent from different countries or other regions of the country (which also reduces

regional divides);

• Exponential growth of digitalisation and technology, as well as the lower cost of ICT;

•

Labour shortages;

• Growing demand for better work-life balance and the need for flexibility;

• Fewer delays (due to a lack of commuting);

• Reduction in negative environmental impacts via reduced commuting;

• Generational change (younger cohorts that are more willing to telework when entering the labour

market);

• New legislation and changes to the labour code make it easier to start teleworking;

• Downsizing of office spaces.

Nevertheless, respondents agreed that it is unlikely that the peak levels of telework achieved during the 
height of lockdowns will be reached in the foreseeable future. This is due to the following factors: 

• The intrinsic non-teleworkability of some occupations;

• The value of face-to-face interactions in some occupations;

• Company  policies  that  encourage  in-person  meetings  at  least  periodically,  even  in  highly

teleworkable occupations;

Lack of IT literacy (especially in certain sectors such as medicine);

Lack of a suitable working environment at home (OSH concerns);

Interference of work in private life;

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

•

•

•

2024 

• Feelings of isolation;

• Monitoring and privacy violations/ lack of trust between workers and employers/managers;

• Teleworkers are hard to integrate;

•

Increased utility costs (electricity, heating, etc.) for employees.

Hence, while the share of teleworkers is likely to remain well above pre-pandemic levels, it is also likely 
that a significant share of teleworkers will adopt hybrid rather than pure teleworking arrangements.  

How  well  have  workers  and  companies  managed  to  achieve  a  balance  between  working  time 
flexibility and the right to disconnect? What future developments are likely? 

Respondents’  views  diverged  on  this  question.  Most  employer  representatives  and  national  authorities 
stated that the right to disconnect was not (yet) considered an issue/ not discussed, as it had not yet been 
legally established and/or was not considered important by employees. Some thought that the monitoring 
of working time and the enforcement of limits on working time were enough to ensure that employees are 
not  expected  to  work  overtime.  Throughout  the  responses,  respondents  underlined  the  importance  of 
context and the specificities of individual cases. Some national authorities considered ensuring the right to 
disconnect to be the responsibility of a company, while some employers highlighted it as a responsibility of 
the employee. In addition, employers’ representatives noted that employees like flexibility, and thus the 
right to disconnect is not an issue, and that if it were enforced as an obligation, it would impede the desired 
flexibility. This group of respondents also mentioned certain challenges to enforcing the right to disconnect, 
i.e. the specifics of certain industries (e.g. healthcare) and a lack of awareness among workers regarding
the right to disconnect.

Other employer representatives stated that they had managed to achieve a good balance between working 
time  flexibility  and  the  right  to  disconnect.  Some  respondents  claimed  that  the  right  to  disconnect  has 
always been there, and that employees are not expected to work overtime. Respondents mentioned the 
significance of compromise between employers and employees with respect to the right to disconnect and 
acknowledged the collective agreements in place.  

However,  employee  representatives  regarded  the  right  to  disconnect  as  having  been  unsuccessfully 
handled so far. Some respondents mentioned working longer hours, which leads to issues with work-life 
balance  and  increased  stress.  In  the  view  of  these  respondents,  such  challenges  arise  from  a  lack  of 
legislation and a dominant view of telework as being beneficial to employees (as a result employees are 
not yet demanding strict enforcement of their rights). 

Employee representatives mostly agreed that employees’ right to disconnect will gain prominence in the 
future. They note that the main driver will be the increase of telework, as well as risks of the entanglement 
of private life and work, and burn-out. Furthermore, respondents had already noticed new business models, 
new forms of work (gig-work, crowd-work or other short project-work) and changes in the labour market, 
as  well  as  the  exponential  growth  of  developments  in  technology.  Respondents  also  mentioned  the 
vagueness of current legislation as well as the EU’s activities with regard to the right to disconnect. 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

National  authorities  and  employers’  representatives  disagreed,  however.  In  the  view  of  most  of  these 
respondents, the right to disconnect will not gain prominence in the future. In their view, this is due to the 
prevailing shift from a process-oriented model to a results-oriented model, under which it becomes more 
important to deliver appropriate results on time than to be present at one’s desk for a certain number of 
hours. Due to this development, flexible hours will become more prominent and the right to disconnect will 
not be demanded. National authorities and employers’ representatives also tended to highlight the fact that 
trade unions have not yet been very active on the issue of the right to disconnect. Lastly, some respondents 
highlighted  that  there  is  no  possibility  to  enforce  the  right  to  disconnect  in  some  industries,  due  to  the 
specifics of those sectors. 

Challenges and opportunities: occupational safety and health (OSH), including physical and mental 
health 

Opinions  on  the  importance  of  OSH  varied  between  different  types  of  stakeholders.  The  topic  of 
‘Occupational  safety  and  health  (OSH),  including  physical  and  mental  health’  was  mentioned  most 
frequently  by  employee  representatives  and  national  authorities.  These  stakeholders  identified  the 
following as being the main problems in this area in relation to telework: 

• Deteriorating physical health;

• Mental health issues;

• Challenges in ensuring ergonomic workstations at home;

• Unfit living conditions for work.

Employers’ representatives were less likely to regard OSH as a problem, and stated that most employers 
provide employees with all of the equipment necessary for telework.  

However, in certain countries (Sweden, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Luxembourg and Romania), 
all groups of stakeholders agreed that OSH is a problem in their country and needs to be addressed.  

While  few  respondents  referred  to  possible  solutions,  those  who  did  mentioned  the  following  types  of 
instruments:  

• New measures passed by legislators;

• Guidelines on how to deal with the issues involved in remote working;

• Risk analysis (carried out to determine if employee’s home environment is fit for working);

• Educating managers on the rules to ensure occupational safety and health.

Challenges and opportunities: decent employment and working conditions, including working time 
and work-life balance 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Opinions on this issue varied between types of stakeholders. Employee representatives were most likely 
to  agree  that  work-life  balance  was  a  problem  in  their  country.  Only  in  Belgium  did  employee 
representatives, employer representatives and national authorities alike agree on the relevance of decent 
employment and working conditions. Overall, employee representatives identified the following as the main 
problems in this area in relation to telework: 

• Vague or scarce legislation;

•

Increased working hours;

• Deficient implementation of existing regulations.

Decent employment and working conditions in respondents’ countries were addressed by: 

• Guidance materials;

• Union debates;

• Collective agreements.

Challenges  and  opportunities:  skills,  career  development  and  job  mobility  (across  sectors  and 
occupations) 

Most respondents did not underline this area as raising important issues. Those who did so were mostly 
employee  representatives.  The  following  challenges  were  the  main  ones  mentioned  by  employee 
representatives in relation to telework: 

• Employees lack the necessary ICT skills;

• Overtime induced by new materials and learning;

•

IT specialists are more difficult to when working from home as opposed to in the office.

Skills, career development and job mobility in respondents’ countries were addressed by: 

• A ‘train-the-trainer’ approach;

• Centralised training;

• Online learning tools and courses.

Challenges and opportunities: cross-border telework – applicable law, social security and taxation, 
including addressing the risk of social dumping 

With  regard  to  cross-border  telework,  respondents  from  Western  European  countries  (Belgium,  Austria 
and Luxembourg) more often considered this an issue across all types of stakeholders. Opinions in other 
countries  varied  according  to  the  type  of  stakeholder  –  employers’  representatives  were  most  likely  to 
mention cross-border work. These stakeholders mentioned the following problems with regard to cross-
border telework: 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

•

•

It is difficult to determine which rules apply;

Lack of health or social insurance for teleworkers;

• Rules are not unified at an international level;

•

Lack of clarity regarding taxes and social security.

Challenges  and  opportunities:  control,  surveillance  and  performance  monitoring  systems, 
including data protection for teleworkers 

With  regard  to  control,  surveillance  and  performance  monitoring  systems,  including  the  issue  of  data 
protection for teleworkers, respondents’ answers varied according to the types of stakeholders concerned. 
Employee representatives were most likely to regard surveillance a problem and stated that this issue had 
not yet been addressed. They identified the following as the main challenges in this respect: 

• Employees do not know what data is being harvested and used by the employer;

• No special regulations specifically cover the protection of employees’ personal data;

• Strict monitoring – the use of remote monitoring tools (webcams, tracking of keyboard or mouse
activity, keeping track of productivity scores) – raises the risk of violations of employees’ privacy,
as these tools are not yet widely regulated. Such tools can also reduce employees’ autonomy;

• New surveillance tools are emerging;

• Old guidelines have not been updated.

Employers’ representatives, however, insisted that there is a lack of monitoring and control. They identified 
the following as the main challenges in this respect: 

•

Inability to track workers’ participation;

• Challenges in maintaining worker productivity;

• Difficulties in ensuring data protection for workers who work from home or in public spaces.

Challenges  and  opportunities:  regional  cohesion  –  tackling  the  urban-rural  divide  through 
teleworking arrangements 

Respondents  almost  unanimously  regarded  telework  as  providing  an  opportunity  to  tackle  regional 
cohesion. The main issue mentioned was that telework enables workers living in smaller towns and more 
remote regions to benefit from access to wider job opportunities, as they do not need to commute to the 
workplace for jobs that can be performed remotely.  

Challenges  and  opportunities:  gender,  skills  and  digital  inequalities  relating  to  access  to 
teleworking arrangements 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Employee representatives from a handful of EU Member States (Latvia, Czechia, Slovakia, Germany and 
Austria) highlighted digital inequalities as an issue. They mentioned the following challenges in this area: 

• Social and digital inequalities between urban and rural areas (e.g. differences in broadband speed);

• The possibility of telework perpetuating gender inequalities (e.g. jobs predominantly carried out by

women are less likely to be teleworkable);

•

•

•

It is inherently more difficult for women to achieve a better work-life balance, as they carry out the
most domestic work at home;

Lack of digital skills among older employees;

Lack of hardware (laptops, monitors, keyboards, etc.).

According to the respondents, the issues mentioned above had not yet been addressed in their countries. 

Effectiveness of national legislation and existing social partner agreements 

Responses in relation to this issue varied by stakeholder type. Employers’ representatives were most likely 
to claim that national legislation is effective. Their arguments for this are as follows: 

• Effective social dialogue;

• A deregulated environment enables flexibility;

• The same laws that regulate work in person are sufficient in the case of telework.

Employee  representatives  more  often  considered  national  legislation  to  be  effective.  In  particular,  they 
mentioned the following issues: 

•

Lack of guidelines on how to separate work life from private life;

• Difficulties in protecting the safety and health of employees who work from home;

• Reimbursement of expenses incurred by workers when teleworking;

• The  need  for  guidance  on  specifying  the  conditions  under  which  telework  is  allowed  in  certain

sectors;

•

Lack or vagueness of legislation covering telework and the right to disconnect.

In addition, employee representatives mentioned the following challenges to implementation: 

•

Legislation does not affect work culture/perceptions;

• A centralised legislative solution is possible only in very general terms, as this will not be able to

address industry-specific issues;

• Social dialogue at sectoral/industry level is very weak.

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Is the existing EU labour acquis effective, relevant and sufficient? 

Most respondents agreed that national policies, social partner agreements and the debates that surround 
them at national level are shaped to a small extent by the existing EU labour acquis.  

Employee representatives mostly agreed that the acquis shaped national debates to some extent, mostly 
because the acquis was transposed into national legislation with some caveats in its implementation. For 
example, one employee representative1 stated that the EU acquis is often implemented only “on paper”, 
and that, in practice, there is a tendency to ignore general rules. This stakeholder mentioned that in the 
particular  case  of  education,  EU  directives  are  interpreted  vaguely  due  to  a  lack  of  public  budget  for 
education. 

Employer  representatives  and  national  authorities  were  more  likely  to  agree  that  the  EU  labour  acquis 
shaped national policy and debates only to a small extent. They stated that agreements and debates were 
mostly shaped by national legislation. However, respondents deemed the EU acquis to be mostly effective 
in protecting the rights of workers, while facilitating full use of the benefits of teleworking.  

Employee representatives and national authorities mostly found acquis effective; however, they underlined 
that the right to disconnect should also be covered.  

Some employers’ representatives regarded the EU acquis as ineffective. They stated that the protection of 
workers depends on company-level agreements, and that the EU acquis is hard to enforce and sometimes 
limits the flexibility of work. 

With regard to enforcement costs, most respondents agreed that the transposition and implementation of 
the acquis does not entail costs (workload) in addition to the cost of implementing national policies. 

Should the existing EU labour acquis be changed? If so, how? 

Here, the interview respondents split into two groups – for and against changing the EU labour acquis (28 
and  29,  respectively).  The  former  group  consisted  mostly  out  of  employee  representatives.  These 
stakeholders suggested including the following areas in the framework: 

• The right to disconnect;

• Cross-border work;

• Minimum OSH standards at EU level;

1 The interviewee opted to remain anonymous. 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

2024 

• Minimum data privacy standards at EU level.

Most employee representatives suggested that an EU directive would be the most suitable instrument to 
address the above issues. 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

1.1.3.  Annex 8D. Overview of the results of expert 

interviews 

How likely is it that telework is here to stay? What are the likely trends in telework after the COVID-
pandemic? 

Respondents unanimously agreed that telework is here to stay. However, most of them mentioned that in 
their  opinion,  the  size  of  the  teleworking  workforce  will  not  reach  the  levels  seen  during  the  pandemic. 
Some respondents also mentioned the importance of the specifics of certain occupations (as some of these 
are  less  likely  to  be  teleworkable)  and  the  specifics  of  companies  (their  size,  work  culture,  etc.). 
Respondents identified the following as the main drivers of telework: 

• The pandemic has demonstrated that work can, to a large extent, be organised remotely;

• Cost savings (for both the companies and employees);

• Better work-life balance;

• The energy crisis;

• Companies starting to move away from offices and into co-working spaces;

• Employees resettling further away from their work.

Respondents also mentioned the following potential challenges to the future of telework: 

• The need for teleworkers to cover utility and equipment costs;

• Upskilling as new technologies emerge;

• Discrimination;

• Managing remote teams.

What  does  the  main  evidence  show  in  terms  of  trends  in  maintaining  work-life  balance  and 
disconnecting  from  work-related  responsibilities:  to  what  extent  is  this  becoming  an  accepted 
practice? To what extent is it driven by legal changes or by sectoral / company-level agreements 
and practices? 

Most respondents agreed that work-life balance and disconnecting from work-related responsibilities are 
becoming an accepted practice to a small extent. However, they mentioned that such practices vary from 
country to country, as the EU is not homogeneous. For example, in countries such as France, the right to 
disconnect is already enshrined in legislation. However, overall trends point towards longer working hours 
and  a  lack  of  adequate  work-life  balance.  While  discussions  on  these  issues  are taking  place  between 
social partners , and regulation has been achieved through collective agreements, most Member States 
still lack a general legal framework covering these issues.  

Challenges and opportunities: occupational safety and health (OSH), including physical and mental 
health 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Most  respondents  did  not  comment  on  this  issue.  Those  who  did  stated  that  the  main  problem  is  the 
enforcement of OSH rules at home, as it is difficult for managers to ensure that the employee’s workspace 
is suitable, and it is not easy to conduct inspections in employees’ private space.  

Challenges and opportunities: decent employment and working conditions, including working time 
and work-life balance 

Respondents  agreed  that  telework  causes  problems  in  terms  of  work-life  balance,  and  blurs  the  line 
between  work  and  personal  life.  However,  they  pointed  out  that  each  case  is  different,  and  that  some 
employees do not face such challenges, and therefore enjoy flexibility.  

Challenges  and  opportunities:  skills,  career  development  and  job  mobility  (across  sectors  and 
occupations) 

Most  respondents  did  not  comment  on  this  issue.  Those  who  did  stated  that  there  is  often  a  need  for 
upskilling in relation to the use of technology. As a result, less tech-savvy employees might feel anxious 
about  the  changing  nature  of  work.  They  also  mentioned  an  increase  in  job  turnover,  which  was  a 
phenomenon related to COVID-19, as people began to question their career choices. 

Challenges and opportunities: cross-border telework – applicable law, social security and taxation, 
including addressing the risk of social dumping 

Only half of respondents addressed this issue. Those who did stated that the number of employees who 
wish  to  work  from  abroad  is  increasing.  With  this  comes  certain  challenges,  such  as  a  lack  of  clarity 
regarding the applicable taxation and social security rules. As a result, some respondents believed cross-
border telework should be regulated at EU level. 

Challenges  and  opportunities:  control,  surveillance  and  monitoring  performance  systems, 
including data protection for teleworkers 

A third of respondents mentioned this issue. They stated that as telework became increasingly common, a 
large increase had occurred in the use of various forms of algorithmic management by company managers 
to control these processes remotely. This development has brought issues regarding privacy, control and 
surveillance to the forefront. Respondents underlined that while the GDPR represents an advance in terms 
of  privacy,  issues  exist  with  regard  to  its  implementation.  Because  the  main  idea  behind  the  GDPR  is 
consent, employers are able to carry out contentious activities with regard to privacy, while the employees 
agree because the alternative would be not having a job at all.  

Challenges  and  opportunities:  regional  cohesion  –  tackling  the  urban-rural  divide  through 
teleworking arrangements 

Respondents stated that due to the increase in telework, employees are now starting to move from the 
main cities into the regions. As a result, regional cohesion will be enhanced. However, one respondent 
mentioned that big cities could also become more attractive as commuting becomes irrelevant, depriving 
medium-sized cities of high-skilled workers.  

Challenges  and  opportunities:  gender,  skills  and  digital  inequalities  in  relation  to  access  to 
teleworking arrangements 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Most respondents recognised that it may be more difficult for women than men to achieve work-life balance, 
as in most cases they do the majority of domestic work. However, others saw telework as an opportunity 
for women to work while also taking care of their children and housework.  

Is the existing EU labour acquis effective, relevant and sufficient? Should it be changed? 

Most  of  the  experts  agreed  that  the  existing  EU  labour  acquis  needs  to  be  updated.  This  is  due  to  an 
increase in telework, new technologies, and overall changes in the labour market since the pandemic. They 
stated  that  additional  regulation  is  needed.  However,  the  experts  agreed  that  telework  and  the  right  to 
disconnect would be difficult to regulate, as there is a need for flexibility and different cases require different 
approaches. Some suggested that telework and the right to disconnect would be better regulated through 
collective or company agreements. 

2024 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Report for Delphi survey (1/2)

Response Counts

Completion Rate:

66.7%

Complete

Partial

18

9

Totals: 27

1. The graph above illustrates the evolution of telework through the years. In
your opinion, what share of employed persons is likely to work from home in
the near future (2022-2024)?

13% ~ 12-15%
​13% ~ 12-15%

​17% > 31%
17% > 31%

17% ~ 16-21%
​17% ~ 16-21%

​17% ~ 21- 25%
17% ~ 21- 25%

​35% ~ 26-30 %
35% ~ 26-30 %

Percent

Responses

17.4%

34.8%

17.4%

17.4%

13.0%

4

8

4

4

3

Totals: 23

Value

> 31%

~ 26-30 %

~ 21- 25%

~ 16-21%

~ 12-15%

2. Please provide arguments / explain your answer

ResponseID Response

10

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

In the UK, the porportion of people working from home is likely to be slightly higher
at the moment, and is likely to continue given the current state of the labour
market/changes in employer/workers' preferences/attitudes. I do not see it being
beyond 30% not in the near future, however.

Cada vez más son las empresas que disponen de medios humanos y materiales
para implementar una transformación digital en su gestión del día a día. Ello se le
une la necesidad cada vez más elevada a corto plazo de las personas trabajadoras
en edad juvenil que aspiran a teletrabajar y así aspirar a conciliar y tener una vida
más allá del trabajo. (Español )

End of COVID will slow the rise but probably stabilize above 20%

Employees like it and it has little detrimental effects for employers

This depends on whether we mean exclusively telework, or work a hybrid model
(some days on-site, some days telework). I have answered on the assumption the
survey question asks what share will work either hybrid or exclusively remote.

After remote work has been facilitated by many employers during the pandemic, it
will likely remain in place for some workers, yet it is unlikely that the levels of
remote work will be as high as in 2021 when many Covid restrictions were still in
place.

I think more employees want telework, but I think organizations will be slow to
respond as many managers still want employees to be in person as much as
possible

Work habits are changing. The use of telework will continue to grow, but not at the
same rate as after the pandemic. On the other hand, some teleworkers may want
to return to face-to-face work.

COVID accelerate the transition to telework that was already happening in the
previous decade. The necessity to resort to remote work proved to organisations
and employers that the feared impact on productivity was marginal or inexistent,
and it had the further benefit of reducing costs. As such, it is likely that
organisations might increasingly resort to remote working, claiming that it would
also result in a positive effect on employees (although is aspect is indeed way
more complex and need a closer and thorough consideration)

The tendency is increasing since the pandemic and people found another way to
work, avoiding the difficulties linked to go to the work place.

ResponseID Response

24

25

26

30

31

32

33

34

35

Remote work has been growing exponentially because of the pandemic, and many
people will no doubt continue to work from home, at least on a hybrid basis. There
definitely has been a shift in the workers' and employers' mindsets about remote
work. However, I don't think that these levels will remain as high as in 2021 when
even jobs that shouldn't be performed remotely were carried out in this way due to
the public health restriction (e.g. education, some healthcare services). In these
sectors, people will likely return to in-person work as much as possible.

If the question is based on employed persons who work from home at some point
in the week (but not all the time), then I think this is likely to remain a familiar
element of many jobs. In particular, this is popular with workers, but also advances
other social objectives.

Work flexibility, traffic, improved technologies

There are a number of jobs that are not teleworkable, this could change in the
future but in the short term this will not change. In addition, now that the Covid
crisis is coming to an end, employers seem less happy to have their employees
working from home and are asking them to get back to the office.

especially in North Europe workers were used to work from home and from other
places; during Covid-19 several workers were forced to work form home and other
places. In Italy for example the share of teleworking increased massively. Since the
workers appreciated this working mode and big firms have employed it, I think it
will stay, although with differences among countries.

Notwithstanding the ample use of remote working during the pandemic, only a
slight increase of the share of workers working remotely can be expected in the
near future. As shown by the first data available after the most severe phase of
the pandemic, employers are more and more imposing the return to office to their
employees due to management problems. Many companies, indeed, are not ready
for remote working because they are still organised with a strict command and
control approach. As a consequence, these companies are pushing for traditional
organisation of work to come back, even though workers demonstrated to perform
adequately their task remotely during the pandemic.

Most employer are getting to know that it is cost saving for them

I assume it is going to be slightly higher than now, because more and more jobs are
considering occasional telework

Considering the nature of the tasks, the pressure from below, the level of tech
penetration and the managerial culture of companies.

3. [OLD VERSION] [OLD VERSION] The graph above illustrates dynamics in
the shares of employees working from home sometimes (1-2 days a week)
and usually (3 days or more per week). In your opinion, what share of
employed persons is likely to work from home sometimes and usually in
2022-2024?

Share of employees
teleworking usually (3
days or more per week)

Share of employees
teleworking sometimes (1
or 2 days per week)

Responses

Will be higher when
compared to 2021
Count
Row %

Will be about the
same level as in
2021
Count
Row %

Will be lower than in
2021, but above pre-
pandemic
Count
Row %

3
42.9%

0
0.0%

6
85.7%

Will return to pre-
pandemic levels
Count
Row %

0
0.0%

Totals
Total Responses

4
57.1%

4
100.0%

1
14.3%

1
100.0%

7

4

7

1

7

4. The graph above illustrates dynamics in the shares of employees working
from home sometimes (1-2 days a week) and usually (3 days or more per
week). In your opinion, what share of employed persons is likely to work from
home sometimes and usually in 2022-2024?

Share of employees
teleworking usually (3 days
or more per week)

Share of employees
teleworking sometimes (1
or 2 days per week)

Will be higher when
compared to 2021
Checks
Row Check %

Will be about the
same level as in 2021
Checks
Row Check %

Will be lower than in
2021, but above pre-
pandemic
Checks
Row Check %

Will return to pre-
pandemic levels
Checks
Row Check %

Total Checks
Checks
% of Total Checks

6
35.3%

2
50.0%

5
62.5%

0
0.0%

13
43.3%

11
64.7%

2
50.0%

3
37.5%

1
100.0%

17
56.7%

Total
Checks

17

4

8

1

30 
100.0%

5. Please provide arguments / explain your answer

ResponseID Response

10

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

There is something wrong with your survey - please admend - I expect to be same
levels for `-2 days a week slightly higher for 3 or more days/or similar

Parece ser que el trabajo en remoto llegó para quedarse pero lo cierto es que no es
así. En España el tipo de empresa (pequeña) no es acorde con la digitalización y no
ofrecen a sus trabajadores la posibilidad de emplearse en remoto. Del mismo
modo tampoco cuentan con políticas de bienestar y de conciliación que promuevan
la fatiga informática en el trabajo (Bomarzo, 2022. Trujillo Pons, F.).

Companies will encourage more time in the office so some will go from usually to
sometimes

Because the world of work has changed- no going back to old ways of working

Most work that is capable of being done remotely was done remotely during the
pandemic. I believe most work that is capable of being done remotely will be done
on a hybrid basis in the near future. However, not very many workers want to work
exclusively remotely

It seems unlikely that the majority of employers will continue to provide the option
for workers to work remotely usually given the fact that all public health measures
have been lifted. However, the numbers of employees working remotely sometimes
will likely rise compared to 2021 when many workers worked remotely all the time.
There is an expectation that workers should return to the office to some extent.

I think both will continue to rise

Teleworkers will now seek a better balance between remote and face-to-face
work.

The transition to blended or hybrid work practice (combining remote and office-
based work in some proportion) seems indeed the most likely compromise that
organisations might pursue. And following consideration from previous answer, I
would probably anticipate the share of usually or occasionally teleworkers to
increase in the near future.

People acknowledge the advantages of both, work at home and at the workplace

As outlined above, I think that we will not see as high level of exclusively remote
work as we did in the height of the pandemic, as workers will be expected to return
to work in some capacity. However, the hybrid system has likely grown in
popularity. It facilitates work-life balance, and there will be an expectation on the
part of workers to maintain it. At the same time, those who worked exclusively
remotely during the pandemic might be in a position to return to the office on a
hybrid basis.

ResponseID Response

25

26

30

31

32

33

34

There is evidence of some "return to the office" and this is growing in pace as
confidence grows that the worst period of the pandemic is behind us. There is a
transition back towards some meetings and events being in-person, so this is likely
to reduce teleworking to some extent.

After pandemic organization wanted to resume activities as before. Associated
costs and workers preference will make telework remains.

Hybrid work will be more likely to happen, with some days/week of work from home
and a higher number of days/week of work in the office. So I expect teleworking
sometimes higher than in 2021 and teleworking usually lower than 2021 but higher
than pre-pandemic

The heterogeneity of countries in terms of firms size, knowledge-intensive sector
share, and "culture" of the country will impact these phenomena

It is foreseeable that both the share of workers teleworking for three days or more
and of workers teleworking two or 1 day per week will slightly increase compared
to 2021, according to the general increase expected for teleworking. As happened
before the pandemic, it can be expected that the increase of persons teleworking
one or two days will be among companies that are going introduced teleworking
for the first time as an ordinary ways of working or among newly hired workers.
Differently, the share of teleworkers providing their performance remotely for 3 or
more days will probably grow consistently among persons that already teleworked
and demonstrated to manage working remotely adequately.

The working condition during the pandemic seems to have come to stay

It very much depends on the context, e.g. how long the energy crisis will continue,
or whether the Member States increase the provision or quality of early childhood
and education services (or long term care services). If services are short, workers
will need to telework to cover caring gaps

6. How telework is expected to evolve in the medium-long term (5-10 years
from now)? What share of employees would you expect to be working from
home (at least sometimes) in 2032?(to remind of historical data, the share of
teleworkers in 2019 constituted 14.5% and in 2021 – 22.9%).

t
n
e
c
r
e
P

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60

7. Please provide arguments / explain your answer

ResponseID Response

10

15

17

18

19

20

21

22

24

25

26

30

Given the change in the economy (e.g. education retail etc.) more jobs will be
teleworkable and will be carried out in such a way

Trabajadores que cuenten con medios telemáticos, responsables de
departamentos y altos directivos

Because many more have experienced hybrid working

I expect some of the jobs that cannot be done remotely at present to be automated
or to move outside the EU. I do not consider this to be a good thing, but that is my
prediction, unless member states and the EU take active steps to safeguard these
jobs

I don't think that in 10 years time the numbers will be much higher than in 2021.
Yes, there will likely be more automation and technological advances in 2032, but
we have to bear in mind that the year 2021 was extreme due to the Covid
measures, and many of those whose jobs actually require them to be present in the
workplace were unable to go to work due to the restrictions.

I think this will continue to increase in some industries (those that can work from
home / remotely; non-physical labor jobs) - especially as technology makes this
easier

It is difficult to say today that telework will surpass face-to-face work. But the
balance between the both will be more even.

Flexible and remote working are opening up potential advantages for both
employers and employees. In terms of the work market, I might anticipate the
exponential growth of this working arrangement. Whether this will happen in a
regulated and monitored way, taking into consideration employees' wellbeing and
diversity is less obvious, though.

I am quite conservative in my answers and yes, there is more automation and more
jobs will not require in-person presence, but I think that the pandemic has also
shown that people were eager to return to in-person interaction, at least in some
capacity. At the same time, I think that we often become fixated on office jobs
when we think about remote work, but in reality the majority of jobs require an in-
person presence, and while it may change with time, I don't think it will happen as
soon as 2032.

Telework is popular with many workers and technology is increasing the ease with
which this can be performed.

New organizations will adopt technologies and processes of telework easily

My estimate is based on digital technologies that could allow for more
teleworkable jobs (e.g. virtual or augmented reality)

ResponseID Response

31

32

33

35

More and more workers are asking for working from home, especially young
workers. Studies underline an increase of work-life balance for workers working
few days a week outside the office (home, other places, also coworking spaces);
and there is a rise of new working spaces and coworking spaces in less central
areas. Besides, companies want to reduce costs, especially related to the head
quarters in central areas, but they also recognize the importance of face-to-fece
contracts to promote knowledge spillovers.

A modest increase of the share of teleworkers can be expected thanks to different
factors: 1) Ten years can be enough for many companies to develop the
organisational changes required by teleworking. The competition with other
companies will increase and companies should take the pace of the transformation
of work, also with reference to teleworking. 2) More and more workers, especially
among the young and the specialised workforce will request telework arrangement
as a condition to accept the job offer. A cultural change is ongoing and also the
manager will be more open to the request of the workers, considering the
generational change expected in ten years. 3) Also the share of "remotable" jobs
will increase thanks to the technological development and organisational
transformation.

Cheaper to get experts working remotely

It is a combination of the factors discussed above and below: tech, pressure,
managerial culture and content of the tasks.

8. In your opinion, which drivers will be the most important in shaping
medium-long term telework trends? Please select up to five of the most
important drivers.

t
n
e
c
r
e
P

100

75

50

25

0

Changing structure of
Labour
Real
Generational change (e.g., younger
Employees’
Changes
​pricesHigher
Change in
Technological
​estate
​cohorts that are more willing to telework
​shortages
​change,
​in national
​company’s
​preferences
​economy (e.g. growing
​energy
​entering the labour market)
​importance of knowledge
​/ EU
​prices
​which
​culture
​makes
​regulations
​intensive services, which
​flexibility
​and
​occupations
​in place
​provide teleworkable jobs)
​attitude
​more or
​towards
​and time
​of work
​flexible
​less
​work
​teleworkable
​arrangements

​for

Willingness
Adoption
​of social
​to reduce
​partners’
​carbon
​footprint
​collective
​agreements
​employees
​and
​employers

​by

Value

Percent Responses

Changing structure of economy (e.g. growing importance of
knowledge intensive services, which provide teleworkable jobs)

Generational change (e.g., younger cohorts that are more willing to
telework entering the labour market)

Technological change, which makes occupations more or less
teleworkable

Real estate prices

Higher energy prices

Change in company’s culture and attitude towards flexible work
arrangements

Employees’ preferences for flexibility in place and time of work

Changes in national / EU regulations

Labour shortages

33.3%

47.6%

81.0%

14.3%

14.3%

90.5%

71.4%

14.3%

19.0%

Willingness to reduce carbon footprint by employees and employers

33.3%

Adoption of social partners’ collective agreements

14.3%

7

10

17

3

3

19

15

3

4

7

3

Other drivers (please specify)

Totals

Count

0

9. Due to the changing structure of the economy teleworking will:

​14% Significantly increase
14% Significantly increase

​86% Increase
86% Increase

Value

Significantly increase

Increase

Percent

Responses

14.3%

85.7%

1

6

Totals: 7

10. Please provide arguments/ explain your answer

Count Response

1

1

1

1

More jobs will be teleworkable esp in industrialised countries

Makes it easier

Some jobs that cannot be done remotely are at risk of off-shoring

More teleworkable positions can be expected thanks to the change in the work
organisation and to the digitalisation of work in the manufacturing and in the tertiary
sector.

11. Due to the generational change teleworking will:

​50% Increase
50% Increase

​50% Significantly increase
50% Significantly increase

Value

Significantly increase

Increase

Percent

Responses

50.0%

50.0%

5

5

Totals: 10

 
 
 
12. Please provide arguments/ explain your answer

Count Response

1

1

1

1

1

younger generations will like to work from home more often and will lead a cultural
change in the way we work including working shorter hours

The place, values and meaning of work have changed during the pandemic for young
people also faced with climate change.

Younger generations have become more flexible as a consequence of flexibility and
volatility in the labour market and in the jobs offered to younger workers, therefore they
request flexibility in where and when working in exchange of flexibility in contract and
salary

Knowledge intensive sectors demand for young high skilleld employees that in turn need
more flexibility in time, and space.

Generational change will have a significant impact both on the managers, who will be
less rigid towards teleworking and more open to the requests of their collaborators, and
on the workers that, especially among the young workforce, will value the flexibility of
work as very important in the job offer.

13. Due to the technological change teleworking will:

​53% Increase
53% Increase

​47% Significantly increase
47% Significantly increase

Value

Significantly increase

Increase

Percent

Responses

47.1%

52.9%

8

9

Totals: 17

14. Please provide arguments/ explain your answer

Count Response

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Change in technology will increase the types of jobs that will be teleworkable - e.g. retail
is likely to be done mostly online giving way to new jobs that will be carried out from
home (online service jobs)

Some jobs that cannot be done remotely are at risk of automation

There will be more automation due to technological advances.

Teleworking is substantially linked to technological changes. Technology opens up more
opportunities, supports the transition, and responds to employers' and employees' needs.

As discussed above, technology has an enormous impact on automation. There is no
specified timeframe in the question - in more distant future I think that the increase will
even more significant, but in medium term definitely as well, more jobs will become
automated, not necessarily only office jobs (self-driving cars for transport services?)

The pandemic period witnessed a significant improvement in the quality and variety of
telework options.

Virtual reality and augmented reality (and other technological changes) can make
telework available also to workers in jobs that were not teleworkable (due to the
characteristics of the job) in the past

Technological change will increase the chance to work remotely also in peripheral areas
that nowadays do not have a good internet connection.

Digitalisation of work will increase the number of teleworkable job position among the
different sectors of the economy. Not only in the tertiary sector, but also in th
manufacturing (i.e. smart manufacturing or Industry 4.0) and in agriculture.

It is an organizational challenge, not a technological one.

15. Due to real estate prices teleworking will:

Value

Increase

​100% Increase
100% Increase

Percent

100.0%

Responses

3

Totals: 3

16. Please provide arguments/ explain your answer

Count Response

1

1

Young people will be forced out of cities

High real estate prices in European large cities is pushing skilled workers towards less
central areas with high quality of life and good transport accessibility

17. Due to higher energy prices teleworking will:

Value

Increase

​100% Increase
100% Increase

Percent

100.0%

Responses

3

Totals: 3

18. Please provide arguments/ explain your answer

Count Response

1

1

1

Already there is evidence that employers are asking workers to stay at home and work
remotely to save on energy bills.

Along with the asset of reducing estate and office associated costs, telework has the
potential to allow organisations to contain expenses - which could indeed be one of the
main drivers sustaining organisations' inclination to promote remote working.

Again, while it's hard to speculate for the long term, in the short term, the rise in the
energy prices and the cost of living will in my opinion contribute to an increase in remote
work. Already there is anecdotal evidence in Ireland that employers are asking people to
stay at home in order to save on electricity bills.

19. Due to company’s culture and attitude towards flexible work
arrangements teleworking will:

5% Significantly decrease
​5% Significantly decrease

5% Decrease
​5% Decrease

​21% Significantly increase
21% Significantly increase

​68% Increase
68% Increase

Value

Significantly increase

Increase

Decrease

Significantly decrease

Percent

Responses

21.1%

68.4%

5.3%

5.3%

4

13

1

1

Totals: 19

20. Please provide arguments/ explain your answer

Count Response

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

flexible/teleworking is likely to become the norm in most jobs/countries - in the UK/some
other Western European countries

Lo he dicho antes. Poca conciencia del riesgo laboral contemporáneo de fatiga
informática en el trabajo. Su actitud negacionista del riesgo provoca que el teletrabajo
disminuya

Telework will be better controlled and in principle better supervised.

An implicit element holding organisations back from opening up to remote work has
probably been the expected drop in productivity, associated with the limited possibility to
monitor and check the employees were actually working when away from the office. The
pandemic challenged that worry and actually proved that risk quite marginal (if at all
present),

The pandemic provided evidence that it was possible for many jobs to be performed
effectively on a remote basis, at least some of the time.

Trust, work by objectives, appraisals and overall a new approach to work organisation are
the real game-changer to increase teleworking.

The change in the company's culture and attitude towards flexible work arrangements is
crucial, especially for small and medium-sized firms and family firms less favorable to
teleworking

As already explained, young workers as well as specialised workers will be more
demanding towards flexible working arrangements, including teleworking. A different
understanding of work in the life is spreading among workers who may prefer a more
flexible job position to a job position better paid but with a traditional 9 to 5 organisation
of work.

1

Due to data on productivity gains.

21. Due to employees’ preferences for flexibility in place and time of work
teleworking will:

​67% Increase
67% Increase

Value

Significantly increase

Increase

​33% Significantly increase
33% Significantly increase

Percent

Responses

33.3%

66.7%

5

10

Totals: 15

 
 
 
22. Please provide arguments/ explain your answer

Count Response

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

There is a huge preference shift towards more flexibility in people's work, which is
unlikely to change in the near future unless there are shortages of jobs/quick decline in
workers' negotiation power

Recruitment

Many employees will have become accustomed to working remotely as it facilitates work-
life balance.

The values and the relationship to work have changed. A more important place is devoted
to quality of life.

Generally speaking, remote work tends to allow workers to better match personal and
working life. As such there might be an inclination to prefer such a working arrangement.
The potential risk associated with this might be the actual management of the
boundaries between work and personal life, and the risk of resulting in a constantly
"switched on" mode, bringing serious issues to individuals, wellbeing.

As discussed above, the mindset has changed, and this is also linked to some other
suggested answers, such as generational change, which I also agree with but I think that
the employee's preferences basically cover this. During the pandemic many people
discovered how time-efficient remote work can be, especially for people with parenting
and caring commitments.

It is beginning to be evident that the option of remote working is a factor in recruitment.

It is an irreversible revolution.

23. Due to changes in national/ EU regulations teleworking will:

​33% Significantly increase
33% Significantly increase

​67% Increase
67% Increase

Value

Significantly increase

Increase

Percent

Responses

33.3%

66.7%

1

2

Totals: 3

24. Please provide arguments/ explain your answer

Count Response

1

1

1

Better telework will be regulated, more attractive it will be.

Regulation is crucial to make telework accessible to a wider number of workers, assuming
also that it has been introduced based on social dialogue. Importantly, regulation can
address occupational health and safety issues that are related to telework, and include
obligations and responsibilities for employers/employees.

Reduce red-tape and unleash flex arrangements.

25. Due to labour shortages teleworking will:

​50% Increase
50% Increase

​50% Significantly increase
50% Significantly increase

Value

Significantly increase

Increase

Percent

Responses

50.0%

50.0%

2

2

Totals: 4

 
 
 
26. Please provide arguments/ explain your answer

Count Response

1

1

1

Labour shortages are good - increase worker bargaining power

Employees continue to move towards organizations that give them what they want
(telework)

Telework will allow to access a wider pool of workers who are based in other regions of
the country or even in other countries (in which case tax-related implications should be
taken into account), which would be beneficial for the matching of labour demand and
supply.

27. Due to willingness to reduce carbon footprint teleworking will:

​29% Significantly increase
29% Significantly increase

​71% Increase
71% Increase

Value

Significantly increase

Increase

Percent

Responses

28.6%

71.4%

2

5

Totals: 7

28. Please provide arguments/ explain your answer

Count Response

1

1

1

1

I think people are becoming more and more aware of the environmental factors.

I am not an expert in environmental law but I do think that in the medium and long term,
these environmental issues will become more and more pressing around the world.
Furthermore, the younger generations are more climate conscious, so the generational
change will be a factor here too.

It is not yet clear that this will be a significant factor on companies' decisions, but it plays
some role.

The willingness to reduce carbon footprint by employees and employers is essential
because people are less and less willing to travel by plane or car either for work or
leisure.

29. Due to adoption of social partners’ collective agreements teleworking
will:

​67% Increase
67% Increase

Value

Significantly increase

Increase

​33% Significantly increase
33% Significantly increase

Percent

Responses

33.3%

66.7%

1

2

Totals: 3

 
 
 
30. Please provide arguments/ explain your answer

Count Response

1

1

Telework is undoubtly the business of the social partners who must participate in its
regulation for a better quality of telework.

Social partners can be an important driver of flexible work arrangements and of a
different culture of work in the company. It is not by chance that remote working has
become a central topic of negotiation in the last few years thanks to the demands of the
workers. Good practices in the context of collective agreements may prove of particular
importance to the increase of teleworking, by promoting quotas, priorities or, even, right
to flexible working.

1

Define a clear and bespoke framework.

31. Let’s assume the share of teleworking employees will increase in the
medium – long term. What impact is this likely to have on:

Low
or no
impact

Highly
positive
impact

Positive
impact

Both:
positive
and
negative
impacts

Negative
impact

Highly
negative
impact

Do
not
know Responses

0
0.0%

4
21.1%

9
47.4%

4
21.1%

2
10.5%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

19

0
0.0%

5
26.3%

10
52.6%

3
15.8%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

1
5.3%

19

2
10.5%

2
10.5%

13
68.4%

2
10.5%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

19

0
0.0%

5
26.3%

12
63.2%

1
5.3%

1
5.3%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

19

1
5.3%

2
10.5%

10
52.6%

6
31.6%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

19

1
5.3%

4
21.1%

10
52.6%

3
15.8%

1
5.3%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

1
5.3%

0
0.0%

14
73.7%

4
21.1%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

19

19

Work-life
balance of
employees
Count
Row %

Hiring talent
worldwide
Count
Row %

Cross-border
teleworking
Count
Row %

Cost savings
for employers
Count
Row %

Cost savings
for employees
Count
Row %

Productivity
Count
Row %

Psychological
impacts and
mental
health,
including
burn-out
among
employees
Count
Row %

 
Low
or no
impact

Highly
positive
impact

Positive
impact

Both:
positive
and
negative
impacts

Negative
impact

Highly
negative
impact

Do
not
know Responses

1
5.3%

3
15.8%

1
5.3%

12
63.2%

2
10.5%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

19

1
5.3%

2
10.5%

5
26.3%

9
47.4%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

2
10.5%

19

2
10.5%

0
0.0%

5
26.3%

8
42.1%

3
15.8%

1
5.3%

0
0.0%

19

1
5.3%

5
26.3%

11
57.9%

1
5.3%

1
5.3%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

19

2
10.5%

1
5.3%

12
63.2%

0
0.0%

2
10.5%

0
0.0%

2
10.5%

19

3
15.8%

2
10.5%

1
5.3%

9
47.4%

2
10.5%

0
0.0%

2
10.5%

19

1
5.3%

1
5.3%

4
21.1%

7
36.8%

1
5.3%

0
0.0%

5
26.3%

19

Physical
health and
safety of
workers
Count
Row %

Gender
equality in the
labour market
Count
Row %

Gender
equality in the
division of
labour at
home
Count
Row %

Economic
development
of non-
metropolitan
regions
Count
Row %

Regional
labour
mobility
Count
Row %

Income
inequality
Count
Row %

Costs of
adaptation
falling on
SMEs
Count
Row %

 
Low
or no
impact

Highly
positive
impact

Positive
impact

Both:
positive
and
negative
impacts

Negative
impact

Highly
negative
impact

Do
not
know Responses

0
0.0%

5
26.3%

8
42.1%

5
26.3%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

1
5.3%

19

1
5.3%

3
15.8%

9
47.4%

4
21.1%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

2
10.5%

19

2
10.5%

1
5.3%

8
42.1%

6
31.6%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

2
10.5%

19

1
5.3%

2
10.5%

16
84.2%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

19

1
5.3%

2
10.5%

2
10.5%

4
21.1%

6
31.6%

3
15.8%

1
5.3%

19

0
0.0%

5
26.3%

8
42.1%

5
26.3%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

1
5.3%

19

19

Efficient use
of natural
resources
Count
Row %

Access to
education and
training
Count
Row %

Increasing
overall levels
of
employment
Count
Row %

Access to the
labour market
in general
Count
Row %

Strengthening
of social
dialogue
Count
Row %

Digital
transition of
the world of
work
Count
Row %

Totals
Total
Responses

 
32. In the previous question you have assessed the likely impacts of a higher
prevalence of telework.  Please provide arguments / explain your answers
for the impacts, which you considered the most important ones

Work-life balance of employees

ResponseID Response

10

22

24

31

32

35

can be improved IF workers are protected/their private time is protected - e.g. right
to disconnect

Again, mixed bag. it depends how remote work is implemented, regulated, and
supported/monitored. Further, there is an interaction between organisational and
individual factors. Hence it would be essential to take into account, and bring into
the equations also individual characteristics and preferences, rather than
attempting the design of a one-size-fits-all solution

I think the pandemic has made everyone more aware of life-work balance.
Definitely, for workers with parenting or caring duties, it has been a godsend, but
the risk is of blending work and home life too much. This is linked with remote work
leading to this "always on" culture, where workers find it hard to disconnect.

work life balance depends on the ebove metioned aspects, but in principle should
improve.

Depending on regulation by law and collective agreements as well on companies
practices (managers and HR play an important role)

the experience is largely positive

Hiring talent worldwide

ResponseID Response

10

22

31

32

35

world becomes a hiring pool - only if national/international policies adapt to enable
this

Overcoming gepgraphical boundaries as mentioned

a growth in teleworking will positively increase the chance to hire talents
worldwideis will might

Talent will be looking for good jobs and good jobs are made of good salaries and
flexible working conditions.

potential risks of outsourcing

Cross-border teleworking

ResponseID Response

10

22

31

32

35

there will be more people working across borders - which may be good only if
national/international regulations (e.g. Pensions) allow this

As mentioned before, remote working might potentially overcome geographical
boundaries

Cross-border teleworking incerase flexibility and freedom but it can also have
negative effects on the local labour force, which labour opportunities can be taken
over by other more qualified qorkers. In the medium-long run this might have
positive effects on the local labour market

Positive for some areas that can be attractive for digital nomads due to the cost of
living and the good quality of life (Italy, Portugal, Spain ...); negative for other
areas.

very likely

Cost savings for employers

ResponseID Response

10

17

22

31

32

35

office rental/running cost savings - cost savings due to lower sickness and
abseenteeism/cost savings due to hiring costs/worker retainment may be
increased

Sell real estate

Reduction in estate and energy costs. By adopting flexible and hybrid modes, office
space and resources might be substantially reduced

employers need smaller premises and can rent flexible spaces geographically
dispersed. They can also offer vouchers to employees to rent a desk in a
coworking-flexible-hybrid space

Positive for reduced consumption of energy and also for reallocation of employer's
building.

less expenses

Cost savings for employees

ResponseID Response

10

17

22

24

31

32

35

commuting cost savings, savings of not having to buy lunch, savings due to not
having to buy office/formal clothes

Save on travel

a reduction of cost might be associated to reduced mobility, but they will have to
face increased energy costs at home (e.g. electricity, heating,...) which ideally
should be supported by the employer

Remote work definitely saves money, as workers do not need to commute or even
spend as much money on office clothes etc. That might be another reason, apart
from work-life balance, prompting employees to seek remote work, at least in
some capacity.

knowledge workers can reduce travel and accomodation costs

Positive with reference to commuting costs (mainly for transportation); negative
for energy consumption at home.

neutral impact

Productivity

ResponseID Response

10

17

22

29

31

32

35

usually found that giving workers access to homeworking improves productivity in
a number of different ways

Evidence suggests positive effects

WIth the correct arrangement, and an adequate support and communication
system (note: not an over-controlling one) in place, the effect might indeed be
marginal (if any at all)

depends of efficiency of work organization

literature mainly agrees about a positive impact on workers' productivity

Depending on managers and HR specialists.

less office politics, more free energies

Psychological impacts and mental health, including burn-out among employees

ResponseID Response

10

21

22

29

31

32

35

can be improved if workers do not/are protected from/working all the time/blurring
of boundaries leading to more work

The impact on mental health can be positive or negative according of the
employee's personality, the means granted to the implementation of telework, etc.

Without adequate consideration and monitoring there is a risk that flexible/remote
work might blurred and infiltrate the boundaries between office and private life,
with a potentially devastating impact on individuals' wellbeing

depends of efficiency of work organization

it very much depends if the right to disconnect is respected.

Depending on regulation by law and collective agreements as well on companies
practices (managers and HR play an important role)

neutral

Physical health and safety of workers

ResponseID Response

10

22

31

32

35

could be improved ONLY IF there are regulations that allow for the regulation and
support given to homeworkers

Mixed bag again. Potentially there might be more option to fit in physical activities
when remote working (depending on individual capability to effectively manage
boundaries and time). But it might also results in less attention to ergonomic
requirements.

The physical health and safety of workers should be better if the right to
disconnect is respected.

Depending on regulation by law and collective agreements as well on companies
practices (managers and HR play an important role)

neutral

Gender equality in the labour market

ResponseID Response

10

22

31

32

35

relating to the access to work - women/mothers will have better access to work if
work becomes more teleworkable/on a regular basis at lest 3-4 days a week

Not sure. Glass ceiling, gender inequality, gender stereotypes might be actually
exhacerbated by remote work (out of sight our of mind) as well as contrasted
(greater opportunity)

Gender equality in the labour market can be achieved in some countries bout not in
others. It might happen that mainly woman ask to telework and men do not. This
might negatively impact women's carrier

Same as above.

positive

Gender equality in the division of labour at home

ResponseID Response

10

21

22

24

31

32

35

IF men are allowed to and encouraged to (e.g. through the use of paternity leave
and other policies that shape gender roles), then there will be more equal division
of housework - but if not it may result in women doing more

Managing work at home and family life is challenging for many women

Indeed this is more broadly linked to cultural norms that might have a slower pace.

Yes and no. The positive impact of remote work is that those performing the
traditionally male breadwinning roles in the family can be more present at home
thanks to remote work, and the division of labour may become more equal.
However, I would be afraid that due to the traditional gender roles, more pressure
would be on women who work remotely to take care of the household chores at the
same time.

In principle if the couple telework, man and woman should equally divide the
labout at home. Nevetheless, as the literature has underlined, in several cases and
countries this has not happend: woman worked from home taking care of all the
labour at home

It depends on cultural development, policies by States and administration and
regulation by law and collective agreements.

positive but not with significant impacts

Economic development of non-metropolitan regions

ResponseID Response

10

20

22

24

31

32

there will be more wealth generated for non-metropolitan areas if teleworking is
allowed more often on an regular basis

There's a lot of conversation about workers moving to remote / non-metro areas,
yet many employees (especially white collar with access to telework) still seem to
want to live in a community setting often found in smaller and medium metro
areas

Still linked to the geographical boundaries, althought the pre-requisite is the
overcoming of any potential digital divide between urban and rural area

This is a really interesting point, and definitely in Ireland you can see more and
more people leaving Dublin. This is due to the cost of living, but remote work often
facilities this. And while this is not good for Dublin, other parts of the country will
definitely benefit from it.

Non metropolitan regions will become more attractive for teleworkers , with
subsequent positive effects on the socio-economic local context. This will also
affect the largest cities with an increase of their liveability in terms of reduction of
congestion, pollution, pressure, and higher life quality and lower real estate prices.

The positive or negative impact will depend on the capacity of administrations,
social partners and the civil society at local level to promote policies for the
development of teleworking (for example, co-working spaces; investment in digital
infrastructure etc.)

35

very likely, see southworking in Italy and Spain

Regional labour mobility

ResponseID Response

10

22

31

35

see above re work access- but there is a huge opportunity for labour mobility to
happen ONLY IF the telework done is done on a regular basis and more days (4days
etc)

Overcoming geographical boundaries

telework should reduce it

very likely

Income inequality

ResponseID Response

10

22

24

31

not sure

Again, a mix bag. Potentially it opens up opportunities to a greater audience (with
the potential of impacting positively income equality), but on the other hand it
might amplify existing inequalitites (digital divide, professional gaps,...)

I think this will have a negative impact. The lowest wage jobs often cannot be
performed remotely, so these workers will have to continue to spend more on the
commute, while workers in white-collar jobs will save more thanks to remote work.

a growth in teleworking can from one side posivitely affect the higher skilled, thus
increasing the distance between them and low skilled workers; for the other side,
as Moretti stated in his book about the new geography of work, high skileld
workers (also in less central areas) increase the demand of low skileld workers

35

ND

Costs of adaptation falling on SMEs

ResponseID Response

10

22

31

32

35

adapting workers to telework may be more costly for SMEs if there are no
frameworks they can draw from

This obviously depends on how much SME will also take responsibility to support
and sustain employeers in setting up their home workspace

larger firms are more willing to adopt teleworking. SMEs have more problems
related to the multiple roles the employees have to cover in the company. SMEs
will support more costs to adapt than larger firms

Negative in the short term; positive on the overall productivity of SMEs.

ND

Efficient use of natural resources

ResponseID Response

10

17

31

32

35

non commuting will allow more efficient use of natural resources

Less car use

teleworking might have both positive and negative effects on the use of natural
reseaources, it depends by how the phenomenon is managed and regulated. There
is the risk that areas with high environmental and cultutral values will become too
attractive towards digital nomads and teleworkers, thus reducing their local
values.

The impact will depend mainly on the policies adopted by States and local
adeministration. Teleworking may reduce the consumption, but also increase it, if
any location become a work position.

ND

Access to education and training

ResponseID Response

10

22

29

31

32

35

as training and education become more online based it will be accesssible to all
workers/across different regions becoming more equal access

online training might be less expensive, allow trainee to benefit of a greater offer,
and having access to resources/trainers otherwise out of reach

because of gain in time - less time for transportation

if education and training will be in presence, only less peripheral areas will supply
these services. In the medium-long run other areas will be supplied by these
services (but not all, and not fully)

It reduces barriers for disadvantaged persons (i.e. disabled, but also persons living
in rural areas) and also promotes lifelong learning among persons in employment.

no difference with in person work

Increasing overall levels of employment

ResponseID Response

10

22

31

teleworking will enable more workers better access to jobs across the world, which
will not only increase job access but talent access which will boost the economy --
> increase jobs

Potentially remote working might allow access to work to a larger population (e.g.
people with physical disabilites, or some form of neurodiversity)

teleworjing allow people from all over to work without supporting high costs of
living and working in central areas that are always expensive places. Knowledge
firms are mainly located in cities where the urbanisation economies represent an
advantage

35

ND

Access to the labour market in general

ResponseID Response

10

22

31

32

35

teleworking will quickly enhance the access to labour market for those in more
marginalised positions (women, ethnic minorities, BAME workers, disabled workers,
LGBT+ workers, and workers living in rural areas etc)

There is a potential overcoming of geographical boundaries potentially opening up
more options

there will be a better access to the high skileld knowledge workers

It reduces barriers for disadvantaged persons (i.e. disabled, but also persons living
in rural areas)

low barriers

Strengthening of social dialogue

ResponseID Response

10

18

21

22

29

31

32

35

not sure

Harder for workers to organise remotely

Because of less employees in the workplace less social dialogue will be strong

Hopefully it might bring up attention on specific challenging issues (e.g. workers
with disability/neurodiversity) with a positive impact on the social dialogue. But I
would not take it for granted.

depends of efficiency of work organization

it migth have a positive impact on the social dialogue, putting the worker at the
center

Organisational change are at the core of social dialogue and the more teleworking
will develop the more it will need a balance between employers' and employees'
interests.

co-location strenghtens solidarity

Digital transition of the world of work

ResponseID Response

10

24

31

32

35

teleworking will make digital transformation quicker

Again, during the pandemic we all learnt that many jobs that couldn't be
performed remotely, can actually be carried out in this way, and remote work will
continue to drive the digital transition.

teleworking will demand for higher digitalisation

Teleworking may be a factor in the digital transformation of work.

a boost for digitalization

33. What other impacts growth in incidence of telework may pose in the
future? Why they are important?

ResponseID Response

9

17

21

31

The most relevant is the perspective of médium supervisors. They believe telework
reduces their power and control. Facing this problem is crucial for telework growth

Flexibility for the most privileged

How to reorganise labour inspection or work environment authorities controls?
How to keep a good medical follow-up at work?

The effects on the local context and local community, i.e., near working strategy
which will improve the local development of the neighborhood, its livability (supply
of basic services, like working spaces, making the area more lively and thus
improving the positive social effects on all the citizens, including elderly)

34. Let’s now assume that prevalence of telework will decrease in the
medium-long term (5-10 years from now).  In your view, why would have that
happened?

Very
important
factor

Somewhat
important
factor

Neither
important,
nor
unimportant

Not
important
factor at
all

Do
not
know Responses

Employees'
preferences
Count
Row %

Employers'
preferences
Count
Row %

Economic crisis
Count
Row %

Issues with
technological
adoption or use
Count
Row %

Lack of appropriate
regulatory
framework at
Member State level
Count
Row %

Lack of appropriate
regulatory
framework at EU
level
Count
Row %

Lack of regulatory
enforcement
Count
Row %

3
16.7%

10
55.6%

0
0.0%

5
27.8%

0
0.0%

18

11
61.1%

5
27.8%

2
11.1%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

18

1
5.6%

7
38.9%

6
33.3%

1
5.6%

3
16.7%

18

3
16.7%

11
61.1%

2
11.1%

2
11.1%

0
0.0%

18

3
15.8%

13
68.4%

2
10.5%

0
0.0%

1
5.3%

19

2
10.5%

13
68.4%

1
5.3%

2
10.5%

1
5.3%

19

6
33.3%

9
50.0%

1
5.6%

2
11.1%

0
0.0%

18

 
Very
important
factor

Somewhat
important
factor

Neither
important,
nor
unimportant

Not
important
factor at
all

Do
not
know Responses

9
50.0%

6
33.3%

3
16.7%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

18

19

Lack of coordination
between employers'
and employees'
representatives
Count
Row %

Totals
Total Responses

 
35. In the previous question you have assessed the drivers for the
hypothetical scenario of a lower prevalence of telework in the medium-long
term (5-10 years from now).  Please provide arguments / explain your
answers for the drivers, which you considered as the most important ones

Employees’ preferences

ResponseID Response

21

22

24

31

32

Some employees can realize telework is not adapted to them.

Even though I would really wish this being the main element, I am afraid it would
come after employers preferences

Some employees following the pandemic were really eager to return to work and
started to value human interaction more. I think this is true especially for young
people who had missed out so much during their most formative years.

I think that the employees are in favour of teleworking on average

Employees' preferences are expected to be favorable to the diffusion of
teleworking unless its implementation will be detrimental to their work-life
balance and their health. In this case, it will not be an employee preference but
only a failure in implementation.

35

Not always satisfied

Employers’ preferences

ResponseID Response

21

22

24

31

32

Some employers can realize face-to-face work is better for their business.

Should employers still have worries associated with monitoring, productivity...

This is an important factor. If it wasn't for the economic crisis, I think many
employers would like to see their workers return to the office.

employers (mainly of SMEs and family firms) were not favourable to teleworking

As long as the decision regarding the adoption of flexible working will remain
mainly in the hands of the employers, their preference will be a very important
factor. The only way to limit the importance of this factor it to promote regulations
that request adequate motivation to the refusal of a teleworking request.

35

The key driver

Economic crisis

ResponseID Response

22

24

31

35

Ideally, I would expect this to push rather than hinder the remote working

Important, as in I think that as long we have crisis, this decrease in remote work
won't happen.

I think the economic crisis can have either the effects, depending by the actors
involved

ND

Issues with technological adoption or use

ResponseID Response

21

22

31

32

35

We do not know eveythng on the impacts of technological adoption or use on
health at work.

This is surely key. Remote working is possible as much as supported by technology.
Technological barrier or divide would necessarily affect any access to remote
working practice

technology is important but its adoption has improved during the Covid-19
pandemic

Especially in the short run, problems with cybersecurity may impede the adoption
of remote working.

important but not decisive

Lack of appropriate regulatory framework at Member State level

ResponseID Response

21

22

31

32

35

Telework needs to be regulated in order to ensure good teleworking conditions and
health and safety.

It is essential a proper and accurate regulation of remote working practices to
ensure that they are implemented having in mind not just employers needs and
preferences, but also (and above all) indivuals requirement, expectations and
needs. Hence National Level Policy are Framework are a priority

This is very relevant

Problems may arise from inadequate regulatory framework, especially for what
relates to OSH.

could facilitate

Lack of appropriate regulatory framework at EU level

ResponseID Response

21

22

31

32

35

Telework needs to be regulated in order to ensure good teleworking conditions and
health and safety.

Following the previous point, a broader, integrated framework at EU level would
guide and possibly push the countries to national regulation. Further, if as
expected remote working will offer opportunity to overcome national boundaries, it
would be quite essential to place national policies within a broader EU framework.

This is very relevant at a higher EU level

Problems may arise from inadequate regulatory framework, especially for what
relates to OSH.

could facilitate

Lack of regulatory enforcement

ResponseID Response

21

22

31

32

35

Telework needs to be regulated in order to ensure good teleworking conditions and
health and safety.

Policy per se are not enough, without regulatory enforcement

the regulatory enforcement is crucial also in this case

This may be relevant once a right to remote working or, at least, a priority to adopt
flexible working is established by law or collective agreement and not enforced

could facilitate

Lack of coordination between employers’ and employees’ representatives

ResponseID Response

22

31

32

35

An open and respectful dialogue between employers and employees is essential,
to ensure that any policy will have a correct balance

the coordination between employers' and employees' representatives is crucial

Being an organisation matter, the coordination between employers' and
employees' representative is pivotal to promote good practices of remote working

important but not decisive

36. What other reasons / drivers could result in lower prevalence of telework
in the medium-long term (5-10 years from now)? Why they are important?

ResponseID Response

24

31

I think it is quite possible in the medium-long term that there will be another world
war, which would definitely affect telework.

In the case of teleworkers being digital nomads, countries should allow them to
stay for longer periods to live and work than for a few months (as it happens in
some countries, see touristic permit).

37. Let’s assume that right to disconnect (i.e., the right of workers to ‘switch
off’ from work when not on duty) is legally established across all EU Member
States. What long-term impacts would it have on the following:

Low
or no
impact

Highly
positive
impact

Positive
impact

Both:
positive
and
negative
impacts

Negative
impact

Highly
negative
impact

Do
not
know Responses

1
5.9%

8
47.1%

7
41.2%

1
5.9%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

17

1
5.6%

0
0.0%

4
22.2%

10
55.6%

3
16.7%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

18

0
0.0%

8
44.4%

6
33.3%

3
16.7%

1
5.6%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

18

0
0.0%

12
70.6%

3
17.6%

2
11.8%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

17

0
0.0%

2
11.1%

11
61.1%

4
22.2%

1
5.6%

1
5.6%

1
5.6%

8
44.4%

6
33.3%

1
5.6%

1
5.6%

1
5.6%

7
38.9%

5
27.8%

1
5.6%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

1
5.6%

18

18

3
16.7%

18

Employees'
willingness to
telework
Count
Row %

Employers'
willingness to
offer telework
Count
Row %

Work-life
balance of
employees
Count
Row %

Psychological
impacts and
mental health,
including burn-
out among
employees
Count
Row %

Productivity
Count
Row %

Staff turnover
Count
Row %

Competitiveness
of European
companies
Count
Row %

 
Low
or no
impact

Highly
positive
impact

Positive
impact

Both:
positive
and
negative
impacts

Negative
impact

Highly
negative
impact

Do
not
know Responses

2
11.1%

0
0.0%

0
0.0%

7
38.9%

4
22.2%

0
0.0%

5
27.8%

18

18

Costs of
adaptation
falling on SMEs
Count
Row %

Totals
Total Responses

 
38. The previous question asked you to assess the likely impacts of
establishing the right to disconnect. Please provide arguments / explain your
answers for the impacts, which you considered as the most important ones.

Employees’ willingness to telework

ResponseID Response

11

24

29

31

32

The right to disconnect(RtD) will increase preferences for teleworking as worker's
will no longer fear that the blurring of boundaries will lead to work being /needing
to be carried out all the time and everywhere

As explained before, one of the dangers of remote work is not being able to
disconnect, so this would be a welcome development for workers.

the right to disconnect is just an aspect of work and not only telework. Efficiency in
prganizaing work is key and not only setting rules

this will have a positive impact on the employees

During the pandemic the lack of enforcement of the right to disconnect has proved
as one of the main factors for a negative evaluation of the overall experience.

Employers’ willingness to offer telework

ResponseID Response

11

24

29

31

32

I think some employers may find this right restrictive and may limit the use of
telework, however, others will not be bothered will even welcome this

It would be more difficult to enforce for workers working remotely.

the right to disconnect is just an aspect of work and not only telework. Efficiency in
prganizaing work is key and not only setting rules

this depends by the attitude of the company and wether it considers it an added
value or not

It may be considered an organisation burden, but I do not expect it to be
particularly relevant.

Work-life balance of employees

ResponseID Response

11

18

21

24

31

32

This will have a huge positive impact on work-life balance of workers as their
private time will be protected

Obvious and among the most important benefits

The protection of provacy is a big issue to ensure work-life balance.

It might not suit people who prefer to be more flexible with regard to their working
hours. Some people might want to e.g. collect children from school at 3, but
wouldn't mind catching up on emails for an hour later. They wouldn't be happy if
they couldn't connect to the company servers after 5 pm.

it will solve most of the negative aspectes of teleworking

The right to disconnect is pivotal to ensure work-life balance of employees and to
avoid an always-on culture. It is not only the legal rcognition of the right, but its
actual enforcement with specific measures to be put in place by the employer that
matters.

Psychological impacts and mental health, including burn-out among employees

ResponseID Response

see above

Obvious and among the most important benefits

Telework can increase mental workload. String garantees in temrs of disconnection
has to be provided.

There is scientific evidence proving how important it is to be able to disconnect
from work, so yes, definitely - that's an important factor.

it will solve most of the negative aspectes of teleworking

Same as above.

11

18

21

24

31

32

Productivity

ResponseID Response

11

21

31

32

Enabling a boundaried time for work will enhance productivity of workers

Telework does not mean automaticaly increase of productivity even if a right to
disconnect is ensured.

according to the studies it wil increase productivity

A lack of disconnection will make the employees less productive. The enforcement
of the right to disconnect will benefit the productivity of the company.

Staff turnover

ResponseID Response

11

31

32

RtD will enable workers to stay at the job longer as due to positive WLB and burn
out outcomes

it will positively imact staff turnover giving workers more flexibility and labour
opportunities

Lack of disconnection may be a relevant factor in the decision of the staff to leave
the company. Good practice regarding disconnection may help in the retention of
the workforce.

Competitiveness of European companies

ResponseID

Response

11

31

32

not sure about this but I don't see why it would decrease competitiveness

promoting teleworking improves their competitiveness

See productivity.

Costs of adaptation falling on SMEs

ResponseID Response

11

18

31

32

not sure unless the regulation is cumbersome and no support is given to SME to
adapt corporate policies

SMEs may be better able to compete if large employers cannot force their workers
to work long hours

it should represent a cost mainly for SME

See employers' willingness.

39. What other long term impacts would the right to disconnect have? Why
they are important?

ResponseID Response

15

17

31

Fatiga informática en el trabajo, el nuevo riesgo laboral que provoca enfermedades
psicosociales a los trabajadores que no ejercen su derecho a la desconexión digital

Burn out of employees

This should also make some works more attractive than before

Annex 8F. Summaries of workshops  

No 1. THEMATIC MEETING ON THE RIGHT TO DISCONNECT 

15 July 2022, 10 AM – 14 PM CET 

Summary 

Agenda 

Session 

Tim e  

Introduction  10:00 – 10:10 

Session I 
Challenges 

10:10 – 10:30 
10:30 – 10:50 
10:50 – 11:10 

11:10 – 11:20 

Topic 
Welcome, presentation of the study and the 
workshop 
Interim findings – key research gaps 

Management approaches 

Round of discussants (5 minutes each) 

Speak ers 
DG EMPL 
Contractor 
Pablo Sanz, contractor 
Heejung Chung, University of Kent, UK  Working conditions 
Burkard Göpfert, Ius Laboris 
Jolanta Reingardė, EIGE 
Oscar Vargas, Eurofound  
All, facilitated by contractor 
Break 
Tania Bazzani, contractor 
Frédéric Turlan, IRShare 
Yvonne Lott, Hans-Böckler Foundation 

General discussion 

Regulation and enforcement 
France: experiences and lessons learned 
Germany experiences and lessons learned 
Finland experiences and lessons learned 
Ireland: experiences and lessons learned 

11:20 – 11:55 
11:55 – 12:05 
12:05 – 12:20 
12:20 – 12:30 
12:30 – 12:40 
12:40 – 12:50  Matti Vartiainen, Aalto University  
David Drabble, Tavistock Institute 
12:50 – 13:00 
Experts from other countries: 
Nuno Boavidad, expert on Portugal 
Vasileios Koniaris, expert on Greece 
Rosita Zucaro, expert on Italy 
Roxana Abrașu, expert on Romania 
All, facilitated by contractor 
Contractor 

13:15 – 13:45 
13:45 – 14:00 

13:00 – 13:15 

Session II 
Looking 
forward 

Wrap-up 

Round of discussants (5 minutes each) 

General discussion 
Summary of key results 

Participants  

Jonathan Stabenow 

  Adela Barrero 
  Alexandra Nicolai 
  Andrea Grgic 
  Anna Banczyk 
  Ester Grau Simo 

No.  Part icipant  
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
11. 
12. 
13. 
14. 
15. 
16. 
17. 
18. 
19. 
20. 
21. 

Affiliat ion 
European Commission 
European Commission 
European Commission 
European Commission 
European Commission 
European Commission 
European Commission 
  Krisztina Boros 
European Commission 
  Leopoldine Kunz 
European Commission 
  Maria Dolores Montesinos 
European Commission 
  Mario Mariniello 
European Commission 
  Rosalie Bay 
  Solveiga Eidukynaitė-Gerard  European Commission 
European Commission 
  Thaís Gonçalves 
Visionary Analytics 
  Audronė Sadauskaitė 
Visionary Analytics 
  Žilvinas Martinaitis 
Samaras & Associates SA-Consulting Engineers 
  Anastasia Tsakiridou 
Sindikat naftnog gospodarstva 
  Anica Ferić 
University of Malta 
  Anna Borg 
Ius Laboris 
  Burkard Göpfert 
The Tavistock Institute 
  David Drabble 
Universidad de Valencia 
  Francisco Trujillo Pons 

 
 
 
 
 
22. 
23. 
24. 
25. 
26. 

27. 
28. 
29. 
30. 
31. 
32. 
33. 

34. 
35. 
36. 
37. 
38. 
39. 
40. 
41. 
42. 
43. 

  Frederic Turlan 
  Heejung Chung 

Jolanta Reingardė 
Juan Arasanz 
Jurgita 
Zabielskė 

Lazauskaitė-

IR Share 
University of Kent 
EIGE 
Notus – Applied Social Research 
Vilnius University 

  Marta Urbane 
  Matti Vartiainen 
  Nuno Boavida 
  Oscar Vargas Llave 
  Pablo Sanz 
  Predrag Bejakovic 
  Raluca Dimitriu 

  Rosita Zucaro 
  Roxana Abrasu 
  Tania Bazzani 
  Thodoris Papadopoulos 
  Vasilios Koniaris 
  Yvonne Lott 
  Zdeňka Šímová 
  Zoltán Bankó 
  Adrien Csanyi 
  Marti 

Riga Stradiņš university 
Alto University 
NOVA University of Lisbon 
Eurofound 
Notus – Applied Social Research 
Institute of Public Finance 
Faculty of Law, University of Economic Studies, 
Bucharest 
INAPP 
NNDKP 
Europa Viadrina University 
Consultant 
University of Macedonia 
Hans-Böckler Foundation 
National Training Fund 
University Pécs, Hungary 
Unregistered participant 
Unregistered participant 

Introduction 

The introductory speakers set the objectives of the workshop: 

•  To better understand recent trends and the current extent of ‘always-on’ working culture 
and  their  implications  for  workers'  health,  working  conditions  and  employment 
prospects, and for employers’ productivity and management. 

•  To better understand the legal and practical concepts involved in, and the difficulties in 
implementing,  the  right  to  disconnect,  taking  into  account  the  variety  of  policy 
approaches across EU Member States and relevant stakeholders. 

DG EMPL set the context for the discussion, highlighting that the COVID-19 pandemic had led 
to  an  acceleration  of  telework  and  digital  transformation,  and  that  the  related  issues  of  the 
consequent ‘always-on’ culture had led to calls for a right to disconnect (R2D). The European 
Commission (EC) is responding to a resolution of the European Parliament calling for EU-level 
intervention and an EU legislative framework on telework. The workshop is part of a large-scale 
study exploring the social, economic and legal context and trends in telework and the right to 
disconnect, in the context of digitalisation and the future of work, during and beyond the COVID-
19 pandemic (March-December 2022). This was launched by the EC as a part of an evidence-
gathering  exercise  designed  to  inform  reflections  and  debates  on  how  to  follow  up  on  the 
resolution, as well as to provide factual evidence to support the discussions of social partners, 
which play an active role in this policy debate. 

Session I: Challenges 

Session  I  on  challenges  centred  around  a  discussion  of  the  extent  of  ‘always-on'  working 
culture and its implications for workers and employers. 

•  To what extent are workers requested to work outside their usual working time? To what 

extent are workers doing unpaid overtime to cope with their workload? 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  What  are  the  implications  in  terms  of  workers’  health,  working  conditions  and 

employment prospects? Which groups of workers are most negatively affected? 

•  What are the different management approaches in terms of flexibility of working time 
and location? What are the implications of an ‘always-on’ culture in terms of productivity 
and management? What are the main challenges to adopting a policy on the right to 
disconnect? 

The  session  covered  an  overview  of  key  trends  in  telework  and  R2D.  The  following  key 
points were highlighted: 

•  The  diversity  of teleworking  arrangements  in  terms  of  intensity,  pattern,  location and 
mobility, and the existence of debates related to the terms and definitions (e.g. whether 
mobile work is considered ‘telework’). 

•  Common features that define teleworking arrangements, i.e. physical separation from 

the employer’s premises, and the intensive use of ICT. 

•  The variety of implementation approaches (statutory legislation, collective bargaining, 
or combination of both, individual agreements/human resource management policies, 
informal practices). 

•  How the impact of telework is mediated by several factors (the way in which telework is 
arranged, organisational, individual factors, etc.); how telework can lead to both positive 
and negative outcomes in all areas. 

•  The interplay between telework and the right to disconnect (R2D): while the R2D applies 
to  all  workers  (not  only  those  engaged  in  teleworking),  it  is  particularly  important  for 
teleworkers  and  flexible  working  arrangements,  as  those  arrangements  exacerbate 
various challenges and difficulties. R2D is seen as having the potential to provide a win-
win solution to maintaining flexibility while also protecting workers from the expectation 
to be ‘always on’. 

•  The overall prevalence of telework in the EU-27 is still below the share of ‘teleworkable’ 

jobs.  

• 

‘Always-on’  working  culture:  the  most  recent  available  LFS  data  on  the  incidence  of 
work-related contacts during leisure time show that the incidence in Nordic countries 
and  Western  continental  Europe  is  higher  than  in  Southern  and  CEE  countries. 
Relevant differences exist in terms of occupations and sectors. 

Another  key  point  discussed  by  the  workshop  participants  related  to  the  rationale  for  an 
intervention.  Participants  shared  various  insights  from  studies  highlighting  evidence  of  ‘the 
flexibility paradox’, i.e. that flexible working can lead to workers working harder, and for longer. 
Examples of evidence presented include the following: 

•  Flexible schedules lead to increased overtime hours and unpaid overtime, and these 

patterns occur across occupations and countries in the EU and beyond. 

•  Multitasking and mental spill-overs are more prevalent when working flexibly. 
•  Although flexibility was intended to alleviate the strain of reconciling work and family 
life, flexible work might actually have a higher negative impact on work-family conflict.  

•  When given the freedom to choose when and where to work, workers tend to engage 
in ‘self-exploitation’, i.e. they use this freedom and control over their work to enhance 

 
 
 
their competitive edge and market chances to better fulfil the norm of the ideal worker. 
This flexibility perpetuates a hyper-competitive culture. Some organisations accelerate 
self-exploitation  with  organisational-level  policies,  such  as  performance-related  pay. 
The issue of self-exploitation should be viewed in the context of the demise of collective 
bargaining power/the welfare state; a rise in insecurity (of jobs, status and income); the 
individualisation of risks; the prevalence of a work culture of “busy-ness”, viewing work 
as (the only way of) self-fulfilment, leading to the exploitation of passion. 

Participants  outlined  various  arguments  as  justifications  for  policy  intervention,  with  several 
discussants proposing to frame the intervention as the ‘right to rest’ rather than the ‘right to 
disconnect’:  

•  Labour  laws  are  built  around  fixed  schedules  and  office  work,  stemming  from  an 
outdated  view  of  the  world  of  work.  Remote  work  blurs  time  boundaries,  and  the 
difficulty  of  tracking  work  hours  makes  it  more  sensible  to  protect  rest  rather  than 
regulate work hours 

•  The increasing prevalence of ‘always-on’ culture creates a downward spiral.  
•  Stress and burnout create high costs for society. 

Part  of  the  discussion  was  dedicated  to  expectations  for,  and  of,  employers.  A  key  point 
discussed  was  the  monitoring  of  working  time  and  its  related  challenges.  Participants 
highlighted the ongoing debate over what should be considered ‘work’. Some participants took 
the view that ‘work’ should be viewed more broadly (e.g. including hours spent multi-tasking 
between  work  and  family/personal  obligations,  as  well as  other  types  of  non-work  activities, 
such  as  informal  chats  with  colleagues,  which  research  has  shown  increase  productivity  at 
work), while some highlighted that managers might prefer to define work as ‘focused work’ (i.e. 
hours spent solely focusing on the work task at hand).  

Various other challenges were touched upon during the discussion: 

•  Gender, unpaid work/care and inequality: 

o  Unpaid work is an important factor when considering telework and the right to 
disconnect. Debates about the ‘right to rest’ should take into account that unpaid 
work (e.g. care obligations) is not rest. These debates cannot ignore the still-
entrenched gender norms that associate care obligations and unpaid work with 
women.  To address this challenge, any new policies on R2D and/or telework 
must be linked with a package of policies that aim to protect women’s rights in 
the labour market (e.g. parental leave policy, working time policy), as well as to 
change the gender stereotypes associated with care (enabling/ allowing male 
workers to be more involved as carers).  

o  Research shows that although men have historically enjoyed greater autonomy 
in setting their schedules and telework, they used this less for the purpose of 
caring,  while  women  have  used  it  more,  despite  their  schedules  being  more 
restricted. Participants also discussed the risk that strict working time regulation 
might  indirectly  discriminate  against  women,  who  tend  to  have  more  care 
obligations (i.e. they may need to leave work early more often to pick up children 
from school/kindergarten). 

o  Recent EIGE survey data show that parents, especially women, face challenges 
in relation to telework (higher incidence of interruptions and the need to share 
workspaces,  implying  worse  working  conditions).  However,  a  small  shift  has 

 
 
 
 
been  observed  during  the  pandemic,  with  men  taking  on  more  care 
responsibilities to share the load with their partners. This increase was mostly 
observed among young, educated men with children, whose partners performed 
essential (i.e. non-teleworkable) jobs. 

• 

Intensification  of  work.  Although  the  ‘right  to  rest’  may  be  an  appealing  concept,  its 
implementation might be challenging if the workload itself is problematic (too heavy). A 
qualitative  assessment  of  the  workload  is  required,  as  a  quantitative  look  at  the 
regulation of working time is not sufficient to address this. This frames the issue of the 
‘right to rest’ as a problem of boundary management. Furthermore, Eurofound research 
confirms that remote work is one of the main drivers for working longer hours and the 
‘always-on’ culture. Participants reflected on the extent to which technology might be 
used  to  address  this  issue,  as  opposed  to  being  seen  solely  as  a  culprit  in  work 
intensification, e.g. the use of AI to assess work intensity and predict trends (enabling 
the prevention of overwork). 

•  Agenda setting. In some cases, the issue of telework and R2D may be overshadowed 
by other items higher on the political agenda. For example, in the context of collective 
bargaining,  wage  negotiations  still  take  precedence  over  other  issues.  In  addition, 
furloughs  and  the  seasonality  of  work  might  prevail  as  key  topics  for  discussion  and 
take precedence over the importance of flexible work, given the energy and security 
crisis in Europe. 

•  Privacy. Working from home or away from the work premises entails various risks and 
needs  that  must  be  addressed  by  occupational  health  and  safety  measures,  which 
brings about a trade-off between control and the privacy of the worker’s home life. 

•  Discrimination against migrants. The current strict (inflexible) working time regime might 
also disproportionately disadvantage migrants, who tend to live in smaller spaces on 
the outskirts of large cities, have longer commutes, and might thus be more likely to opt 
for teleworking in poorer working conditions (e.g. sharing a limited workspace with other 
family members). 

• 

Importance  of  the  national  context.  Many  country-specific  insights  were  shared  from 
forthcoming  Eurofound  research,  which  highlighted  the  importance  of  taking  account 
national differences when conceptualising EU-wide issues (especially in relation to the 
prevalence  of  various  teleworking  trends  and  challenges,  corresponding  policy/legal 
frameworks, and the state of industrial relations).  

Session II: Looking forward 

The  forward-looking  Session  II  focused  on  a  discussion  of  legal  and  practical  difficulties  in 
implementing the right to disconnect – and how these can be addressed: 

•  The EU labour law acquis: although no directive specifically focuses on telework and 
the  R2D,  a  number  of  directives  (example,  Working  Time  Directive)  include  relevant 
provisions.  Hence,  to  what  extent  are  these  provisions  still  relevant  in  the  face  of 
changing world of work? 

•  Regulation and enforcement: to what extent is current regulation effective in preventing 
an  ‘always-on’  culture  and  in  protecting  workers’  health,  working  conditions  and 
employment prospects?  

•  What are the practical difficulties in enforcing this right at company level? 

 
 
•  What  can  we  learn  from  the  different  regulatory  and  enforcement  experiences  in 

selected EU countries? 

The participants shared interesting insights from several EU Member States regarding the legal 
framework present in each country: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

In  France,  the  R2D  has  been  introduced  into  the  Labour  code,  and  the  issue  has 
support from the trade unions. An interesting specificity of the French legal framework 
is the obligation on employers to open a negotiation each year on equality between men 
and  women  and  working  conditions  (although  it  is  not  compulsory  to  reach  an 
agreement). The R2D is also subject to such discussions. If no agreement is reached, 
a charter (employer decision) must be prepared and discussed with the works council. 
However, available data from the Ministry of Labour on agreements conducted in 2020 
indicate that  out  of  96,500  agreements  or  amendments  signed  in  2020, only  1.1 per 
cent directly addressed the right to disconnect. However, such issues might be covered 
under  other agreements about other issues (e.g. working conditions, quality of work, 
etc).  An  additional  caveat  regarding  the  R2D  is  that  while  it  is  implemented  via 
compulsory collective bargaining, there is no collective bargaining in 60% of companies 
(2022  data).  In  addition,  the  charter  that  an  employer  must  prepare  in  the  event  no 
agreement  is  reached  must  be  submitted  to  works  councils,  while  no  such  works 
councils exist in 64.5% of the companies (2022 data). These peculiarities highlight the 
importance of the proper implementation and enforcement of the legal framework. 

In  Germany,  it  is  perhaps  most  interesting  to  note  that  the  German  Trade  Union 
Confederation is of the opinion that a separate R2D is not necessary, as it is already 
implied by the Working Hours Act; instead, it claims that better enforcement is the key 
issue.  Additional  or  new  regulation  on  R2D  might  face  similar  or  even  greater 
enforcement issues, On the other hand, the fact that employers’ associations call for 
the  flexibilisation  of  the  Working  Hours  Act  (the  abolition  of  maximum  daily  working 
hours) is some evidence that the regulation is relevant/effective.  

In  Finland,  during  the  pandemic,  guidelines  (for  example,  from  the  Institute  of 
Occupational  Health)  and  suggestions  (by  social  partners)  were  developed  for  the 
application  of  telework  during  the  pandemic,  based  on  European  Telework  2002 
Framework  Agreement.  In  addition,  the  Finnish  government  proposed  a  law  to 
compensate state personnel for accidents that occur under teleworking conditions. This 
was  supported  by  all  of  the  main  employees’  unions.  In  addition,  a  multi-locational 
working  model  was  proposed.  In  late  2021  and  early  2022,  serious  discussions 
emerged  concerning  post-pandemic  hybrid  working.  Large  companies  began  to 
develop  their  own  frameworks  and  ’rules  of  the  game’.  A  lively  public  discussion  is 
currently ongoing, especially among consulting and IT companies. Flexibility at team 
level is often suggested. 

In Ireland, prior to the pandemic, remote working was treated as a way to widen rates 
of  employment,  and  was  primarily  the  responsibility  of  the  Department  of  Justice. 
Currently, the right to request remote working is established as a code of conduct and 
is  accompanied  by  other  telework  policies  (the  Making  Remote  Work  strategy, 
established January in 2021; Rural move; the Town and Village Renewal Schemes and 
Connected Hubs in 2022; national and regional training on managing remote teams). 
The relative success of this ‘soft’ legislative approach should, however, be viewed in 
the context of a strong economy and high employment levels, giving higher bargaining 
power to employees. 

 
• 

• 

• 

• 

In  Portugal,  amendments  to  the  Labour  Code  relating  to  R2D  came  into  effect  in 
January  2022,  sparking  debates  among  experts.  However,  six  months  after  the 
changes had come into effect, conclusions on results were still very difficult to draw. 

In Greece, telework has been regulated since 1998, and in the past, many companies 
already  preferred  teleworking,  even  before  the  start  of  the  pandemic.  A  new  law 
introduced the R2D last year, among other legal innovations intended to address digital 
transformation. This brought about many company-level charters introducing the R2D. 

In Italy, ‘smart working’ and ‘agile working’ have been introduced as a concept in Italian 
law (i.e. work characterised by the absence of place and time constraints and also by 
the  organisation  of  phases,  cycles  and  objectives  agreed  between  the  worker  and 
employer  as  a  form  of  hybrid,  flexible  work.  However,  the  R2D  has  not  yet  been 
introduced into the legal framework in Italy. 

In Romania, no separate initiative exists on R2D; however, the country possesses a 
meaningful legal framework aimed at protecting employees’ rights (e.g. the maximum 
duration of daily and weekly working time; strict rules on daily pauses as well as daily 
rest; the requirement for weekly rest to be granted to employees; the possibility for the 
employer  and  employee  to  agree  on  a  flexible  working  arrangement;  the  employee 
having  the  right  to  reject  such  a  request  coming  from  the  employer;  many  OSH 
obligations). Social dialogue is not quite present in the employment market; however, 
the involvement of social partners would be beneficial in strengthening the effectiveness 
of the enforcement of existing rules. 

A variety of remedies and policies were discussed as options to address the various challenges 
relating to telework and R2D: 

•  Awareness-raising  for  both  managers/employers  and  employees  on  how  to  manage 

telework and R2D. 

•  Moving  from  daily  to  weekly,  monthly  or  yearly  working  time  as  the  basis  for  the 
consideration  of  working  time,  enabling  workers  to  distribute  their  work  ‘attendance’ 
over the course of a longer period of time.  

•  Giving companies with collective agreements in place the discretion to regulate flexible 
working arrangements, on the basis that the presence of such agreements warrants a 
higher level of trust that discussions will lead to reasonable solutions. 

•  Effective sanctions for poor implementation of the legal framework. 
•  Care should be taken when regulating different sectors, as these are often subject to 

very different specifics. Both over- and under-regulation may be harmful. 

•  Although some participants claimed that the R2D is not necessary as a separate legal 
instrument, due to the issue being covered by other legal instruments, some participants 
claimed that the R2D is an important concept for raising awareness of the issue. 

•  To reconcile the trade-off between privacy and control, a third party could be engaged 

in supervising OSH outside of work premises. 

 
 
 
 
No  2.  MEETING  WITH  REPRESENTATIVES  OF  NATIONAL  AUTHORITIES 
IN CHARGE OF POLICY FRAMEWORK RELATED TO TELEWORK 

15 September 2022, 09:30 – 16:30 CET 

Summary 

Agenda 

Session 

Time  

Introduction 

9.30 – 9.45 

9.45 
10.30  

– 

10.30 
12.30 

– 

Session I 
National 
approaches 

Presentation 
Welcome,  presentation  of 
the study and the workshop 
Overview 
national 
of 
policies  and  legislation  on 
flexibility  of  working 
the 
time, the right to disconnect 
and telework 
Sharing of experiences: 

• 

Is the regulation of 
to 
right 
the 
disconnect 
necessary? 
•  How  is  it  defined 

Speakers 
DG EMPL 
Žilvinas Martinaitis (Visionary Analytics) 

Pablo Sanz (Notus) 

Presentations  by national authorities, followed 
by overall discussion: 

•  Nenko  Salchev  (Ministry  of  Labour 

and Social Policy, Bulgaria) 

•  Alex  Agius  Saliba  (MEP,  Rapporteur 

on the Right to Disconnect) 

and 
implemented? 

•  Enforcement 
issues? 
Implications 
telework? 

• 

•  Alexandra  Nicolai  (Ministry  of  Social 
the 

Employment, 

and 
Affairs 
Netherlands) 

•  Susana  Luz  (Authority  for  Working 

for 

Conditions, Portugal) 

Tania Bazzani  
(Europa Viadrina University)  
15 minutes)  

Followed  by 
(45 
minutes) and a plenary discussion (15 minutes) 

three  parallel  sessions 

Žilvinas  Martinaitis  (Visionary  Analytics)  and 
Pablo Sanz 
(Notus)  
15 minutes 

three  parallel  sessions 

Followed  by 
(45 
minutes) and a plenary discussion (15 minutes) 
Žilvinas Martinaitis (Visionary Analytics) 

12.30 – 13.30 
Session II 
labour 
The  EU 
acquis: 
tackling 
new challenges to 
‘always 
on’ 
culture  
14.45 – 15.00 

Session III 
The 
of 
future 
telework:  drivers, 
challenges 
and 
opportunities 

Wrap-up 

Participants  

Lunch 

Presentation 
and 
discussion:  The  EU  labour 
acquis: 
new 
challenges  to  ‘always-on’ 
culture  

tackling 

Short break 
Presentation 
and 
telework 
discussion: 
practices  across  the  EU: 
whether 
what 
instruments  are  needed  to 
support  the  benefits  and 
manage the risks?  

and 

Wrap-up and summary  

13.30 
14.45 

– 

15.00 
16.15 

16.15 
16.30 

– 

– 

No.  Participant 
  Anna Banczyk 
1. 
  Barbara Roubicek 
2. 
  Dita Collinsova 
3. 
  Ester Grau Simo 
4. 
  Jonathan Stabenow 
5. 
  Krisztina Boros 
6. 
  Max Uebe 
7. 
  Mario Mariniello 
8. 
9. 
  Md Montesinos 
10.    Michela Lafranconi 
11.    Žilvinas Martinaitis 
12.    Nini Gigani 
13.    Pablo Sanz 

Affiliation 
European Commission 
European Commission 
European Commission 
European Commission 
European Commission 
European Commission 
European Commission 
European Commission 
European Commission 
European Commission 
Visionary Analytics 
Visionary Analytics 
Notus 

 
 
 
Notus 
Europa Viadrina University 
MEP, Rapporteur on the Right to Disconnect (European Parliament, Malta) 
Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment (The Netherlands) 
Ministère du Travail et de l'Emploi (Luxembourg) 
Ministry of Employment (Denmark) 
Ministry of Labour, Pension System, Family and Social Policy (Croatia) 
Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (Bulgaria) 
Ministry of Welfare (Latvia) 
Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (Czechia) 
Ministry of Welfare (Latvia) 
Ministry of Welfare (Latvia) 
Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (Bulgaria) 

14.    Maria Caprile 
15.    Tania Bazzani 
16.    Alex Agius Saliba 
17.    Alexandra Nicolai 
18.    Armin Skrozic 
19.    Ditte Lings Fiala 
20.    Dragana Korov  
21.    Georgi Evtimov 
22.   
Ilze Zvidrina 
23.    Karolina Gritzerová 
24.    Māra Vīksne 
25.    Māris Badovskis 
26.    Nenko Salchev 
27.    Romolo De Camillis  Ministry of Labour and Social Policies (Italy) 
28.    Ruta Juršaitė 
29.    Susana Luz 
30.    Vladka Komel 
31.    Wanda Chau Alenius  Ministry of Employment (Sweden) 
32.    Xenios Mamas 

Ministry of Social Security and Labour (Lithuania) 
Authority for Working Conditions (Portugal) 
Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (Slovenia) 

Labour Relations Department, Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance (Cyprus) 

Introduction 

The introductory speakers set the objectives of the workshop: 

•  To  better  understand  the  national  challenges  and  opportunities  posed  by  increasing 

flexibility in working time; 

•  To better understand how the EU acquis has contributed to mitigating the risks of an 

‘always-on’ culture, and any gaps that remain; 

•  To better understand the likely future trends in telework, as well as related challenges 

and opportunities. 

DG EMPL set the context for the discussion, highlighting that the COVID-19 pandemic had led 
to  an  acceleration  of  telework  and  digital  transformation,  and  the  related  issue  of  the 
consequent ‘always-on’ culture has led to calls for a right to disconnect (R2D). The European 
Commission (EC) is responding to a resolution of the European Parliament, which calls for an 
EU-level  intervention  and  EU  legislative  framework  on  telework.  The  workshop  is  part  of  a 
large-scale study exploring social, economic and legal context and trends in telework and the 
right to disconnect, in the context of digitalisation and the future of work, during and beyond the 
COVID-19  pandemic  (March-December  2022),  which  the  EC  launched  as  a  part  of  an 
evidence-gathering exercise designed to inform reflections and debates on how to follow up on 
the  resolution,  as  well  as  to  provide  factual  evidence  to  support  the  discussions  of  social 
partners, which are playing an active role in this policy debate. DG EMPL also highlighted the 
central role of social partners in negotiating and implementing rules on the R2D. 

Session  I:  National  approaches  to  tackling  the  ‘always-on’  culture  of 
teleworkers 

The session began with an overview of national policies on telework and the right to disconnect, 
followed by a discussion of selected national experiences. 
The main guiding issues presented and discussed were as follows:  

• 

Is  the  right  to  disconnect  necessary  to  ensure  that  workers  and  teleworkers  have 
adequate rest/breaks and are not engaged in work-related activities or communications 
outside working time? 

•  How is the right to disconnect legally defined and implemented? Are there any gaps? 

 
 
 
•  How  can  general  working  time  regulation  and  the  right  to  disconnect  be  properly 

enforced?  

•  The regulation of telework: what are the key implications of challenges to implementing 

the right to disconnect? 

The key points are summarised below: 

Overview of national policies and legislation, by Pablo Sanz 

•  Trends 

o  There has been an upward trend in the share of employees working from home 
in terms of occasional telework in recent years (2012-2021), with exponential 
growth in regular telework due to the pandemic.  

o  Alongside this, work-related contacts during leisure time have also increased, 

especially among managers.  

•  Working time regulation (WTR) 

o  The implementation of the WTD has been constrained by certain problems of 

application and emerging disputes.  

o  The  average  collectively  agreed  weekly  working  time  across  the  EU  is  lower 

than the statutory maximum. 

o  Minimum  rest  periods  are  similar  across  the  EU,  but  problems  exist  as  to  its 
interpretation (e.g. on-call work and standby time; communication via ICT; rest 
breaks) 

o  The recording of working time is the subject of ongoing discussions. 

•  Defining telework and R2D 

o  Differences  can  be  seen  between  EU  countries  in  terms  of  how  telework 
statutory definitions define intensity and patterns of work, including the definition 
of working time. This is also true in relation to the R2D, including its coverage of 
types of workers, implementation, and enforcement. 

The case of Bulgaria  

•  The regulation concerning telework in the Bulgarian Labour code was adopted in 2011, 
with amendments in 2020 in response to the pandemic. Legislation relating to on-duty 
time and standby time is currently in progress. 

•  To  comply  with  the  requirements  in  relation  to  employment  contracts  for  telework, 
employers must build a system for assigning and reporting work, and must adopt rules 
that define the terms and conditions and the nature of the work.  

•  The legislation includes the right to respect for private and family life, which should be 

taken into account when establishing a system to control work performance. 

•  The legislation lays down compulsory periods of uninterrupted rest: 12 hours of daily 
rest; 48 hours of weekly rest (when working hours are calculated in terms of working 
days);  36  hours  of  weekly  rest  (when  a  summary  calculation  of  working  time  is 
established using work schedules). Overtime work is prohibited, with a few exceptions. 

 
•  No  legislation  has  been  passed  specifically  concerning  the  R2D,  but  the  provisions 
above  imply  that  in  Bulgaria,  the  R2D  means  that  both  employer  and  worker  have 
mutual respect for the agreed working time and applicable legislation. 

•  The main challenges include how easily understood the information is with regard  to 
the applicable legislation; enforcement (i.e. identifying teleworkers and monitoring the 
IT systems in place for assigning and reporting work); legislation (i.e. keeping pace with 
evolving models of work organisation and platform work, as well as balancing flexibility 
and security). 

Summary of the Q&A 

•  Possibilities  for  control:  the  labour  inspectorate  must  be  able  to  access  the  worker’s 
home  if  a  complaint  is  made.  It  is  possible  for  employers  and  trade  unions  to  check 
working times? This issue is still being discussed in terms of a specific framework. 

•  Amendment regarding on-duty time and standby time: the reason for this amendment 
is that the previous regulation dated from 1994, and thus needed to be updated. The 
amendment  encompasses  maximum  times,  scheduling,  the  nature  of  work,  etc.  It  is 
uncertain if this will apply to teleworkers, especially with regard to standby time, as this 
is difficult to determine in the case of teleworkers. 

The case of Malta  

• 

In  Malta,  discussions  have  been  kickstarted  on  the  R2D  also  being  given  to  private 
companies. At the moment, the right is only available to government employees. 

The case of the Netherlands 

•  Trends 

o  There has been a positive trend in the share of employees working from home. 
In 2013, approximately 37% of employees worked according to a hybrid model, 
while  6%  of  workers  worked  exclusively  from  home.  In  2020,  the  number  of 
hybrid workers increased to 46%, and according to 2020 June statistics, 16% of 
employees worked exclusively from home. 

o  Prior  to  the  pandemic,  the  Netherlands  had  the  highest  percentage  of 
teleworkers in the EU. This is partly due to the relatively high share of workers 
in  the  knowledge  and  ICT-intensive  services  sectors.  Moreover,  Dutch 
companies are also well accustomed to digital technologies. 

o  Employees  who  began  teleworking  during  the  pandemic  experienced  no 
significant differences in psychosocial workload or physical complaints involving 
arms,  shoulders,  neck  or  back.  Hence,  up  to  the  present  time,  working  from 
home  has  not  resulted  in  an  increase  or  decrease  in  burnout  or  physical 
complaints.  

•  Current Dutch policy 

o  The  Dutch  Working  Conditions  Act  provides  a  framework  within  which 
employers and employees can reach mutual arrangements regarding working 
conditions and measures to maintain the health and safety of employees.  

o  The Dutch Flexible Working Act provides a framework under which employers 
and employees can make arrangements concerning the time and place of work. 

 
o  The Dutch government encourages employers to make clear arrangements with 
employees  about  working  from  home  via  Risk  Assessment  and  Evaluation 
(RA&E),  which  includes  psychosocial  risks  and  stress.  Moreover,  employers 
should develop a plan to prevent or mitigate work-related stress following high 
work pressure and/or undesirable behaviour. 

o  The  employer  must  provide  a  good,  ergonomically  well-furnished  working 

environment, both in the office and at home. 

o 

In March 2021, the Dutch government requested advice from the tripartite Social 
Economic  Council  (SEC)  on  hybrid  work  and  its  societal  consequences.  This 
resulted in two notable recommendations: 

  Amending  the  Flexible  Working  Act  so  that  an  employee's  request  to 
change his workplace is assessed on the basis of reasonableness and 
fairness.  

  Making  hybrid  work  easier  for  cross-border  workers  by  adapting  the 
current  agreements  regarding  tax  and  social  security  in  a  coherent 
manner. 

o  The  Dutch  government  sees  hybrid  work  as  a  positive  development,  and 
contributes to the development of hybrid working through the Dutch Agenda for 
the Future of Hybrid Working.  

o  A  bill  on  the  R2D  and  the  availability  of  workers  outside  working  hours  was 
submitted in July 2020, obliging employers to agree with employees about the 
working hours. This bill was further discussed in October 2022. 

Summary of the Q&A 

•  RA&E and the evaluation of psychosocial risk: this process is not specific to telework, 
but the government is working on updates to risk assessment to better take into account 
new ways of working. 

•  The tripartite Social Economic Council has advised that it does not see any value in 
giving workers the right to have a formally regulated conversation, due to a boom in 
complaints.  However,  the  fact  that  this  topic  is  being  discussed  is  already  creating 
change; at the same time, workers already have the right to talk to their employer about 
being contacted outside working hours. 

•  The representativeness of social partners is currently low, but the government is aware 

of this and is looking into increasing involvement. 

The case of Portugal  

•  By regulating the right to disconnect in the Labour Code, specific restrictions are placed 
on the employer regarding telework. Any breach of this right by the employer is now 
directly sanctioned with an administrative sanction.  

•  New legislation was updated in 2021. Because the legislation is new, it is still a work in 

progress. 

•  Special duties placed on employers include avoiding contacting the worker during rest 
periods.  Furthermore,  it  is  considered  discriminatory  if  a  worker  is  treated  differently 
when teleworking. 

 
• 

In terms of enforcement, the current law is a work in progress. The employer must notify 
the employee 24 hours prior to visiting their workplace (in the case of teleworkers, their 
home). Officers of the labour inspectorate must notify the employer 48 hours prior to an 
inspection. 

•  Special rights apply to parents with children under the ages of 3 and 8, as well as to 

victims of domestic violence, and informal caretakers. 

•  Teleworkers  also  have  the  right  to  not  be  isolated,  as  well  as  being  covered  by 
provisions governing who bears the costs of telework (internet and electricity), privacy, 
training, and equipment. 

• 

It  is  mandatory  to  have  a  collective  agreement  stating  the  rules  and  conditions  of 
telework. 

Summary of the Q&A 

• 

In  cases  where  a  worker  wishes  to  go  to  court,  the  worker  complains  to  the  labour 
inspectorate. If the employee does not wish to attend proceedings in person, they will 
be represented by a public prosecutor who always defends worker in the labour courts 
in Portugal. 

•  With regard to the costs incurred during telework, fixed amounts or percentages may 

be stated in the contract between the employee and employer. 

•  EU directives on the workplace do not apply to homes, so working conditions are not 
ensured  at  such  places.  This  is  also  the  case  in  Portugal.  In  cases  where  home 
conditions are inadequate, the employer would have to find a third space at their own 
expense.  

• 

If  an  employee  works  as  a  teleworker  in  such  a  third  space,  in  the  event  that  the 
employee has to go to the company’s premises for a meeting, the employer must pay 
the difference between travelling to the office of the employer from the worker’s home, 
and travelling to the office from the third space.  

•  The  employer  can  refuse  the  employee’s  right  to  telework  if  it  does  not  have  the 

resources to pay for the employee's teleworking conditions. 

Session  II:  the  EU  labour  acquis  –  tackling  the  new  challenges  of  the 
‘always-on’ culture  

This session explored how the EU labour acquis deals with the main challenges of an ‘always-
on’ culture. After a short presentation, the participants worked in three parallel sessions.  
The main guiding issues presented and discussed were as follows: 

•  To what extent can the existing acquis address the new challenges brought about by 
telework and new work organisation practices? What are the national experiences and 
approaches? 

•  To what extent has the implementation of the EU labour acquis been constrained by 

problems of application (legal gaps, interpretative problems, etc.)? 

The key points are summarised below: 

EU  labour  acquis:  tackling  the  new  challenges  of  the  ‘always-on’  culture,  by  Tania 
Bazzani  

 
•  There are two dimensions to OSH: psychological and physical 
•  The line between working time and rest time is blurred, and mechanisms are required 

to measure working time and to guarantee the R2D 

Parallel discussions  

• 

• 

• 

In Sweden, the case is similar to experiences in the Netherlands, i.e. self-regulation. At 
the same time, certain issues are regulated – working time legislation and the working 
environment (health and safety). Communication between employer and employee is 
important in the case of telework, to ensure teleworkers similar rights. The R2D is seen 
as being covered by existing regulation. 

In  Portugal,  the  labour  inspectorate  has  highlighted  that  it  has  more  tools  and 
enforcement  mechanisms  to  ensure  health  and  safety  requirements  are  enforced.  It 
also has more power to enforce risk assessments in relation to psychosocial issues. 

In Bulgaria, attention has been given to the issue of isolation. Mechanisms are in place 
to prevent this, such as the obligation to hold meetings online in order to ensure workers 
are  integrated  into  the  company  environment.  Debate  takes  place,  and  health  and 
safety  regulation  exists,  such  as  that  directly  targeted  at  telework.  According  to  the 
labour  authority,  improvements  could  be  made  to  the  current  system  for  recording 
working time, which is mostly based on employers’ inputs (e.g., new digital and AI tools 
could be implemented within a company’s IT system to monitor performance). Those 
companies  which  already  have  such  systems  in  place  could  implement  specific 
modifications to ensure they are also in compliance with the working time regulations. 

•  The  representative  of  the  Netherlands  highlighted  the  need  for  working  time  to  be 
agreed at a company level. However, it is debatable to what extent this is achievable, 
and to what extent it would be effective in protecting workers against overwork, not only 
in relation to their employers, but also from themselves. 

•  Representatives of the Netherlands and Croatia agreed that rest time can be regulated 
within the existing regulatory frameworks. However, the national approaches of these 
countries  are  different.  In  both  countries,  discussions  are  ongoing  about  additional 
regulations specifically aimed at telework, and social partners are also involved. 

•  There is general concern in Lithuania about how the social partners would react to new 

legislation concerning telework.  

•  A similar situation also exists in Cyprus, where a draft law is currently being discussed, 
but companies are saying they would prefer to wait for EU feedback before agreeing to 
new  provisions.  Cyprus  has  also  reached  out  to  Greece  to  share  its  experiences 
regarding new teleworking regulations. 

•  The representative of Latvia noted the importance of ensuring both the employee and 

employer understand OSH as a mutual obligation. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Session III: the future of telework – drivers, challenges and opportunities 

This session explored cross-national differences in teleworking  practices and  explored what 
solutions could be used to  address potential risks while making full use of the  opportunities 
offered  by  telework.  After  a  short  presentation,  the  participants  worked  in  three  parallel 
sessions. 
The main guiding issues presented and discussed were as follows: 

•  What are the main drivers behind the high levels of telework after the pandemic?  
•  What new challenges and opportunities may emerge? 
•  What solutions could address the main risks?  

The key points are summarised below: 

The future of telework, by Žilvinas Martinaitis  

•  There is a macro-trend towards the flexibilisation of work – external flexibility (the fading 
of the implicit promise of a lifetime employment contract, e.g. platform work) and internal 
flexibility (the decoupling of work from a pre-defined time and space, e.g. co-working) 

•  A  large  portion  of  cross-national  differences  in  the  EU  in  terms  of  the  share  of 
employees  who  work  from  home  can  be  explained  by  the  relative  sizes  of  those 
industries  that  are  more  telework-friendly.  Such  occupations  include  clerical  support, 
where over 80% of employees work in highly teleworkable jobs. The top countries in 
terms of share of employees working from home include mostly Nordic countries and 
Ireland. 

•  Data on the ‘new normal’ does not yet exist. 
•  Two contradictory mechanisms are in operation with regard to telework following the 
pandemic:  the  ‘bounce-back’  effect  (the  involuntary  nature  of  telework  during  the 
pandemic means a greater likelihood of returning to the office), and the learning effect 
(continuing with teleworking in the longer term) 

• 

In the future, it is likely that the overall incidence of telework will be lower than at the 
peak of the pandemic, but will remain above pre-pandemic levels, and the number of 
people teleworking ‘usually’ (3 or more days a week) will decrease. 

•  There are two main drivers of telework in the medium and long term: teleworkability, i.e. 
the  material  possibility  of  working  remotely,  and  the  willingness  of  firms  to  support 
teleworking. 

•  According to the preliminary results of the survey, the top reasons for teleworking are 
as follows. For employees: a) shorter commute and lower costs; b) better concentration 
at home; and c) employer telework being requested by their employer. For employers, 
the top reasons are: a) better work-life balance; b) shorter commute; and c) other. 

•  According  to  the  preliminary  results  of  the  survey,  the  top  areas  for  improving 
teleworking  conditions  are  as  follows.  For  employees:  a)  the  compensation  of  costs 
relating to teleworking; b) the R2D; and c) clarity regarding eligibility for telework. For 
employers,  the  top  reasons  are:  a)  clarity  regarding  eligibility  for  telework;  b)  clarity 
regarding data protection and digital surveillance; c) the R2D. 

 
 
Parallel discussions  

• 

In Portugal, the share of teleworking is expected to go down, but not to pre-COVID-19 
levels.  This  may  be  related  to  the  sectoral  composition  of  employment  in  terms  of 
teleworkable  occupations.  Immigrants  who  come  to  Portugal  are  often  not  ready  to 
telework, due to a lack of digital skills and cultural differences. Due to increases in the 
price of energy, and depending on the context of their work, many are tempted to return 
to  the  office  even  though  commuting  time  had previously  been  considered  an  issue. 
Cultural factors, as well as a lack of statutory legislation regarding work, pose barriers 
and could lead the country back to pre-pandemic levels of teleworking. 

•  Two trends are apparent in Sweden: a learning process, by which telework is now more 
accepted among both employers and employees, but also a trend of going back to face-
to-face work. 

o  Another trend in Sweden is the possibility of moving to rural areas to telework.  
In the long term, younger people may be more in favour of telework than the current 
generation. 

In the Netherlands, cross-border teleworking is a possible trend in the medium to long 
term. 

In terms of environmental impacts, telework could have a possible positive impact. 
However, there is growing evidence that this is not the case. This is one of the issues 
that needs to be addressed by policymakers. 

In Lithuania and Bulgaria, the short-term trend is towards hybrid work.  

• 

• 

• 

• 

o 

It also seems likely that work will be subject to an agreement between parties 
on covering the costs incurred by telework, e.g. energy consumption. However, 
in  terms  of  taxes,  it  is  unclear  what  part  of  the  costs  will  be  covered  by 
employers, and how this will be calculated.  

o  A return to pre-pandemic patterns of work is highly unlikely in these countries. 
o  The role of telework in supporting work-life balance is unclear, and needs to be 

further investigated. 

o  Teleworkers living outside the EU pose the risk of social dumping. 
o  Emphasis must be placed on health and safety – this needs to be the future of 

discussions on telework. 

 
 
 
No 3. EXPERT MEETING WITH EU AND INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC 
AND RESEARCH EXPERTS 

11 October 2022, 09:15 – 13:00 CET 

Summary 

Agenda 

Session 

Time  

Presentation 

Speakers 

Introduction 

9.15 – 9.30 

Session I 
Drivers and 
evolution of 
telework in the 
medium and long 
term 

Session II 
Future impacts of 
telework 

Wrap-up 

Participants  

9.30 – 10.00  

10.00 – 
10.30 
10.30 – 
11.00 
11.00 – 
11.15 
11.15 – 
11.40 

11.40 – 
12.00 

12.00 – 
12.20 
12.20 – 
12.40  
12.40 – 
13.00 

Welcome, presentation of the study and 
the workshop 

Provocation I: the case for a gradual 
increase in the prevalence of telework 
Provocation II: the case for the high 
future prevalence of telework 
Provocation III: the case for a decline in 
the prevalence of telework 

Short break 

Provocation I: impacts on employee well-
being 
Provocation II: impacts on work 
organisation practices, productivity and 
competitiveness 
Provocation III: impacts on social, 
regional and other inequalities 
Provocation IV: impacts on cross-border 
work 

Wrap-up and summary  

DG EMPL 
Žilvinas Martinaitis (Visionary 
Analytics) 
Dr. Vainius Bartasevičius 
(Visionary Analytics) 
Maria Caprile (Notus) 

Dr. Heejung Chung 
(University of Kent) 

Dr. Pablo Sanz, (Notus)  

Maria Caprile (Notus) 

Dr. Heejung Chung 
(University of Kent) 
Dr. Olea Morris (Visionary 
Analytics) 
Žilvinas Martinaitis (Visionary 
Analytics) 

No.  Participant 
1. 
2. 

  Celine Faufeder 
  Solveiga Eidukynaitė-

Affiliation 
European Commission 
European Commission 

Gerard 

  Barbara ROUBICEK 
  Ester Grau 
  Krisztina Boros 
  Rosalie Bay 
  Palimariciuc Mihai 
  MD Montesinos 
  Jonathan Stabenow 

European Commission 
3. 
European Commission 
4. 
European Commission 
5. 
European Commission 
6. 
European Commission 
7. 
European Commission 
8. 
European Commission 
9. 
European Commission 
10.    Mario Mariniello 
Visionary Analytics 
11.    Žilvinas Martinaitis 
12.    Nini Gigani 
Visionary Analytics 
13.    Aurinta Garbašauskaitė  Visionary Analytics 
Visionary Analytics 
14.    Vainius Bartasevičius 
Visionary Analytics 
15.    Olea Morris 
Notus 
16.    Pablo Sanz 
Notus 
17.    Maria Caprile 
Europa Viadrina University 
18.    Tania Bazzani 
University of Kent 
19.    Heejung Chung 
European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) 
20.    Jolanta Reingardė 

 
 
 
 
 
Eurofound 
21.    Tamas Forgacs 
Eurofound 
22.    Vargas Llave 
23.   
Politecnico di milano 
Ilaria Mariotti 
24.    Francisco Trujillo Pons  Universidad Jaume I 
25.    Domenico Sanseverino  Università degli Studi di Torino 
26.    Ester Grau-Alberola 

Psychosocial Research Unit of Organizational Behavior (UNIPSICO) 
of the University of Valencia 

Session I: Drivers and evolution of telework in the medium and long term 

The first session aimed to explore demographic, social and economic macro-trends, as well as 
the  changing  preferences  and  incentives  of  employers  and  employees.  Its  objective  was  to 
understand how different combinations of these factors might lead to changes in the nature and 
prevalence of telework. 

Provocation I: the case for a gradual increase in the prevalence of telework  

•  Baseline scenario: assumes “business as usual”. It assumes that no major shocks will 
occur that would have a major effect on telework. When applying this scenario, we rely 
on  pre-pandemic  trends.  Forecasting  is  based  on  pre-pandemic  trends  in  the 
prevalence of telework (Eurostat and LFS micro-data) as well as CEDFOP projections 
on the structure of employment by occupation (ISCO classification) by 2030.  

•  Pandemic effect: data are available from 2000 to 2019, representing the pre-pandemic 
period (0). The years 2020-2021 are considered a pandemic period (1). In 2022, it is 
assumed  that  we  are  between  the  pandemic  and  the  period  following  the  pandemic 
(0.5). For forecasting, ARIMA time series models were used with the following external 
predictors: proportion of employees in teleworkable occupations (ISCO categories 1-4), 
and the pandemic. The missing data relate to future changes in the teleworkability of 
occupations and a change in employers’ attitudes towards telework, as well as changes 
in  employee  expectations.  It  is  likely  that  the  missing  data would  yield more  positive 
projections. 

•  The projection for the EU-27: telework rose significantly to around 24% in 2019. The 
fall is forecasted to be 18% in 2022, after which we would forecast a drop in 2023 to 
pre-pandemic levels. After this, there is expected to  be a gradual increase, reaching 
15% in 2030. This is higher than the pre-pandemic level. 

•  Trends differ between countries, e.g.: 

o 

o 

o 

o 

in Lithuania, teleworking is expected to fall almost to pre-pandemic levels and 
remain stable (increasing only slightly) until 2030.  

in  Germany,  telework  is  forecasted  to  drop,  but  remain  higher  than  pre-
pandemic levels. 

in Greece, telework is forecasted to drop to pre-pandemic levels, and to continue 
slowly dropping further.  

Inputs from participants: how likely is this scenario to happen? 6.9 on a scale 
of 1 (highly unlikely) to 10 (highly likely). Reasons for this: 

 
Provocation II: the case for the high future prevalence of telework  

•  Higher  prevalence  of  telework  than  estimated  in  the  baseline  scenario,  but  not 
necessarily  a  consistent  pattern  –  the  prevalence  of  certain  types  of  telework 
arrangements  might  be  higher,  or  telework  might  be  more  prevalent  among  certain 
occupations, groups of workers, sectors, types of companies and countries.  

•  Drivers:  

o  Learning effect –experience of the benefits and drawbacks of telework during 
the  pandemic.  The  most  important  change  here  is  that  people  who  were  not 
previously offered this opportunity (e.g. technicians, and clerical workers) may 
do  so  in  the  future.  However,  positive  experiences  under  extraordinary 
circumstances  do  not  necessarily  translate  into  a  general  change.  The  most 
attractive option for employers and employees is hybrid teleworking (which can 
be arranged at different intensities – regular vs ad hoc, etc).  

o  Employers  –  there  is  some  evidence  indicating  a  lower  reluctance  towards 
telework  among  employers  (especially  as  regards  employees  not 
in 
managerial/high-skilled positions). Telework provides  greater opportunities for 
recruitment  and  retention,  and  thus,  for  tackling  staff  shortages.  Productivity 
gains are reported when investments in the reorganisation of work have proven 
effective. In addition, a reduction in overhead costs and direct costs is seen (e.g. 
teleworking from countries with lower wage levels). 

o  Employees – the specific benefits and drawbacks of telework greatly depend on 
individual circumstances and preferences. There is debate about ideal worker 
culture  versus  a  friendly  work-life  culture.  Evidence  suggests  that  younger 
generations  are  demanding  the  flexibility  to  improve  work-life  balance,  and 
generational  change  might  bring  new  ways  of  understanding  telework.  In 

 
  
 
addition, huge roles are played by unemployment and collective bargaining, as 
well as labour and social policies.  

o  Teleworkability  –  changes  in  teleworkability  are  linked  to  emerging  business 
innovations  and  organisational  changes.  The  impact  of  automation  remains 
uncertain.  

o  Policy  framework  –  certain  policies  may  provide  a  more  favourable  overall 
framework  for  telework.  These  include  regional  cohesion/local  development 
policies (including connectivity and opportunities for coworking); environmental 
policies  (supporting  telework  within  a  broader  package  of  measures);  and 
changes in legislation/ social partners agreements that can improve legal clarity 
and favour win-win arrangements adapted to the context. 

• 

Inputs from participants: how likely is this scenario to happen? 7.0 on a scale of 1 
(highly unlikely) to 10 (highly likely). Reasons for this:  

•  Notes from the discussion: 

o  Certain  jobs  that  are  currently  not  teleworkable  will  become  increasingly 

teleworkable in the future.  

o 

‘Third  spaces’  for  hosting  remote  workers  –employers  and  real  estate 
companies are investing in making such spaces available closer to employees. 

o  Work is not only a technical activity, but also a social one. We must distinguish 
agile working in terms of legal contracts. Teleworking is too often understood to 
mean “you are carrying out the same work you do in the office, but at home.” 
Agile working is different – it involves real autonomy. This is an aspect we must 
take  into  account.  Telework  will  increase  in  some  sectors  and  demographics 
and given certain institutional infrastructure – this is already happening. But if 
we talk about agile working – it will increase, because other factors play a role.  

telework:  a 

o  Factors  supporting  higher  growth 

in 
favourable  regulatory 
improved  processes  and 
in  digitalisation; 
environment;  advantages 
infrastructure;  investments  in  digital  education  starting  at  an  early  age; 
regulatory and financial support. At EU level, certain improvements have been 
made,  and  from  the  regional  perspective,  teleworking  is  being  used  for  the 
improvement and integration of certain regions, attracting employment to those 
regions. There is also the issue of the digital nomad – countries are beginning 
to offer regulatory advantages to those who wish to work not only in one country, 
but also across borders.  

 
 
Provocation III: the case for a decline in the prevalence of telework  

•  To  understand  why  the  prevalence  of  telework  might  fall,  we  need  to  consider  why 
teleworking has not increased as drastically as we might have imagined in the previous 
decade. One is the so-called ‘flexibility stigma’ and its negative career consequences. 
Another  is  the  cost  of  living  and  economic/  labour  market  conditions,  leading  to 
increased  negotiation  power  for  workers.  Studies  have  shown  that  since  2002, 
teleworking has not increased as much as expected. 

•  Flexibility stigma:  

o  This  is  the  belief  that  those  who  work  from  home  are  not  as  committed  and 
productive.  The  pandemic  changed  this  pattern.  Eurobarometer  2018  data 
reveals  that  one-third  of  the  population  believes  flexible  working  is  perceived 
unfavourably by colleagues, and has negative career outcomes.  

o 

In  terms  of  variations,  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  Southern  Europeans  hold 
negative attitudes towards telework.  

o  Workers  may  feel  that  they  are  penalised  for  teleworking  (they  are  not  given 

good projects, or do not receive a promotion).  

o  The  effect  of  flexibility  stigma  is  especially  notable  when  workers’  bargaining 

power declines. 

•  Labour market conditions: 

o  On the one hand, the majority of employees would like to work from home at 
least three days per week in the future, and think that employers should be more 
flexible  in  terms  of  requiring  employees  to  go  into  the  office.  Despite  this, 
employers are asking workers to return to the office following the pandemic.  

o  The  so-called  ‘Great  Resignation’  and  labour  shortages  have  given  workers 

greater bargaining power to discuss teleworking with their employer.  

o  A global recession (expected at the end of this year) would see more bargaining 

power for employers.  

•  Managers want workers to return to the office for several reasons. First, because 
some managers like to micro-manage. In addition to this there is the need for younger 
employees to learn about company culture, the importance of face-to-face contact, and 
cohesion  within  the  group.  In  addition,  some  employees  might  feel  isolated  when 
working from home (for some, their only friends are co-workers). Managers also tend to 
think that employees are more productive in the office (although the count-argument of 
the autonomy paradox comes in here). 

•  The cost of living has a twofold effect on teleworking. On the one hand, petroleum has 
become  expensive, so  employees  do  not  want  to  commute  and  may  decide  to  work 
from home (many low-paid service employees are quitting because petrol prices make 
it simply not worth working). On the other hand, energy prices have made it expensive 
to heat apartments, so people may wish to go into the office to save on bills. In addition, 
the issue of having the space to work from home may make it more of a middle-class 
luxury.  

•  Other  aspects,  such  as  health  and  safety  issues,  raise  concerns  over  workers  not 
having  an appropriate workplace at home. Employees may also feel bored at home, 
and may wish to go into the office. In addition, some unions may be pushing for more 
teleworking, while others may campaign for the need to telework less.  

 
•  Notes from the discussion: 

o  Workers’  autonomy  has  risen  over  time,  And  workers  have  begun  to  feel  the 

change. The culture of work organisation is changing. 

o  Trends  are  showing  that  people  are  trying  to  ‘delocalise’  themselves,  as 
commuting and housing are expensive. Telework should be a choice, however, 
because not everyone benefits.  

o  All of these factors are valid and will limit the adoption of teleworking, but they 

will not reverse the trend. 

o  During the pre-pandemic period, discussions revolved around the existence of 
any  teleworking.  Following  the  pandemic,  many  employees  are  working  from 
home three days  week.  

o  Urban and regional policies matter. It is important to go back to the office, but 
this is not always in the city centre, as offices are also geographically dispersed 
– companies now rent meeting rooms all over the world. Employees can meet 
in the meeting room, which is rented yearly by the company in a location close 
to a train station is close by, or where electric cars can be charged. 

• 

Inputs from participants: how likely is this scenario to happen? 2.4 on a scale of 1 
(highly unlikely) to 10 (highly likely). Reasons for this:  

Session II: Future impacts of telework 

Provocation I: impacts on employee well-being  

•  The impacts of telework on employee well-being are contingent on the following factors: 
1.  Working  time  and  work-life  balance:  autonomy,  work  overload,  individual  job 
characteristics,  gender  inequality,  work  culture  and  work  organisation,  regulation 
(the right to disconnect) and the welfare system.  

2.  Psychosocial risks: work intensification, isolation, emerging risks: non-verbal and 

information overload. 

3.  Psychological health risks: overtime, challenges in terms of risk assessment and 

enforcement, inadequate workspace and equipment. 

•  The overall impact of these can result in two scenarios: 

o  A gradual increase/high future prevalence of telework according to one of 
two  scenarios:  a)  the  higher  individualisation  of  risks,  the  individualisation  of 

 
 
industrial  relations  (IR)  and  a  more  competitive  career  environment;  b)  the 
collectivisation of risks, strong governance models regarding industrial relations, 
and a  new ideal work culture.  

o  A decline in the prevalence of telework according to one of two scenarios: a) 
new IR conflicts and worker demand, presenteeism, and (over time) an increase 
in  gender  inequality,  together  with  higher  costs  for  facilities  and  deteriorating 
working conditions; b) the re-standardisation of working time, the revitalisation 
of IR, and a decline in exposure to psychosocial and physical risks. 

• 

Inputs  from  participants:  Do  you  agree  with  the  statements  made  during  the 
presentation? 7.8 on a scale of 1 (highly unlikely) to 10 (highly likely). What arguments 
would further support this case? If you do not agree, why not? 

•  Notes from the discussion: 

o  We must ensure consistency with regard to impacts on employees’ well-being, 
and for companies in relation to the overall policy framework. We must therefore 
ensure  that  the  impacts  of  such  a  scenario  are  consistent  among  different 
stakeholders and in terms of their goals, to make the most of telework.  

Provocation  II:  impacts  on  work  organisation  practices,  productivity  and 
competitiveness  

•  Telework  helps  employers  to  save  costs,  improve  recruitment  and  retention,  job 
satisfaction and performance, as well as to implement more efficient work organisation 
practices.  However,  along  with  this  come  challenges  in  maintaining  and  enhancing 
corporate culture, team coordination and innovation. Telework also makes it harder to 
avoid  counter-productive  effects  (e.g.  high  workload/availability;  intrusive  control 
measures). Employers may struggle to meet the diverse expectations and preferences 
of workers. The effects on work organisation are considered in the long term.  

• 

In the low increase in telework scenario, employers benefit from a gradual change 
towards a more inclusive, work-friendly culture. In addition, they might avoid the long-
term detrimental impact of high work intensity. However, this comes with the risks such 
as: 

o  Flexible arrangements being driven by performance 
o  Higher gaps in competitiveness 
o  New IR conflicts 

 
 
o  Stigma with regard to flexible working that is driven by care needs in individual 

circumstances 

• 

In the high prevalence of telework scenario, the main benefits and risks are as follows: 
o  Benefits: expanding telework opportunities to meet needs’ find a good balance 
between on-site and remote work; increase recruitment and retention rates; and 
deploy more effective coordination and control measures 

o  Risks:  difficulties  in  managing  hybrid  arrangements;  the  extension  of  digital 

surveillance; a lack of transparency in teleworking arrangements 

•  Policy challenges: 

o  Support 

for  hybrid  work  arrangements  while 

respecting  autonomous 

negotiations between the employer and the employee.  

o  Supporting  employers’  need  for  the  efficient  coordination,  monitoring  and 
evaluation  of  workers;’  performance  while  guaranteeing  the  worker’s  right  to 
privacy, the protection of their data, as well as to fair employment and working 
conditions 

o  Providing a framework that supports SMEs 

•  Notes from the discussion: 

o  There is an erosion of collective bargaining due to individual employees’ role in 

shaping the future of telework.  

o  GDPR might pose an obstacle to tracking employees. If teleworkers are given 
the  autonomy  and  flexibility  to  decide  their  own  schedules,  some  form  of 
measurement and judgement should be built on the basis of the R2D, to which 
employers  should  have  reliable  access  at  all  times.  Overtime  cannot  be 
substituted. If a monitoring tool is used to measure it, this should recognise when 
work is done. In line with the GDPR, however, all of this information must remain 
private.  

-  The main concern here is whether telework is expanded to other types of work, e.g. 

routine jobs, where a behavioural approach can be employed.  

-  The  challenge  is  to  ensure  that  a  monitoring  system  can  ensure  people  are  not 
overworking, but not determine if they are working at all. Legislation should cover this.  

Provocation III: impacts on social, regional and other inequalities  

•  Gender.  Flexible  working  increases  workers’  access  to  work,  especially  for  those 
individuals who have caring duties or disabilities. Mothers and women are more likely 
to benefit from this. However, when working from home, women do a greater share of 
the  housework,  and  teleworking  may  thus  increase  impact  of  gender  roles  in  the 
household.  Such  a  situation  might  lead  to  stigmatisation  with  regard  to  women’s 
teleworking, which may lead to an increased gender pay gap. Women may be more 
prone to burnout as a result of using their coffee breaks to do laundry rather than taking 
a break.  

•  Class inequalities. Usually, those employees who enjoy greater access to teleworking 
come from higher occupational/educational groups. Thus, higher-status workers spend 
less  on  commuting.  However,  they  may  spend  more  on  equipment.  It  is  noted  that 
workers  in  higher-status  occupations  are  also  more  likely  to  feel  the  pressures  of 

 
overwork (“stress of a higher-status worker”), making the flexibility paradox more likely 
to happen.  

•  Regional inequalities: teleworking (4-5 days a week) enables workers to move out of 
metropolises in order to save costs (one can afford a bigger house in an outlying region 
rather  than  a  small  dwelling  in  the  city  centre).  This  increases  regional  development 
(more  people  living  in  suburbs  means  new  shops  and  communities).  Due  to  less 
commuting, employees can spend more time in their local community (sports, leisure, 
voluntary activities and political activities). In addition, since more people are moving 
from metropolises, housing/rental prices might also drop in larger cities 

•  Global  inequality:  teleworking  allows  people  to  move  from  expensive  countries  to 

cheaper ones. 

•  Notes from the discussion: if individuals were able to choose their preferred working 
situation, do you think many of these inequalities would be resolved in some way?  

o  This is where the role of EC comes in. Companies alone will not sort things out. 
It is necessary to provide the conditions for something to happen. This is about 
anti-discrimination.  Flexible  working  is  not  necessarily  an  equality  tool,  but 
greater flexibility can and should be promoted by the EC. There has to be an 
understanding  that  if  more  telework  is  done,  the  workspace  still  needs  to  be 
provided, and possibly supplemented, by the company. Equipment and software 
should be tax-free so that employees are not out of pocket if they choose to work 
from home. The place of work is no longer just the office, and legislation should 
fit this new conception of work.  

•  Environmental issues: Moving away from urban areas and choosing to live in other 
areas  has  an  impact  on  the  environment  –  while  environmental  conditions  might 
improve in cities, a counter-effect may be seen in the suburbs. If people previously living 
in  a  tiny  studio  in  London  move  to  a  huge  house  –  how  much  more  energy  will  be 
required to keeping this house running? 

o  Commuting  over  long  distances  is  more  of  an  issue  of  public  transportation.  But 
scheduled commuter trains are becoming less frequent and prices are increasing 
because there are few commuters than before.  

Provocation IV: impacts on cross-border work  

•  Offering  opportunities  for  telework  has  become  a  competitive  advantage  for  many 

companies. 

•  Potential future scenario: companies broaden their recruitment strategies, while both 
employers and employees face greater bureaucratic hurdles in arriving at arrangements 
over working time. These high administrative hurdles drive higher rates of cross-border 
teleworking  in  certain  regions,  and  certain  MSs  become  hubs  for  cross-border 
teleworkers. 

•  Notes from the discussion: 

o  One of the problems faced by teleworkers is isolation.  
o  The case of Venice, which during lockdown became a ghost city. As a result, 
city authorities had the idea to attract people who they felt should be working in 
Venice,  offering  them  a  flat  and  a  place  to  work  (such  as  a  library  or  similar 
space).  

 
No 5. WORKSHOP WITH ALL RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS 

1 December 2022 

TELEWORK AND THE RIGHT TO DISCONNECT: PRELIMINARY 
STUDY FINDINGS – SUMMARY 

Session 

Time  

Presentation 

Introduction 

9.30 – 9.45 

Welcome, presentation of the study and 
the workshop 

Agenda 

9.45 – 10.30  Preliminary study findings 

Speakers/moderators 
DG EMPL 
Žilvinas Martinaitis 
(Visionary Analytics) 
Maria Caprile and Pablo 
Sanz (Notus) 
Q&A, 10 minutes 
Discussions in parallel 
sessions (30 minutes) 
and summary in plenary 
(15 minutes) 

Moderators: 
Pablo Sanz, Maria 
Caprile, Tania Bazzani, 
Žilvinas Martinaitis, 
Vasileios Koniaris, Paul 
Vroonhof, Ivan Lichner, 
Frédéric Turlan 

Discussions in parallel sessions: 
o  To what extent has the study 
captured the most relevant 
challenges and opportunities? 
Which ones are the most 
important in specific regions, 
countries, sectors and 
occupations?  

o  What additional challenges and 

opportunities exist? 
o  What should employees, 

employers and policymakers do, 
so as to make full use of existing 
opportunities?  

o  What should employees, 

employers and policymakers do, 
so as to address the challenges?  

Short break 

Presentation and Q&A session: EU 
labour acquis – tackling the challenges 
and opportunities of teleworking and 
‘always-on’ culture 

Tania Bazzani  
(Europa Viadrina 
University), 
40 minutes 

Q&A 20 minutes 

Lunch break 

Presentation and Q&A session: national 
approaches to telework and the right to 
disconnect 

Pablo Sanz (Notus), 
35 minutes 

Q&A 15 minutes 

Short break 

Presentation: The future of telework: 
scenarios and likely impacts 

Discussions in parallel sessions: 
•  How 
likely  are 

the  different 

scenarios? Why (key drivers)? 
•  What socio-economic impacts might 
emerge in the future? What are the 
main challenges to address? 

Žilvinas Martinaitis 
(Visionary Analytics)  
30 minutes 

Q&A 10 minutes 
Discussions in parallel 
sessions (30 minutes) 
and summary in plenary  
(15 minutes) 

Moderators: 

Session I 
Telework and the right to 
disconnect – prevalence, 
challenges and 
opportunities 

10.30 – 
11.15 

Session II 
EU labour acquis: 
tackling the challenges 
and opportunities of 
teleworking and ‘always-
on’ culture 

Session III 
National approaches to 
telework and the right to 
disconnect 

Session IV 
The future of telework: 
scenarios and likely 
impacts 

11.15 – 
11.30 

11.30 – 
12.30 

12.30 – 
13.30 

13.30 – 
14.20 

14.20 – 
14.30 

14.30 – 
15.10 

15.10 – 
15.55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Session 

Time  

Presentation 

Wrap-up 

15.55 – 
16.15 

Wrap-up and summary  

Participants  

Speakers/moderators 
Pablo Sanz, Tania 
Bazzani, Žilvinas 
Martinaitis 

Žilvinas Martinaitis  

No.  Participant  Affiliation 
1. 

  Andrea 

European Commission 

2. 

3. 
4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Glorioso 
  Barbara 

Roubicek 

European Commission 

  Chiara Monti  European Commission 
European Commission 
  Ester  Grau 

Simo 

  Jonathan 
Stabenow 

  Krisztina 
BOROS 
  Martina 

Schwaiger 

European Commission 

European Commission 

European Commission 

8. 

  MD 

European Commission 

Montesinos 

9. 
  Max Uebe 
10.    Rhiannon 
VAN 
STRAALEN 

11.    Solveiga 

Eidukynaitė-
Gerard 
12.    Tea JAGIC 
13.    Liis 

Tõnismaa 

European Commission 
European Commission 

European Commission 

European Commission 
Estonian Ministry Of Social Affairs 

14.    Ruairi 

ETUC 

Fitzgerald 

15.    Oscar 
Vargas 
Llave 

16.    Ricardo 

Rodriguez 
Contreras 

17.    Tina Weber 
18.    Frédéric 
TURLAN 

EUROFOUND 

Eurofound 

Eurofound 
European Trade Union Institute 

19.    Tania 

European University 

Bazzani 
20.    Ivan Lichner 
21.    Predrag 

Bejakovic 

22.    Xenios 
Mamas 

23.    Armin 

Skrozic 

24.    Aleksandra 
Pietras 
25.    Justyna 

Mitrowska 

Institute Of Economic Research SAS, Slovakia 
Institute Of Public Finance 

Labour Relations Department, Ministry Of Labour And Social Insurance 

Ministère du Travail, de l'Emploi et de l'Économie sociale et solidaire, Luxembourg 

Ministry Of Family And Social Policy 

Ministry Of Family And Social Policy 

26.    Paulina 

Ministry Of Family And Social Policy 

Rudnicka 

 
 
 
27.    Georgi 

Ministry Of Labour And Social Policy 

Evtimov 

28.    Tom Meyer  Ministry Of Labour Luxembourg 
29.    Dragana 

Ministry Of Labour, Pension System, Family And Social Policy Of The Republic Of Croatia 

Korov 
30.    Alexandra 

Nicolai 

31.    Louis 

Roijmans 
32.    Leonidas 
Antoniou 

33.    Jana 

Mochnacka 

34.    Czesaná 
Věra 

35.    Zdeňka 
Šímová 

Ministry Of Social Affairs (NL) 

Ministry Of Social Affairs And Employment 

Self-employed, National Expert 

National Labour Inspectorate, Slovakia 

National Observatory of Employment and Education, Czechia 

National Training Fund (Národní Vzdělávací Fond) 

36.    Pablo Sanz  Notus 
Notus 
37.    Marie 

Caprile 

38.    Nuno 

NOVA University Of Lisbon 

Boavida 

39.    Alena 

Paukrtova 
40.    Valentina 

Klyhs 
Albeck 
Puddu 

OS KOVO 

Oxford Research 

41.    Paul 

Panteia 

Vroonhof 

42.    Pim Zijlstra 
43.    Ilaria 

Panteia 
Politecnico Di Milano 

Mariotti 

44.    Guillaume 

Afellat 
45.    Anica Ferić 
46.    Zaiga 
Strode 
47.    Antoine 
Heloise 

SGI Europe 

Sindikat naftnog gospodarstva 
State Labour Inspectorate 

Union Des Entreprises Luxembourgeoises 

48.    Francisco 

University Jaume I (Spain) 

Trujillo Pons 

49.    Raluca 

University Of Economic Studies 

DIMITRIU 

50.    Iveta 

University Of Latvia 

Reinholde 

51.    Vasilis 

University Of Macedonia 

Koniaris 

University Of Malta 
University of Pécs 

52.    Anna Borg 
53.    Zoltán 
Bankó 
54.    Nini Gigani 
Visionary Analytics 
55.    Jan Bednorz  Visionary Analytics 
Visionary Analytics 
56.    Žilvinas 

Martinaitis 

57.    Emanuel 

WKÖ 

Ludwig 

 
 
Session I: Telework and the right to disconnect –prevalence, challenges 
and opportunities 

Key points from the presentation  

•  Methodology of the study encompassed: 

o  Extensive desk research (332 books / papers / reports covered)  
o  Analysis of LFS micro-data (2020 and previous years) 
o  Survey of employees (final data set contains 11,010 respondents) 
o  Survey of employers (final data set contains 2,260 respondents) 
o  Delphi survey on future trends 
o 
o 
o  Three workshops plus today’s workshop 
o  Three deep-dive studies 
o  Econometric modelling of future trends 

Interviews with 13 experts/academics 

Interviews with 83 national stakeholders (authorities, sectoral social partners) 

•  The concept of telework: a form of work organisation in which work that could also be 
performed at the employer's premises is carried out away from the employer's premises 
through the use of ICT. 

•  The concept of the right to disconnect (R2D): the right of workers not to engage in 
work-related activities or in communications by means of digital tools, outside working 
time. 

•  The share of employees who are teleworking is rising in all EU countries and has been 
over the years, with the highest shares in the Netherlands, Sweden and Luxembourg – 
all at more than 40%. However, there is a clear divide between blue- and white-collar 
workers,  wherein  most  teleworkers  are  managers  and  professionals.  Moreover, 
incongruences persist between the prevalence, feasibility and desirability of telework 
(namely, for clerical workers). 

• 

‘Always-on’ culture is related to flexible working arrangements including telework (with 
similar  variations  by  country,  occupation,  etc).  Extended  availability  has  increased 
during the pandemic. 

•  Main challenges: 

Isolation and new psychosocial risks (non-verbal and information overload) 

o  Overtime and extended availability; work-life conflict; work-related stress  
o 
o  Difficulties in risk assessment and enforcing compliance with OSH standards 
o  Lack of transparency with regard to digital control systems, and concerns about 
workers’  privacy and the protection of personal data; such system may also be 
detrimental to performance 

o  Gender and social bias (stigma towards flexible working) 
o  Administrative difficulties for cross-border teleworking 

•  Main opportunities: 

 
o  Workers:  saving  commuting  time  and  enjoying  greater  autonomy  over  the 
organisation  of  working  hours,  to  accommodate  one’s  work  and  private  life 
needs and preferences, resulting in better work-life balance and greater well-
being  

o  Employers: positive impacts on overall efficiency and productivity, i.e. higher job 
satisfaction;  higher  retention  rates;  greater  job  engagement  and  increased 
individual performance; the opportunity to recruit workers worldwide and to save 
on office costs 

•  The experience of the pandemic offers a learning opportunity:  

o  The shift to telework required large investments, which later paid off  
o  There  is  greater  awareness  of  the  potential  benefits  and  drawbacks  of 
teleworking, especially with regard to an ‘always-on’ culture (specifically for low-
status workers) 

o  No evidence of falls in productivity, as managers acquired a more positive view 

of telework 

o  Growing demand among workers for greater autonomy over when and where 

they work 

o  Low awareness of psychosocial risks linked to the intensive use of ICT 

Key points from the parallel sessions  

The sessions centred around a discussion of the prevalence, challenges and opportunities of 
teleworking and the right to disconnect (‘always-on’ culture). The main questions used to guide 
the discussion were as follows: 

•  To what extent has the study captured the most relevant challenges and opportunities? 
Which  ones  are  the  most  important  in  specific  regions,  countries,  sectors  and 
occupations?  

•  What additional challenges and opportunities exist? 
•  What should employees, employers and policymakers do, in order to make full use of 

existing opportunities?  

•  What  should  employees,  employers  and  policymakers  do,  in  order  to  address  the 

challenges?  

Participants’ discussion points are summarised below: 

•  The study has managed to address the most important challenges and opportunities in 

relation to the aspect of European cross-border teleworking.  

• 

It would be interesting to obtain data regarding the position of women who are mothers 
with young children, with the age of the children being recorded. 

•  The opportunities that telework brings in terms of work-life balance, as well as gender 
balance, are really important – but there is a risk of people working long hours. There 
is  a  need  to  ensure  that  limitations  on  working  time  are  respected.  Meanwhile,  it  is 
important not to limit the autonomy of social partners. 

• 

In Portugal, there is little experience of workers’ mobility, so the challenge is to enforce 
regulation concerning this dimension in the most efficient way. 

 
•  With regard to cross-border telework, people based in Luxembourg are returning to their 
home country because only residents can work two days a week, while others who are 
non-residents can work even fewer days. It would be good to have data on this. 

•  Who benefits most from EU-level policies is a good question to explore. This is a fiscal 
matter. We should work on social security. In Luxembourg, there may be an impact on 
prices, though up to now these have remained steady. 

• 

In Austria, a survey was carried out that asked how many times workers had received 
e-mails outside working hours. The results did not reveal any problematic tendencies. 
However, no comparable data are available at EU level. 

•  Teleworking should be protected like other types of work. If a person decides to work 
outside working hours, they should be compensated for doing so. In Bulgaria, there is 
regulation  to  protect  employees  from  working  outside  normal  hours.  Sometimes, 
employees may ask employers to work outside working hours due to the nature of work, 
deadlines, etc. 

•  The Labour Code in Croatia is soon to be amended to include the R2D. 
•  Some  employers  still  regard  it  as  an  issue  that  employees  who  are  teleworking  are 
indeed working. It is important to not over-regulate with regard to this; the key is mutual 
trust. 

• 

It can be problematic to adopt legislation concerning telework that is applicable across 
all sectors. 

•  To  ensure  risk  assessment  are  met,  one  employer  representative  mentioned  that  in 
their company, employees sign an addendum to their contract confirming that it is safe 
for them to work from home, as they comply with all relevant requirements. 

•  When we talk about the right to disconnect, we are talking about the right to rest. 

Session  II:  The  EU  labour  acquis  –  tackling  the  challenges  and 
opportunities of teleworking and ‘always-on’ culture 

Key points from the presentation  

•  There  are  five  main  areas  to  be  analysed  in  the  existing  EU  acquis:  decent  working 
conditions,  OSH,  data  protection  and  privacy,  equal  treatment,  and  geographical 
mobility within the EU: 

1.  Decent working conditions: 

o  The  Working  Time  Directive  provides  only  a binary  definition,  and  does  not 
consider any grey areas. The CJEU acknowledges the possibility to work during 
the rest time, within certain limitations. However, the definition of standby time 
at national level remains a gap:  

o  The recording of working time aims to ensure the implementation of the limits 
on working time set by the Working Time Directive. However, one gap is that 
Member States must require employers to apply a system for recording working 
time that is ”objective, reliable and accessible”. Telework does not change the 
nature of an employment relationship: employees are simply able to work in a 
flexible  way.  However,  such  flexibility  does  not  immediately  classify  them  as 
autonomous workers. 

 
o  The  Transparent  and  predictable  working  conditions  directive  (Directive 
(EU) 2019/1152) provides an adequate legal framework containing definitions 
of written agreements, redress mechanisms, penalties, place of work, etc. 

o  The  Work-Life  Balance  Directive  (Directive  (EU)  2019/1158)  addresses 
equality,  flexible  working  arrangements  for  parents,  response  timeframes, 
penalties and redress mechanisms. However, it does not create a strong and 
enforceable legal entitlement. 

2.  OSH: 

o  The  OSH  Framework  Directive  (Directive  89.391/EEC)  provides  an  adequate 

structure and regulation to address physical and mental health.  

o  The  Directive  on  the  minimum  safety  and  health  requirements  for  work  with 
display screen equipment (Directive 90/270/EEC) addresses issues regarding 
the use of technology and ICT. 

o  The Directive on the minimum safety and health requirements for the workplace 
(Council  Directive  89/654/EEC)  provides  a  definition  and  regulation  of  the 
concept of a workplace. 

3.  Control, surveillance and monitoring performance systems, data protection and 

privacy 

o  The General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679 is the main 
regulation  in  this  are,  and  appears  adequate  in  this  context  –  in  particular, 
Articles 6 and 9. However, the exercise of a data subject's rights may become 
more challenging due to new technologies (lack of awareness of personal data 
processing, non-compliance with GDPR transparency obligations).  

4.  Equal treatment and non-discrimination 

o  Article į of the Directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in 
employment  and  occupation  (Directive  2000/78/EC)  (Employment  Equality 
Directive)  addresses  the  issue  of  making  reasonable  accommodations, 
especially  for  persons  with  disabilities,  but  does  not  create  a  strong  and 
enforceable legal entitlement.  

5.  Geographical mobility, with a focus on cross-border telework 

o  Three regulations are relevant to this issue: Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable 
to contractual obligations (Rome I Convention); Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 
of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  12  December  2012  on 
jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  in  civil  and 
commercial matters (recast) (Brussels I Convention); and Regulation (EC) No 
883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the 
coordination of social security systems.  

o  However,  there  is  a  great  deal  of  complexity  associated  with  regulation  in 

various fields, such as social security coordination, taxes, and disputes. 

o  Administrative burdens could be reduced; otherwise, there is a risk of limiting 

workers’ freedom of movement (e.g. the case study on Michelin Italia). 

Session III: National approaches to telework and the right to disconnect 

Key points from the presentation 

 
•  Telework 

o  Definition:  a  form  of  work  organisation  in  which  work  that  could  also  be 
performed at the employer’s premises is carried out away from the employer's 
premises  through  the  use  of  ICT.  Arrangements  vary  in  terms  of  patterns  of 
intensity, location and mobility  

o  Regulatory  sources:  specific  statutory  definition  and  legislation;  statutory 
legislation  and  collective  bargaining;  collective  bargaining  alone;  individual 
agreements/HRM policies; and informal practices 

  Statutory  legal  definitions  of  telework  vary  in  terms  of  the  location  of 
telework, intensity and pattern, as well as mobility – the last of these is 
generally excluded and not specified. 

  Changes to definitions since the pandemic have been seen in Portugal, 

Spain, Slovakia and Romania. 

  Changes  in  access  to  telework  have  also  taken  place  since  the 
pandemic, namely in Czechia, Ireland, Germany and the Netherlands. 

o  There  is  no  clear  regulation/guidance  on  what  constitutes  working  time  for 
teleworkers.  In  most  EU  countries,  legislation  only  establishes  that  general 
working-time regulation applies. In eight countries, legislation establishes that 
teleworkers  can  organise  their  working  time  themselves  (Czechia;  Spain  – 
modified  in  2020;  Hungary;  Italy  –  only  for  agile/smart  work;  Lithuania;  the 
Netherlands; Romania and Slovakia).  

  Changes in working time legislation since the outbreak of the pandemic 

crisis have taken place in Czechia, Slovakia and Spain. 

o 

In  terms  of  OSH,  risk  assessment  is  a  pre-condition  in  a  few  countries. 
Moreover,  legislation  in  several  countries  aims  to  avoid  isolation  and  its 
implications for psychosocial well-being.  

  Changes in working time legislation since the outbreak of the pandemic 

crisis have taken place in Austria, Portugal and Spain. 

•  R2D 

o  Definition:  the  right  of  workers  not  to  engage  in  work-related  activities  or 
communications by means of digital tools, such as phone calls, emails or other 
messages, outside normal working time.  

o  Regulatory  sources: 

statutory 

legislation; 

(guidelines/recommendation); 
bargaining/Information  &  Consultation, 
(sectoral/company). 

statutory 

‘soft’ 
legislation 
and 

law  approaches 
collective 
and 
bargaining 
collective 

o  Content of statutory legislation: 

  Definition: “Right to discuss within the health and safety committees” in 
Belgium.  Broad  definition  in  France,  Italy  and  Ireland.  In  Greece,  the 
definition  resembles  the  wording  used  in  the  European  Parliament 
definition  (2021).  In  Portugal,  the  right  to  disconnect  is  defined  as  the 
duty of an employer to abstain from contact (Pinto Ramos, 2022), even 
though the term ‘right to disconnect’ is not explicitly mentioned – though 

 
 
 
this must be understood in combination with other provisions that create 
regulation that specifically addresses R2D. 

  Formal  coverage:  teleworkers  (Greece,  Italy  and  Slovakia)  vs.  all 

 

workers (Belgium, France, Ireland, Portugal and Spain). 
Implementation  methods:  consultation  with  health  and  safety 
committees  (Belgium);  Collective  bargaining  (Spain  and  France); 
individual agreements (Italy); and company policies (Ireland). 

  Enforcement  mechanisms:  regulation  only  includes  sanctions  or  new 

enforcement actions in Spain, Greece and Portugal. 

o  Collective  bargaining:  research  on  collective  bargaining  and  the  right  to 
disconnect  is  particularly  scarce.  There  is  a  trend  towards  ‘soft’  regulatory 
approaches, and against trade unions’ preferences for hard law.  

  Around half of employers (49%) state that some kind of arrangement is 
in place in their organisation. Similar results are reported by employees 
(45% say such an arrangement exists in their workplace).  

o  The  topic  of  the  right  to  disconnect  is  currently  under  discussion  by  social 
partners  and/or  policymakers  in  Cyprus,  Croatia,  Germany,  the  Netherlands, 
Romania and Luxembourg.  

Session IV: the future of telework – scenarios and likely impacts 

Key points from the presentation 

•  Challenges for a future-looking analysis: 

o  Forecasting  typically  relies  on  past  trends,  but  the  pandemic  produced 

significant discontinuities;  

o  No data for 2022 are available. The most recent micro-level data available are 

for 2020 

o  A large number of non-representative, real-time surveys suggest a significantly 

higher uptake of telework than in the Labour Force Survey (LFS) 

  Hence,  significant  uncertainty  surrounds  the  current  and  future  levels  of  the 

prevalence of telework. 

•  Approaches  and  methods  used  to  generate  the  analysis  include:  literature  reviews, 

Delphi survey, ARIMA models using LFS micro-data and CEDEFOP forecasts,  

•  Scenario 1: Baseline 

o  Drivers: Short-term: back to the office 

  Medium-term: “learning effects”, i.e. employees appreciate the benefits 
of teleworking, while the worst fears of employers have not materialised 

  Long-term: changing the structure of EU economies 

o  Results:  

  A ‘snap back’ in the short term 
  Continuous growth in the medium-to-long term 

 
 
 
•  Scenario 2: Back to the office 

o  Drivers  

  Short-term: back to the office in 2022 plus stagflation 
  Medium-term: non-supportive management practices and culture 
  Long term: flexibility stigma and negative career outcomes 

o  Results 

In the short term: snap back to pre-pandemic levels 

  Overall lower than in the baseline scenario 
 
  Medium-to-long term: the same pace of growth as before the pandemic 
  Most workers teleworking ‘sometimes’ 

•  Scenario 3: Flexibilisation (work from anywhere, anytime) 

o  Drivers 

  Short-term: limited return to the office 
  Medium-to-long term: the demise of the office 
  Long-term: increased teleworkability of jobs due to new business models 

and technologies 

o  Results 

  Limited snap back in the short term 
  Prevalence of telework likely to exceed the pandemic peak in 2026 
 

Increasing share of employed teleworking ‘usually’ 

•  The  ‘convergence  hypothesis’:  over  time,  the  prevalence  of  telework  in  different 
Member States will become similar, because: a) there are “natural limits” to growth; and 
b)  low-prevalence  countries  have  significant  room  to  catch  up,  as  employees  and 
employers learn the benefits of teleworking and develop the capacity to deal with its 
challenges. 

•  However, there is more evidence for the limited catch-up hypothesis: namely, that 
large differences will remain between Member States. Key factors in this are that: a) 
past and current differences between Member States can be explained by the different 
structures  of  their  economies  and  of  employment,  work  organisation  practices  and 
culture – these will not change dramatically over 5-10 years; and b) the impact of the 
pandemic shock on convergence was mixed: in percentage terms, the prevalence of 
telework  grew  most  in  those  countries  with  limited  past  experience  of  working  from 
home, but significant differences remained.  

•  Projections for 2030: 

o  The  forecasted  share  of  teleworkers  in  2030  shows  that  under  all  three 

scenarios, existing differences between MS are likely to remain  

o  When  it  comes  to  the  prevalence  of  telework  by  occupation,  under  all  three 
scenarios,  managers  and  professionals  are  likely  to  be  the  largest  groups 
teleworking in the future. 

o  With  regard  to  its  prevalence  by  sector,  the  sectors  standing  out  are  a) 
information  and  communication,  and  b)  the  activities  of  extraterritorial 
organisations 

 
o  Prevalence by size of the organisation shows that smaller organisations (1-10 
people)  are  the  most  likely  to  experience  each  of  the  three  scenarios  to  the 
greatest extent 

•  Ongoing discussions are taking place with regard to the extent to which key impacts 

of a high prevalence of telework have already materialised: 

o  Hypothesis  1:  employers  and  employees  have  already  adapted  to  the  new 
realities, and no significant impacts in 2030 (as compared to 2021) should be 
expected; 

o  Hypothesis 2: significant impacts should be expected, because employers and 
employees treated lockdowns as a temporary state. In other words, employers 
and employees may have downplayed the OSH risks in the face of the pandemic  

  This  study  takes  into  consideration  both  of  these  hypotheses:  a  small 
increase in telework is unlikely to produce significant changes (due to H1), but 
further growth in telework should produce substantial changes (due to H2). 

•  Negative economic impacts  

o  The administrative burdens faced by SMEs (due to the lack of legal certainty in 
determining eligibility for teleworking, compliance with working time and OSH 
regulations for teleworkers, dealing with the tax and social security implications 
of hiring cross-border teleworkers and when compensating the costs incurred 
by teleworkers) 

•  Positive economic impacts  

o  Costs savings for employers (due to reduced office space) and employees (due 

to lower costs of commuting). 

o  Opportunities to hire talent worldwide 
o  Workplace innovation and digitalisation  
o  Economic development of non-metropolitan areas 

•  Negative social impacts 

o  Physical safety and health (particularly among lower-income teleworkers)  
o  Psychosocial safety and health (e.g. burn-out) 

•  Mixed social impacts 

o  Work-life balance of employees 
o  Gender equality in the labour market 

•  Positive social impacts 

o  Higher levels of overall employment  
o  Access to the labour market for disadvantaged persons 

Key points from the Q&A  

o 

It would be interesting to see the differences in these projections when it comes 
to private vs. public companies.  

o  There should be a limitation in terms of the weighting of the Labour Force Survey 

with regard to the composition of employment within micro-companies. 

 
o  Clarification  is  required  as  to  whether  the  assumption  used  for  the  projection 
exercise takes into consideration trends in labour migration, especially from third 
countries. 

Key points from parallel sessions  

These  sessions  explored  likely  scenarios  for  the  evolution  of  telework,  as  well  as  the  likely 
future socio-economic impacts of the high or low prevalence of telework. The main questions 
used to guide the discussions were as follows: 

•  How likely are the different scenarios? Why (key drivers)? 
•  What  socio-economic  impacts  might  emerge  in  the  future?  What  are  the  main 

challenges to address? 

Participants’ discussion points are summarised below: 

•  Representatives  from  Portugal,  Greece,  Czechia,  and  Austria  agreed  that  the 

baseline scenario is the most likely in their countries. 

o  The drivers of telework, specifically the learning effect, are especially relevant  
o  Other key drivers in the case of Portugal are that the new regulation is far more 
protective and is better able to foster the regulation of telework, in particular in 
the case of working mothers with caring responsibilities 

o 

In Czechia, regulation does not anticipate compensation that would discourage 
telework, especially in the face of growing electricity prices 

o  The main challenges relate to  wages and compensation in the context of the 
higher prevalence of telework. Employers might be tempted to reduce wages, 
since workers would no longer have to come into the office 

•  Representatives from Czechia, Austria, the Netherlands, Italy and Bulgaria mentioned 
that the role played by the sector in which a firm operates and its knowledge intensity 
might change the scenario in a given country.  

o  Czechia  and  Bulgaria  both  appear  to  have  relatively  large  manufacturing 
sectors,  so  the  share  of  remote  workers  is  not  high.  But  structural  change  is 
likely  to  happen  and  will  be  important  for  the  future,  specifically  due  to 
technological advancements in such manufacturing factories  

o  A cultural issue exists, specifically in the cases of Italy and Bulgaria. Even now, 
people  are  not  used  to  remote  working.  In  Austria,  differences  exist  between 
companies,  while  in  the  Netherlands,  employers  are  encouraging  their 
employees to take up teleworking opportunities. 

o 

In  terms  of  working  time,  one  trade  union  representative  mentioned  that  it  is 
more difficult to organise people when they work from home 

o  Sometimes,  companies  might  say  they  have  agreed  arrangements  and  the 
goals/organisation of work with their employees while giving less regard to the 
intensity of their ICT use. 

•  Among the participants from Slovakia, Malta and the Netherlands, some mentioned that 
the flexibilisation scenario appears most likely, though this is not applicable to all. 

o  The participants from the Netherlands mentioned that flexibility and the way in 

which time is managed could be a challenge in terms of equality 

 
o 

If telework is likely to be further linked to mothers with caring responsibilities, 
this could produce negative outcomes –solutions need to be created that can 
avoid such gender traps 

o  One question that remains open is the extent to which telework will continue to 

be stigmatised 

o  The impact of telework on productivity, according to some surveys in Slovakia, 

appears to be positive 

o  Another challenge is the legal administrative burden of covering the costs and 
compensation  for  employees  who  telework  –implementation  mechanisms, 
taxing specific allowances, and so on 

 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the 
address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact 
this service: 

– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

– at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or  

– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa 
website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 

You can download or order free and priced EU publications at: 
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by 
contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-
union/contact_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official language 
versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu 

Open data from the EU 

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the EU. 
Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes.