Abstract
Discussions about the Future of Work have become ubiquitous both in academic and international organizations’ discourse. As part of these developments, the platform economy has revolutionized work practices and relationships. Despite the emergence of a burgeoning literature on platform studies, little is known about whether and to what extent platform work exacerbates the risk of gender-based violence among workers. This review article examines 39 academic articles, book chapters, reports, and conference papers published between 2016 and 2023 using qualitative content analysis to provide a preliminary understanding of empirical data on this issue. The reviewed studies were selected using relevant keywords on the basis of a database of 175 studies examining the platform economy with gender perspective, complemented with additional sources identified during the review. The main findings are: platform workers across sectors are vulnerable to gender-based violence, especially those at the intersection of several axes of subordination; platforms’ socio-technological features exacerbate the risk of gender-based violence; (fear of) gender-based violence limits women’s access to platform work and the economic benefits derived from it; most platforms lack effective preventative and redressal mechanisms against violence; and, faced with platforms’ inaction, workers adopt individual and collective measures to address (the risk of) gender-based violence in platform work. The analysis also evidences the need for more research on intersectional vulnerabilities, particularly with regard to sexual orientation and gender expression and identity, as well as on the physical and psychological impact of gender-based violence on platform workers, which provides avenues for future research.
Keywords
Introduction
Discussions about the Future of Work, addressing “how labour markets are changing in response to the megatrends of technological change, globalisation and population ageing” (OECD, n.d.), have become increasingly common in international organizations’ reports and the academic literature, particularly following the growing adoption of digital tools in the workplace. A tendency within these transformations is the generalization of platform work, understood as “work that is offered, accepted, and performed increasingly through digital platforms” (Poutanen et al., 2019, p. 3). Reflecting on these developments, a burgeoning field of research on the platform economy has examined its impact on workers’ lives (i.e., Drahokoupil & Vandaele, 2021; Larsson & Teigland, 2021; Ness, 2023; Poutanen et al., 2019). Within this body of literature, in recent years scholars have started to examine how gender shapes workers’ participation in the platform economy (for an overview, see Kampouri, 2022).
Notwithstanding this increased attention, to date, there are very few studies that focus on gender-based violence in the context of platform work (Ma et al., 2022; Stringhi, 2022). This is surprising given the extensive literature documenting women’s exposure to sexual harassment at work (i.e., Garrie, 2012; ILO, 2022; Minnotte & Legerski, 2019; O’Leary-Kelly et al., 2009; Spiliopoulou & Witcomb, 2023) as well as to cyberviolence in digital settings (i.e., Backe et al., 2018; Plan Internacional, 2020; Reed et al., 2020; UN Broadband Commission for Digital Development, 2015). This oversight is also noteworthy given the fact that platform workers, unlike their traditional counterparts, are not bound to a workplace and thus perform their tasks in a variety of public and private spaces. As a result, they are at risk of several forms of gender-based violence. Freelance workers, for example, work from home and are vulnerable to domestic violence, while riders in the delivery sector are also subjected to sexual harassment on the streets (Moore, 2018).
This review article aims to bring together the existing scholarship addressing this issue in order to provide a comprehensive overview of (a) the forms of gender-based violence platform workers are subjected to while providing services; (b) the socio-technological factors that shape their vulnerability; (c) the impact that (the risk of) gender-based violence has on platform workers’ well-being; (d) the role platforms play vis-à-vis workers’ safety concerns and experiences of gender-based violence; and (e) the ways in which platform workers respond to and resist this violence. To that end, I have searched through a database of 175 studies examining the platform economy with gender perspective, published between 2016 and 2023, and identified 39 empirical studies that discuss gender-based violence in the context of platform work. I have used the qualitative data analysis software Atlas.ti to manually code the texts, categorizing the data into inductively generated conceptual categories (Leavy, 2007).
The main findings of the review are that platform workers across sectors are vulnerable to gender-based violence, especially those at the intersection of several axes of subordination; that platforms’ technological features, notably algorithmic management, information asymmetry, and in-built reputation and tracking systems, exacerbate the risk of gender-based violence; that (fear of) gender-based violence limits women’s access to platform work and the economic benefits derived from it; that most platforms lack effective preventative and redressal mechanisms against violence; and that, faced with platforms’ inaction, workers adopt individual and collective measures to address (the risk of) gender-based violence in platform work.
The analysis also evidences the need for more research that adopts an intersectional perspective to address the ways in which “the violence that many women experience is often shaped by other dimensions of their identities” (Crenshaw, 1991, p. 1242). While some studies already consider race, class/caste, ability, age, religion, and/or migrant status, no research to date has examined how sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression compound platform workers’ experiences of gender-based violence. The review has also identified the need for a comprehensive examination of the physical and psychological impact of gender-based violence on platform workers. These research gaps can provide important avenues for future research. The ultimate goal of this review article is to lay the groundwork for the development of a conceptual framework that can help scholars, platforms, and policymakers better understand, and take action against, gender-based violence in the context of the Future of Work.
Method
The basis for the literature review is a database of research articles, book chapters, books, reports, and conference papers examining platform work with gender perspective that I co-compiled as part of the project “Gender equality qualities of the platform economy. A framework of analysis” (Digital Gender, PID2020-115065RB-I00), funded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation of the Government of Spain (Galan Julve & Segura Heras, 2023). The database includes a total of 175 sources in English, Spanish, Catalan, and German published between 2016 and 2023. For the creation of the database, we used the search terms “platform work” OR “platform economy” OR “gig economy” AND “gender” as well as “platform work” OR “platform economy” OR “gig economy” AND “women” in Google Scholar. We chose this platform instead of Web of Science or Scopus to conduct a more expansive search that included articles in both indexed and non-indexed journals, books and book chapters, reports, conference papers, and preprints. This decision was motivated by the desire to gain a deeper understanding of and capture emerging research trends within what is still a relatively new field of study. Once selected, we read the results’ abstracts to confirm their suitability. If unclear, we conducted a full-text search to make sure the document included substantive references to either gender or women’s participation in the platform economy. Sources were discarded if 1) they only reported variations between men and women (i.e., in terms of wage distribution or participation rates in the platform economy) but did not elaborate on the reasons behind these differences from a gender perspective, or 2) if they only referred to gender as a variable (alongside others like class, ethnicity, religion, etc.) but did not take it as a category of analysis. We complemented the list with references cited in the selected documents, resulting in a total of 175 sources. Of these, we could only retrieve the full text of 170 documents.
For the present review, I uploaded the 170 full-text documents to Atlas.ti and did a text search using the terms “violence” OR “harassment” OR “assault” OR “safety” OR “rape.” For practical reasons, I limited my search to documents written in English. This constitutes the main limitation of the review article, as this criterion introduces a language bias that can lead to the omission of valuable research published in other languages. Next, I manually coded the paragraphs that included one of these terms with the relevant concept as a placeholder for further analysis. Then, I revised the selected documents to ensure that the coded paragraphs referred to gender-based violence in platform work and deleted the codes when they did not. Examples of the latter were instances in which “safety” appeared in relation to discussions about the “safety net” or the health prevention measures adopted in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic (i.e., masking) as well as references to gender-based violence that were not specific to platform work. Over the course of this revision, I also finetuned the coding by replacing the placeholder terms (“violence,” “harassment,” “assault,” “safety,” and “rape”) with inductively generated conceptual categories (Leavy, 2007). I reviewed the documents in chronological order of publication to understand how discussions of gender-based violence in platform work evolved over time and checked for additional references that had not been identified during the search. This resulted in a total of 71 documents, including 5 new ones that I added to the original database.
For the purpose of this review article, I selected those studies (a) that were based on empirical research and (b) in which gender-based violence was discussed using empirical data (instead of, for example, drawing on existing literature or making inferences from the prevalence of similar forms of violence in sectors such as domestic work), regardless of whether gender-based violence was a central aspect or just one element of the research. It is worth noting that scholarship examining gender-based violence in platform work as the main focus of analysis is very scarce (Ma et al., 2022; Stringhi, 2022) due to the relative newness of this form of work; the difficulties in accessing the target populations, particularly in the context of online work; and the general problem of underreporting with regard to gender-based violence (European Institute for Gender Equality, 2021; Kaine et al., 2020; Moore, 2018). Studies were excluded if their examination of gender-based violence in platform work, albeit based on empirical data, did not provide any substantive insight that contributed to the discussion.
These additional inclusion/exclusion criteria reduced the sample to 39 documents, distributed as follows: 19 journal articles, 13 reports, 6 book chapters, and 1 conference paper. With regard to year distribution, as Figure 1 shows, the selected documents were published between 2016 and 2023, with very few publications in the period 2016 to 2019, a progressive growth in 2020 and 2021 (n = 3 and n = 5, respectively), a spike in interest in 2022 (n = 21), and a stabilization in 2023 (n = 6). The 2022 increase can be explained by the publication of two special issues and an edited volume focused on platform work with gender perspective (Blanchard et al., 2022; Fuster Morell, 2022; Rani et al., 2022).
Year distribution of the selected documents.
In the section that follows, I provide an overview of the selected studies and reflect on how they address diversity in platform work. Next, I discuss the main themes that emerge from the analysis, organized around five subjects: (a) Multidimensional vulnerability; (b) Socio-technological factors; (c) Impact on workers’ well-being; (d) Platform accountability; and (e) Workers’ responses and resistance. To that end, I focus on the selected studies while contextualizing their findings in relation to the broader (non-empirical) literature discussing gender-based violence in platform work. I conclude by identifying the implications for practice, policy, and research that emerge from this scholarship.
Results
Overview of the Selected Studies
The 39 selected documents include a diversity of methods and cover a variety of platform work sectors with a broad geographical focus. The majority of sources (n = 28, 71.8%) employ qualitative methods, including life histories, participant observation, individual and group interviews as well as focus groups with platform workers, interviews with key informants (platform and union representatives, workers’ organizations, researchers, policymakers, journalists, etc.), cyberethnographic methods (observation of platforms’ forums and platform workers’ online communities), content analysis of platforms’ materials, and action-research methods. Only two sources (5.1%) employ solely quantitative methods, namely phone or online surveys. The rest (n = 9, 23.1%) use a mixed-methods approach that combines qualitative and quantitative methods.
While some documents examine platform work in general, most sources focus on one or several sectors in particular (see Figure 2). Of these, ride-hailing is the most examined sector (n = 11), a fact that reflects what academics have referred to as the “uberization” of scholarship on platform work (Kampouri, 2022; Rathi & Tandon, 2021; Ticona & Mateescu, 2018; Ticona et al., 2018). Delivery, a sector that together with ride-hailing is perceived as highly masculinized (Kaine et al., 2020), as well as domestic work, which is conversely a predominantly feminized sector (European Institute for Gender Equality, 2021; Ghosh et al., 2021; Picot & Spath, 2020), are next in line (n = 9). Two other highly feminized sectors, beauty work and care work, are also prominently represented in the literature (n = 8 and n = 4, respectively). Other sectors examined in the selected studies are household services and sex work (n = 2) as well as freelance work and accommodation sharing (n = 1). With regard to sex work, this focus should be situated within sex work scholars’ increased demand to have online sexual labor recognized as a form of digital labor (Levitt, 2021; Rand, 2019; Rand & Stegeman, 2023).
Platform work sector(s) covered in the selected documents.
In terms of geographical scope, as Figure 3 shows, the selected studies provide a wide range of country perspectives, thus contributing to mitigate what has long been perceived as a “scarcity of research on gendered precarious gig work in the global South” (Kwan, 2022a, p. 555). Perhaps surprisingly, more than half of the selected studies (n = 25, 64.1%) examine one or several countries in the Global South, while less than a fourth (n = 9, 23.1%) focus solely on countries in the Global North. The remaining studies either compare case studies in the Global North and the Global South (n = 3) or have a global scope altogether (n = 2). With regard to regions, Asia is the most represented (n = 15), followed by Latin America (n = 13), Africa (n = 12), Europe (n = 9), North America (n = 6), and Australia (n = 1). As for the examined countries, the most popular case studies are India (n = 12), the USA and South Africa (n = 5), Argentina (n = 4), as well as Kenya, Mexico, and the UK (n = 3).
Country distribution of the selected documents.
Besides geographical heterogeneity, a substantial number of the selected studies also incorporate diversity in their analysis through the adoption of an intersectional perspective that is attentive to the ways in which “patterns of subordination intersect in women’s experience” of violence (Crenshaw, 1991, p. 1249): Ticona et al. (2018) and Chibanda et al. (2022) examine the intersection of gender and race when discussing safety risks in ride-hailing, care work, and domestic work in the USA and South Africa, respectively. Maier and Gilchrist (2022) look at how gender intersects with class in their study of gendered vulnerability among Airbnb hosts in the UK. Kwan (2022a, 2022b) focuses on the heightened risk suffered by ride-hailing platform workers in China, with a special focus on women who are migrant, working-class, and single mothers. Hidalgo Cordero (2022, p. 182) examines the “xenophobia, engendered racism, and racialised sexism” suffered by migrant women delivery workers in Ecuador. Stringhi (2022) discusses how race and religion interact with gender in cases of cyberharassment in the freelance platform Upwork. Finally, Coombes et al. (2022) center their research on the experiences of platform sex workers with a disability. These examples powerfully reflect the extent to which vulnerability to gender-based violence in the platform economy is shaped by workers’ positionality within the matrix of domination (Collins, 1990). In the sections that follow, I discuss the main questions that emerge from the selected studies, with a focus on these intersectional questions.
Main Themes
The analysis of the literature has resulted in the identification of five main themes, which I examine in detail below:
Multidimensional Vulnerability to Gender-Based Violence in Platform Work
Studies concur that there is a research gap as well as a dearth of data regarding, on the one hand, the incidence and prevalence of gender-based violence in platform work and, on the other hand, the forms this violence takes (Kwan, 2022b; Ma et al., 2022; see also Athreya, 2021; European Institute for Gender Equality, 2020, 2021; Kaine et al., 2020; Moore, 2018). Early academic engagements with this question responded to sensationalist media reporting on incidents of sexual harassment and assault committed by ride-hailing drivers and accommodation-sharing hosts (Schoenbaum, 2016; Tarife, 2017; for a discussion of this narrative, see Fairwork, 2023; Kampouri, 2022). Later scholarship increasingly focused on platform workers as victims—and not perpetrators—of gender-based violence, shedding light on the “heightened vulnerabilities” that put them at risk of sexual harassment and assault (Kaine et al., 2020, p. 129). These can be divided into two sets of factors, one derived from platform work’s working conditions and the other related to platform workers’ intersectional subordination.
Platform Work’s Working Conditions
As many of the selected studies point out, platform workers often perform their services in intimate and isolated spaces, such as the inside of a car in the case of ride-hailing or customers’ homes in the case of domestic, care, and beauty work (Fairwork, 2023; Hunt et al., 2019; Micha, Poggi, Pereyra, 2022; Mullagee et al., 2022; Ticona et al., 2018). Wiesböck et al. (2023, p. 5) document how domestic platform workers in Austria are propositioned for sexual favors while performing their tasks in clients’ homes as well as other related experiences, such as requests for cleaning “naked, in shorts, underwear, or tights, (. . .) constantly being stared at while working, clients openly talking about sexual fantasies, invitations to have drinks together, and clients asking them to move in with them.”
Other sectors like delivery also present risks. As Centeno Maya et al. (2022, p. 612) note, delivery platform workers in Mexico suffer harassment from the staff of the businesses where they pick up the orders, co-workers, and customers, who sometimes receive them “in underwear, naked, or with the penis exposed.” Similar situations are also described by Bailur et al. (2022) with regard to South Africa and seem to be common in other national contexts as well (see European Institute for Gender Equality, 2020, for the case of Spain). Delivery platform workers spend a sizable amount of their working time on the streets, and thus they are also exposed to public sexual harassment and sexist insults questioning their legitimacy to occupy public space (Hidalgo Cordero, 2022; Popan & Anaya-Boig, 2022). This situation is even more acute in countries with high violence rates, where the fear of sexual harassment coexists with other safety concerns, including the risk of robbery, assault, and even femicide (Centeno Maya et al., 2022; Hunt et al., 2019; Micha, Poggi, Pereyra, 2022).
Online platform work is not devoid of gender-based violence, rather the contrary. As Stringhi (2022) documents, Upwork freelance workers report cyberstalking and harassment in the platform’s “Community Discussions” forum, often perpetrated via email and through the webcam. These forms of gender-based violence sometimes turn into other types of cyberviolence, including verbal abuse, cyberbullying, hate speech, and threats (Bailur et al., 2022; Stringhi, 2022). As the European Institute for Gender Equality (2021) more generally remarks, workers’ growing reliance on new technologies to perform their tasks puts them at an increased risk of cyberharassment, cyberbullying, and data theft.
Alongside the spaces in which platform work takes place, time also plays a central role in determining risk. As several of the selected studies report, platform workers try to avoid night shifts for fear of sexual harassment and assault (Bailur et al., 2022; Fairwork, 2023; Ghosh et al., 2021, 2022; Hunt et al., 2019; Macdonald, 2021; Micha, Pereyra, Poggi, 2022; Micha, Poggi, Pereyra, 2022). Moreover, according to a respondent in Ghosh et al. (2021, p. 35), platform workers feel safer to respond to sexual harassment if it happens during the day, whereas “if it is at night, then we have to just listen quietly” to avoid escalating the incident. Hunt et al. (2019) also report South African platform workers’ concern with early starts, as many jobs take place in residential areas far from workers’ neighborhoods, forcing them to leave home before sunrise when the risk of suffering armed robberies and other forms of violence is higher. The above findings are consistent with the International Labor Organization (ILO)’s identification of unsocial working hours; working alone, in relative isolation, or in remote locations; and working in intimate spaces and private homes as conditions that heighten the risk of physical and psychosocial violence and harassment in digitalized work (Moore, 2018).
Platform Workers’ Intersectional Subordination
As mentioned above, several of the selected studies shed light on how platform workers’ positionality alongside the axes of gender, race, class/caste, ability, age, and migrant status shapes their vulnerability to gender-based violence. As Crenshaw (1991, p. 1249) has extensively documented, intersectional subordination is “the consequence of the imposition of one burden that interacts with preexisting vulnerabilities to create yet another dimension of disempowerment.” The main insights in this regard are the following:
Gender
Despite the scarcity of quantitative data regarding gender-based violence in platform work, a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center (2021) in the USA found that, while 19% of the surveyed platform workers declared having sometimes or often experienced unwanted sexual advances at work, women were more likely than men (22% vs. 15%) to report such experiences. This data corroborates qualitative studies’ observation that both men and women platform workers suffer sexual harassment, albeit women are subjected to gender-based violence more often and in larger proportions than men (Fairwork, 2023). As a result, the selected studies largely focus on women platform workers’ experiences of violence. While Fairwork (2023) does refer to “gender minorities” throughout the report, no specific data is provided regarding sexual harassment and assault beyond the man-woman binary.
Race
The Pew Research Center (2021) also shows that platform workers of color (“non-white” in the original) experienced unwanted sexual advances at work more often than white platform workers (24% vs. 13%). This quantitative data is aligned with more qualitative observations according to which gender and race “shape workers’ vulnerability to unsafe working conditions” (Ticona et al., 2018, p. 3; see also Minnotte & Legerski, 2019 for an examination of racialized sexual harassment at work). This is particularly salient in countries with legacies of racial segregation, such as the USA and South Africa, where gender-based and racist violence often co-occur (Chibanda et al., 2022; Hunt et al., 2019; Sibiya & Du Toit, 2022; Ticona et al., 2018).
Age
The Pew Research Center (2021) report also highlights that platform workers between the ages of 18 to 29 are those who had experienced unwanted sexual advances at work the most (25% vs. 7% for those above 65). This is in agreement with Salvagni et al.’s (2022, p. 715) findings from the delivery cooperative Las Mercedes in Spain, a member of which noted: “We are older women and we are old enough and we are not harassed on the streets.” At times, however, old age can be related to heightened feelings of vulnerability, as reflected in Maier and Gilchrist (2022)’s study of female Airbnb hosts in the UK.
Class/Caste
Hunt et al. (2019) shed light on the safety risks incurred by working-class platform workers in South Africa, who rely on public transportation to bridge the long distances between the townships where they live and their customers’ residential complexes. In addition, Anjali Anwar et al. (2021) examine how class and caste hierarchies shape beauty platform workers’ experiences of gender-based violence in India.
Ability
Coombes et al. (2022) discuss disabled sex workers’ increased vulnerability to violence in a context marked by heightened platform liability under the framework of the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA/SESTA), while Maier and Gilchrist (2022) examine the risks experienced by physically impaired elderly female Airbnb hosts.
Migrant Status
Hidalgo Cordero (2022, p. 182) describes how Venezuelan women delivery workers in Ecuador are subjected to more intense sexual harassment as a result of their “hypersexualisation, eroticisation and exoticization” in Ecuadorian culture. As several studies point out, migrant platform workers who endure gender-based violence are also less likely to report these experiences because of language barriers and fear of institutional control (Mullagee et al., 2022; Wiesböck et al., 2023).
Platform workers’ intersectional subordination often involves a combination of preexisting vulnerabilities, as reflected in Maier and Gilchrist’s (2022) research on female Airbnb hosts at the intersection of class, age, and ability in the UK as well as in Kwan’s (2022a, 2022b) study of working-class, migrant, single-mother ride-hailing platform workers in China. As Kwan (2022a, p. 562) notes, these women often have to “risk their health and safety to make ends meet,” as they cannot afford to prioritize personal security and well-being in their work-related decisions.
Notwithstanding the increasing adoption of intersectional approaches, the reviewed studies present important limitations in this regard. Firstly, despite growing evidence of transgender individuals’ heightened vulnerability to gender-based violence (European Institute for Gender Equality, 2020; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2024; Minnotte & Legerski, 2019), gender identity seldom appears in the literature (for an exception, see Fairwork, 2023; Salvagni et al., 2022) and is never discussed in relation to violence. It is also noteworthy that none of the reviewed articles considers sexual orientation or gender expression, two elements that warrant greater scholarly attention in future research (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2024).
Socio-Technological Factors Shaping Workers’ Vulnerability
Common among the selected studies is the conviction that technology is not gender-neutral, but biased in a way that exacerbates the risk of gender-based violence for platform workers (Ma et al., 2022; Mateescu & Ticona, 2020). In particular, Ma et al. (2022) discuss how “gender-agnostic” platforms ultimately have a detrimental effect on women, as “platforms’ designs treat men workers’ experiences as the norm and are blind to women’s realities.” While not actively discriminating on the basis of gender, these decisions ultimately “create unfair outcomes for women” (Ma et al., 2022). This is not exclusive to the platform economy but mirrors the gender bias that is embedded in other socio-technological innovations, such as artificial intelligence, “reflecting and amplifying broader societal norms and the views and personal biases of those who design these systems” (European Institute for Gender Equality, 2021, p. 12). Within this framework, algorithmic management methods, information asymmetry, the need for constant reputation management, and platforms’ tracking systems are generally identified as major drivers of vulnerability in platform work, as detailed below.
Algorithmic Management
As numerous studies reflect, platforms’ use of algorithms to determine visibility, job allocation, and deactivation decisions has negative consequences for workers’ safety (Caribou Digital, 2022; De Vita, 2023; Dhar & Thuppilikkat, 2022; Fairwork, 2023; Ma et al., 2022; Sibiya & Du Toit, 2022). This is more clearly manifest in the ride-hailing and delivery sectors, where platforms algorithmically dispatch gigs based on certain performance metrics. While these are never clearly communicated, workers believe that their cancellation rates impact access to future gigs and thus act accordingly to avoid being penalized, even if this means putting themselves at increased risk of gender-based violence (Fairwork, 2023). Perceptions of danger are aggravated by the fact that customers have to undergo either none or less stringent background checks than workers (Chibanda et al., 2022; Kasliwal, 2020; Rand & Stegeman, 2023; Rizk et al., 2018).
Information Asymmetry
Visibility is central in care, domestic, and beauty work platforms, as it affects the chances of being selected for a gig (Mateescu & Ticona, 2020). Thus, while both workers and customers have to create a profile in order to use the platform, workers are compelled to include pictures and personal information to be more appealing to potential customers (Ravanera, 2019; Wiesböck et al., 2023). This de facto obligation of visibility renders workers vulnerable to sexual harassment if this information is publicly available (Ghosh et al., 2022; Mateescu & Ticona, 2020; Popan & Anaya-Boig, 2022). In contrast, customers are not similarly obliged to provide information about themselves or, if they are, it is usually not accessible to workers as a way to ensure platform dependence (Wiesböck et al., 2023). This “information asymmetry” hinders workers’ ability to determine potential risk and forces them to make uninformed decisions when accepting a gig (Caribou Digital, 2022; Fairwork, 2023; Hunt et al., 2019; Rathi & Tandon, 2021; Ticona et al., 2018; Wiesböck et al., 2023).
Platforms’ Reputation Systems
Algorithmic decisions on questions like visibility, work allocation, payment rates, etc. are also determined by workers’ ratings in the platforms’ in-built reputation systems. Customers are requested to rate workers on their performance after the completion of a gig, and sometimes even if no agreement was reached. This is the case of the domestic work platforms Betreut.at and Haushaltshilfe24 in Austria, discussed by Wiesböck et al. (2023, p. 6), in which “all users registered as clients are enabled to rate domestic workers based on a five-star rating system—regardless of whether they booked their cleaning service or not.” As a result, any potential customer wields significant power over any worker on the platform. While some platforms—like Uber and Lyft in the ride-hailing sector—allow workers to rate customers as well, others—like Care.com in the care work sector—do not (Hunt et al., 2019; Ticona et al., 2018; Wiesböck et al., 2023), thus establishing unequal power dynamics that foster impunity for gender-based violence (Fairwork, 2023). Even with a two-sided rating system in place, platform workers’ need for constant reputation management renders them vulnerable to violence. Fear of bad reviews thwarts their ability to respond to harassment and may force them to comply with customers’ demands, as low ratings can lead to deactivation and thus threaten workers’ economic sustenance (Fairwork, 2023; Ma et al., 2022; Macdonald, 2021; Sibiya & Du Toit, 2022; Ticona et al., 2018).
Regardless of the rating system, the need to accrue reputation forces platform workers to take risks and accept gigs perceived as dangerous (Centeno Maya et al., 2022). These “trade-offs between safety and reputation” are particularly consequential for marginalized workers at the intersection of gender, race, class, age, ability, and migrant status (Ticona et al., 2018, p. 3; see also Kwan, 2022a; Ma et al., 2022; Maier & Gilchrist, 2022). As Kwan (2022a) documents, working-class, migrant women employed in ride-hailing in China accept gigs in remote areas and in the late night, despite safety concerns, to reap additional bonus points that will help them secure a good reputation on the platform.
Platforms’ Tracking Systems
The tracking of ride-hailing and delivery workers’ movements using GPS data is another factor that, according to Fairwork (2023, pp. 23–24), poses a risk to workers, “as they can be targeted at any time.” Platform surveillance in general, however, is perceived positively by workers in some of the selected studies. Rizk et al. (2018, p. 54) explain that ride-hailing drivers in Egypt felt “protected by the fact that the application used a GPS system and that their location could be shared and tracked.” Similarly, Sibiya and Du Toit (2022, p. 651) discuss how domestic workers with the platform SweepSouth in South Africa felt reassured by the requirement to “check in on the app when arriving at clients’ homes and check out on the app when done.” Finally, Anjali Anwar et al. (2021, p. 11) describe “the presence of the platform gaze as an omnipresent safety monitor” for beauty platform workers in India. More broadly, some workers perceive digital platforms as safe spaces compared to job boards like Craigslist as well as more traditional instantiations of similar occupations, like taxi driving (Ticona et al., 2018). The paradoxical perception of platform surveillance as desirable and the question of whether this form of governance is replacing or, instead, reproducing patriarchal forms of protection and control (as suggested by Anjali Anwar et al., 2021; Rathi & Tandon, 2021) deserve further consideration in future research.
The Impact of (the Risk of) Gender-Based Violence in Platform Work
Some of the selected studies discuss the impact of gender-based violence on platform workers’ well-being. This includes a more extensive examination of how the risk of gender-based violence affects workers and a more limited engagement with the consequences of being exposed to this violence. With regard to the former, Hunt et al. (2019, p. 43) recognize safety concerns as “a key barrier to the recruitment and retention of women drivers on ride-hailing platforms” (see also Chibanda et al., 2022). Similarly, Rathi and Tandon (2021) identify sexual harassment as one of the factors contributing to women’s exclusion from the platform economy in India. In line with these questions, Anjali Anwar et al. (2021) examine how the risk of gender-based violence is brandished by family members to limit beauty workers’ access to platform work in India (see also Dhar & Thuppilikkat, 2022; Ghosh et al., 2022). Similarly, Bailur et al. (2022, p. 34) discuss how “narratives of exploitation, harassment by customers, safety and security concerns” thwart women’s access to the platform economy in Kenya.
To promote women’s entry and permanence in platform work, especially in masculinized sectors like ride-hailing, several platforms have developed features that match women workers with women customers. Examples of this trend include Uber’s launch of the application Uber Ellas in Argentina (Micha, Poggi, Pereyra, 2022), Ola’s introduction of Ola Pink in India (Ghosh et al., 2021), and Didi’s women-friendly policy at night in China (Kwan, 2022b). In parallel, new platforms have emerged that cater to a women-only public, like Sakha Cabs in India (Ghosh et al., 2021). While these initiatives address some of the concerns preventing women from entering the platform economy, several studies point out that they exacerbate gender segregation and further the belief that the platform economy is dangerous for women (Fairwork, 2023; Rizk et al., 2018). These measures also have the detrimental effect of diminishing platform workers’ earning opportunities, as they effectively reduce the customer pool based on gender preference (Fairwork, 2023). Moreover, as Hiramatsu (2022) highlights with regard to Mexico, women-only transport only offers individualized solutions to gender-based violence without contributing to solve the problem.
Even when women enter platform work, the risk of gender-based violence curtails their potential earnings. A major component of algorithmic management is the use of gamification techniques that encourage workers to perform their services at certain times and in certain places through the use of “dynamic” or “surge” pricing as well as bonuses and other incentives (Centeno Maya et al., 2022; Fairwork, 2023). In the case of ride-hailing, for example, workers are rewarded if they drive in the evenings, nights, and weekends as well as in areas with restaurants, pubs, and nightclubs. These are precisely the times and places that women platform workers perceive as unsafe due to, among others, increased alcohol consumption (Fairwork, 2023; Ghosh et al., 2022; Micha, Poggi, Pereyra, 2022).
The situation is similar in other sectors. As Micha, Pereyra, Poggi (2022) document, women platform workers in the ride-hailing and delivery sectors in the Buenos Aires Metropolitan Area work fewer night shifts than men (33% vs. 51%). Thus, those who ‘choose’ not to work because of safety concerns suffer disproportionate financial consequences. This factor, alongside others like women’s greater care responsibilities, contributes to widen the gender pay gap in the platform economy (Micha, Poggi, Pereyra, 2022; see also European Institute for Gender Equality, 2020; Rani et al., 2022).
Nonetheless, many platform workers—particularly those at the intersection of gender, race, class, migrant status, etc.—do not have the privilege of choice, and have to relinquish their safety to ensure economic survival (Fairwork, 2023; Ghosh et al., 2021). If, however, during the performance of their work they cancel a ride or reject an order (i.e., because the customer is intoxicated or it is in an area where they have suffered harassment before), they face negative consequences that can range from a lowering of their rating to the charging of commissions, temporary blocking or, in extreme cases, deactivation from the platform (Centeno Maya et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2022). In other cases, as Stringhi (2022) documents, it is women workers who decide to leave the platform following an incident of gender-based violence due to the lack of appropriate redressal mechanisms.
Even though the selected studies focus mostly on the economic consequences of gender-based violence in platform work, Ma et al. (2022) also shed light on its psychological impact, albeit still in relation to lost income: “Lost access to work does not only come from platform deactivation but also from time spent recovering after a traumatic experience, such as harassment.” This situation is compounded by platform workers’ limited or lack of access to healthcare benefits, as the overwhelming majority of platforms engage workers as independent contractors, not employees (Dhar & Thuppilikkat, 2022; Ghosh et al., 2022; Kasliwal, 2020; Rathi & Tandon, 2021). Under these circumstances, not all platform workers can afford to take time off, as many are financially dependent on gigs and “have to keep working in distress with no time to recover” (Ma et al., 2022). This point is also emphasized by Centeno Maya et al. (2022, p. 612), who explain that women delivery workers in Mexico have to prioritize delivering orders to avoid being punished by the platform, “pushing their well-being to the background.” In line with these considerations, future scholarship should consider the physical and psychological effects of gender-based violence on workers’ well-being from a holistic perspective that goes beyond economic factors.
Platform Accountability vis-à-vis Gender-Based Violence
Most of the selected studies reflect workers’ discontent with the ways in which platforms act to prevent and address gender-based violence in platform work. A common complaint refers to the lack of effective measures to reduce the risk of violence at work. As mentioned before, background checks are often required from workers only. Moreover, many platforms’ preventative measures are limited to a list of safety tips, without acknowledging that power asymmetries thwart workers’ ability to enforce them (Ma et al., 2022; Ticona et al., 2018).
In cases of gender-based violence, report procedures are often opaque and with unclear consequences for victims and perpetrators (Centeno Maya et al., 2022; Tandon & Sekharan, 2022; Ticona et al., 2018). On this question, Stringhi (2022, pp. 14–16) provides a detailed examination of Upwork’s “flaws and inefficiencies” when addressing gender-based violence, including automatic and delayed responses from the support team, lack of clear instructions about how to proceed, and the platform putting the burden of proof on freelance workers (see also Bansal, 2023). As the testimonials show, workers have found themselves blocked out of the platform in the middle of harassment claims (for example, if the perpetrator flags them), while Upwork does not “assume any obligation . . . to implement removal requests” in cases of gender-based violence (Stringhi, 2022, p. 18). In other sectors, as well, flagged customers are not blocked out of the platform (Fairwork, 2023) or, if they are, they can “easily rejoin by creating a new profile” (Caribou Digital, 2022, p. 23). Moreover, as Ma et al. (2022) explain with regard to ride-hailing, workers feel powerless due to the absence of explicit guidelines clarifying “when it is okay to cancel a ride or ask someone to step out of the car.” In addition, if they want to report an incident, they are responsible for producing evidence (i.e., camera footage) to substantiate their case (Ma et al., 2022).
It is common that platforms—either explicitly or tacitly—consider harassment claims as “a ‘dispute’ [that] must be resolved independently by the two parties,” thus leaving workers to manage these situations on their own (Kasliwal, 2020, p. 6; see also Caribou Digital, 2022). This detachment can be explained by platforms’ resistance to classify workers as employees and their self-presentation as mere mediators between independent contractors who offer services and customers who request them, a position that allows them to eschew labor rights and protections, as discussed above (Dhar & Thuppilikkat, 2022; Ghosh et al., 2022; Kasliwal, 2020; Rathi & Tandon, 2021). Platform workers experience this non-interventionist stance with bitterness, as expressed by a beauty platform worker interviewed by Ghosh et al. (2021, p. 36): “They should put a disclaimer—that they really don’t care about your safety.” Despite the generalized feeling that platforms lack effective redressal systems, Ticona et al. (2018, p. 41) explain that many workers still prefer to operate within their purview, as they would otherwise “lose the ability to leverage the weak forms of accountability available to them” in case anything happened.
Safety concerns in platform work have increasingly pushed platforms to adopt measures to address this issue. As mentioned above, a common response has been the provision of women-only services in ride-hailing. Similar actions, documented by Fairwork (2023), include Swiggy’s blocking of women workers’ access to the delivery platform after 6 pm in India as well as the program “Lady Grab” in Indonesia, which directed ride-hailing women workers to package and food delivery orders as a way to shield them from prolonged contact with customers. These measures have been largely deemed inadequate, as they promote gender segregation and ultimately limit women’s potential earnings (Fairwork, 2023).
To respond to women workers’ safety concerns, some platforms have also developed dedicated technological solutions, such as panic buttons integrated into the platform’s app (Anjali Anwar et al., 2021; Chaudhary, 2020; Ghosh et al., 2021; Kasliwal, 2020; Ma et al., 2022). While some respondents in the selected studies have welcomed this initiative (Caribou Digital, 2022; Ghosh et al., 2021), others have relativized its effectiveness. Ma et al.’s (2022) interviewees, for example, note that “by the time hitting the panic button takes effect and a police officer arrives, the damage has most likely already happened,” and thus opt instead for trying to de-escalate the situation. Relatedly, Fairwork’s (2023, p. 23) testimonies reflect a reluctance to use this feature due to the conviction that “involving law enforcement could potentially aggravate an already dangerous situation.” More generally, police intervention poses a threat to undocumented migrant platform workers, who fear harassment and deportation if detained (Mullagee et al., 2022; Wiesböck et al., 2023).
Unlike the removed position discussed above, some platforms act as “strong intermediaries” (Rathi & Tandon, 2021, p. 50) by proactively addressing gender-based violence. These are mostly small, women-run, NGO-related, workers-owned, and/or family-owned start-up companies (De Vita, 2023; Ghosh et al., 2021). With regard to India, Ghosh et al. (2021) highlight the ride-hailing platform Sakha Cabs and the Azad Foundation’s Women on Wheels program as well as the beauty work platforms Beautyglad and Lookplex, which adopt gender-sensitive measures such as providing immediate support, accompaniment, and counseling in case of danger, taxi services to drop/pick up beauty workers from customers’ homes, and specific training on safety issues, including self-defense classes. Among major platforms, Uber has partnered in Egypt with the anti-sexual-harassment non-profit initiative HarassMap to train drivers on how to identify and respond to sexual harassment as well as staff on how to deal with harassment complaints (Rizk et al., 2018). In India, the beauty work platform Urban Company has created an in-house Trust & Safety and Law Enforcement Response Team to manage all safety-related issues (Chaudhary, 2020). In South Africa, the domestic work platform SweepSouth continuously monitors workers’ activities via the app to ensure their safe arrival and departure from bookings and has set up response mechanisms in case they feel unsafe at work (Sibiya & Du Toit, 2022).
While these are all important and necessary measures, they fail to address the structural causes that render platform workers vulnerable to gender-based violence in the first place. In this regard, a more sustainable and transformative approach is offered by the women-founded food delivery platform Takeve in Italy. As De Vita (2023) documents, the platform equips riders with a wristband that, if activated, sets off an audible alarm, has a contactless delivery system that reduces exposure, and offers workers a space where they can rest and use the toilet between deliveries. As part of the company’s gendered approach, a percentage of every Takeve delivery is automatically donated to non-profit organizations working against gender-based violence (De Vita, 2023). More importantly, all riders have a work contract and their wages are not tied to the number of deliveries they complete, which crucially “eliminate[s] many of the elements of insecurity and risk associated with this profession” (De Vita, 2023, p. 10). Future research should further document examples of best practices in different sectors, especially those which depart from individualized solutions that put the burden on workers and, instead, contribute to reducing the precariousness inherent to platform work.
Platform Workers’ Responses and Resistance to (the Risk of) Gender-Based Violence
As discussed above, workers generally perceive platforms as indifferent toward their safety and regard protection as their individual responsibility (Dhar & Thuppilikkat, 2022; Ghosh et al., 2021; Rand & Stegeman, 2023; Rizk et al., 2018). This viewpoint is enhanced by the platform economy’s “individualization” of work and its promotion of a neoliberal entrepreneurial self adept at risk management (Ghosh et al., 2021, p. 2). In the absence of comprehensive worker-centered policies against gender-based violence, the selected studies document a diversity of strategies, both individual and collective, that platform workers develop to address their safety concerns and respond to violence at work.
Alongside the self-imposed restrictions mentioned above (i.e., avoid working at night or in remote areas, reject gigs from male customers), workers also proactively adopt a range of protective measures to reduce risk. Ticona et al. (2018, p. 36), for example, explain how care and domestic platform workers in the USA do their “digital homework” to vet customers on Google and social media and, if possible, talk to them on the phone to reduce uncertainty before accepting a job (see also Caribou Digital, 2022). Studies also mention that, to feel safer, platform workers share their location with partners and/or family members, have them track their movements, ask them to drop/pick them up from gigs, or even have them accompany them while they undertake work (Caribou Digital, 2022; Centeno Maya et al., 2022; Fairwork, 2023; Ghosh et al., 2021; Mullagee et al., 2022; Rathi & Tandon, 2021; Ticona et al., 2018). As Fairwork (2023, p. 28) warns, however, these measures perpetuate women workers’ dependence on family members and intimates and reduce the economic benefits of platform work, as they require “utilising another human being’s labour for one person’s pay.” Other protective measures include dressing like men as well as carrying pepper spray, red chili powder, hockey sticks, and other self-defense weapons while at work (Fairwork, 2023; Ghosh et al., 2021, 2022).
In addition to these individual actions, platform workers also organize to reduce the risk of gender-based violence and address its consequences. While some women workers participate in gender-aggregated support and solidarity groups on social media and messaging apps such as Facebook and WhatsApp (Hiramatsu, 2022; Rizk et al., 2018), several studies discuss the creation of women-only communities to resist the sexism, minimization of women’s experiences, victim-blaming, and hostility that often pervade these online spaces (Fairwork, 2023; Kwan, 2022a; Ma et al., 2022; Stringhi, 2022). In China, Kwan (2022b, p. 1232) documents how Didi women drivers use WeChat and TikTok to “foster mutual support among one another, share care and create a community of shared responsibilities in the absence of a shared workplace” (see also Kwan, 2022a). In Mexico, ride-hailing and delivery platform workers use women-only WhatsApp groups to provide logistical help, share their frustrations, and post information about available public toilets, areas to avoid, and other useful advice (Centeno Maya et al., 2022; Fairwork, 2023; Popan & Anaya-Boig, 2022). While these “whisper networks” (Komarraju, 2023, p. 94) provide information and support in the absence of platform accountability, they fail to address the structural problems that exacerbate the risk of gender-based violence in platform work (Ticona et al., 2018).
Despite these limitations, women platform workers’ online communities can serve as the springboard for more sustained labor organizing, as evidenced by the 2021 strike of Urban Company’s platform beauty workers in India (Dhar & Thuppilikkat, 2022; Tandon & Sekharan, 2022). As Tandon & Sekharan (2022, p. 697) argue, “such peer networks bred the solidarity and identity formation that underlie the adoption of confrontation tactics to fight for better outcomes in platform work.” Other collective strategies for sustainable change include the creation of women-led platform cooperatives addressing intersectional vulnerabilities in platform work (Kwan, 2022a; Salvagni et al., 2022). An example in this direction is the delivery platform cooperative Señoritas Courier in Brazil, which aims to respond to “structural gendered inequality by instituting more inclusive solutions for women and gender minorities” (Fairwork, 2023, p. 28; see also Salvagni et al., 2022). The examination of these emerging initiatives provides an exciting and productive avenue for future research.
Main Findings and Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research
The main findings are summarized in the following table (see Figure 4):
Main findings and research gaps by theme.
Based on these findings, a series of implications for practice, policy, and research can be derived. Firstly, it is clear that platforms are not gender-neutral spaces, so it is necessary to “‘design-in’ equality, non-discrimination and safety” (Hunt & Machingura, 2016, p. 26; see also Ma et al., 2022; Stringhi, 2022) in ways that acknowledge and address the existing power asymmetries in platform work. While there are clear measures that could be taken to reduce these inequalities (such as adopting a two-way rating system and making customer ratings accessible to workers, see Fairwork, 2023; Hunt et al., 2019), these are manifestly insufficient as long as platform workers have to risk their safety for economic survival. It is only by ensuring social protections and safeguards and guaranteeing fair conditions of work—as the example of Takeve in Italy makes clear (De Vita, 2023)—that platforms can start tackling this problem.
In addition to this structural solution, platforms should incorporate adequate measures to prevent and effective actions to assist workers who have experienced gender-based violence. In particular, they should institute robust dispute-resolution procedures that have “the capability to evaluate all the relevant evidence and provide a neutral third-party arbitrator to whom workers can present their claims” (Maffie & Elias, 2019, p. 22). Platforms, moreover, should move beyond “techno-fixes” that promise quick solutions to complex problems (Fairwork, 2023) and develop, in conversation with workers, comprehensive responses to gender-based violence that do not perpetuate gender segregation and other forms of gender inequality.
In terms of policymaking, governments should play a key role in regulating platform work, both through the establishment of a code of conduct and the regular monitoring of its implementation, with clear mechanisms to render platforms accountable in case of inaction or malpractice (Chibanda et al., 2022; Kasliwal, 2020; Stringhi, 2022). Moreover, platform workers should be integrated into policies and programs aimed at ensuring worker safety, including but not limited to those tackling gender-based violence at work (Ghosh et al., 2021; Hunt et al., 2019; Kasliwal, 2020; Maffie & Elias, 2019). More generally, improvements in transportation and infrastructure—i.e., street lighting, access to public toilets, etc. (Bansal, 2023; Ghosh et al., 2021; Ma et al., 2022)—would also contribute to enhancing platform workers’ safety.
In terms of research, there is an urgent need for studies (both quantitative and qualitative) that examine gender-based violence in platform work as the main focus of analysis. In particular, more research is needed on platform workers’ intersectional subordination, especially with regard to sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression, questions on which there is no scholarship to date. More research is also needed on the physical and psychological impact of gender-based violence on platform workers. Finally, future scholarship would greatly benefit from a close examination of the alternative platform models and forms of workers’ organizing that are emerging to transform the conditions that produce vulnerability in platform work.
Conclusions
While data on the incidence and prevalence of gender-based violence in platform work is still very limited, the review of the literature presented above demonstrates that vulnerability to violence is not an exception but rather the norm in the platform economy. As many of the studies show, it is precisely those workers at the intersection of several axes of subordination (gender, race, class/caste, ability, age, religion, migrant status, etc.) who are most at risk of gender-based violence, as they do not have the privilege to choose when, where, and under which conditions to work.
Platforms’ socio-technological features—notably algorithmic management, information asymmetry, and in-built reputation and tracking systems—further exacerbate the risk of gender-based violence. In addition, platforms’ lack of effective preventative and redressal mechanisms—driven by their reluctance to recognize platform workers as employees—further renders workers vulnerable. In response to this inaction, platform workers develop individual and collective strategies to protect themselves. While contributing to improve their working conditions, these measures are insufficient to tackle the structural problem of gender-based violence in platform work.
It is thus crucial for platforms and policymakers to develop concerted actions to address this question from a perspective that, following ILO’s guidelines, departs from traditional ideas of the physical workplace in favor of the concept of “the world of work,” which “recognize[s] and include[s] the broader place of economic activities in an effort to prevent and address sexual harassment” (Ghosh et al., 2021, p. 59). As this review article makes clear, any solution in this direction will have to address, and work to eradicate, both the question of precariousness in platform work and gender inequality in society.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This publication is part of the R+D+i Project “Gender equality qualities of the platform economy. A framework of analysis” (Digital Gender) (concession nr. PID2020-115065RB-I00), funded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation of the Government of Spain MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033/.
