2.1 Introduction
This chapter analyses the ways in which remote work can be regulated to address issues relating to sustainability. This is done by identifying different forms of remote work, and considering what issues they raise with reference to the three economic, environmental and social pillars reflected in the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda, which set out the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015Footnote 1. It is argued that, while it is possible to reconcile remote work with sustainability objectives, it should not be assumed that this will inevitably be the case. Much more needs to be done in regulation of the world of work to achieve this.
Accordingly, the chapter goes on to consider which international institutions have the capacity and mandate to exercise regulatory influence over remote work from a sustainability perspective. This examination bears in mind the procedural as well as substantive facets of a sustainable development agenda. In this context, the chapter analyses the diverse (but arguably interconnected) roles currently played by United Nations (UN) mechanisms and its agencies, including the International Labour Organization (ILO). These are compared and contrasted with the infusion of sustainability into corporate codes of conduct as an aspiration for decent work. It is suggested that the lack of collective worker voice within current corporate social responsibility (CSR) mechanisms and the importance of acknowledging the role of the state could obstruct the participatory approach to “just transitions” advocated by the ILO.
2.2 What Is “Remote Work” for the Purposes of Our Analysis?
For statistical purposes, the International Labour Office (the administrative organ of the ILO) has defined “remote work” broadly as “situations where the work is fully or partly carried out on an alternative worksite other than the default place of work” (ILO 2020: 1). In a subsequent joint “technical brief” issued by the ILO and the World Health Organization (WHO), “telework” has been further defined as “the use of information and communications technology (ICT) – such as desktop computers, laptops, tablets and smartphones – for work that is performed outside the employer’s premises” (ILO/WHO 2021: 1). The brief observes that this can also be termed “e-work” and “remote work”; and that it can take diverse forms. For example: at home, at a secondary workplace designated by an employer, or at “another location”, which could presumably include a library, a coffee shop or even on transport such as a train (ILO/WHO 2021).
“Crowd work” (as a facet of platform work) is another variant of “remote work”, which had become common prior to the pandemic, because of reduced transaction costs for employers and consumers (De Stefano Reference De Stefano, Davidov, Langille and Lester2024: 813). “Crowd work” entails the creation of a system whereby those seeking to supply their services bid for a task on an internet platform and then perform this job online for a set fee in the time they have been allotted (Prassl Reference Prassl2018: 1–12; and De Stefano Reference De Stefano2016). Moreover, the payment made for “on demand” services need not amount to a living wage (De Stefano Reference De Stefano, Davidov, Langille and Lester2024: 813). This kind of work can involve “the offshoring and outsourcing of business services from developed to developing countries using information and communications technologies” (ILO 2010: 1).
There is also increasing demand for “hybrid” work, referring to a combination of remote telework and work “in-person” on the employer’s premises (see also ILO 2020a). Employers often want to ensure that workers are sighted in-person at least one or two days a week to maintain exercise of managerial control and enhance productivity (Ionescu Reference Ionescu, Fülöp, Topor, Duică, Stanescu, Florea, Zamfir and Coman2022).
It is evident that some jobs have to be performed personally, such as physical care and cooking, but remote work is becoming ubiquitous in labour markets across the globe. One key question is how this practice should be regulated in accordance with the fundamental precepts of sustainable development.
2.3 Application of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to the Issue of Remote Work
Initially, telework as a form of remote work was lauded for its contribution to sustainable development, due to reduction of the pollutants associated with travel (White et al. Reference White, Christodoulou, Mackett, Titheridge, Thoreau, Polak, Manzi, Lucas, Lloyd Jones and Allen2010). However, this will be the case only if other aspects of our lifestyles are changed (as outlined by Moos et al. Reference Moos, Andrey and Johnson2006), and even then, seems an unduly limited assessment. Instead, it would make more sense to engage in more detailed interrogation of a range of the SDGs set out in the 2030 Agenda, which requires thinking about the economic, environmental and social objectives that they represent and how they interact, such that “no one is left behind” whether in current or future generations (cf. World Commission on Environment and Development 1987: 51; Novitz Reference Novitz2024: ch 1).
It is worth emphasising that the aims of the 2030 Agenda are numerous, encompassing economic growth and “decent work” in SDG 8, but also protection of the planet, in relation to: agriculture (SDG 2); water (SDG 6); energy (SDG 7); climate change (SDG 13); oceans and seas (SDG 14); as well as ecosystems and biodiversity on land (SDG 15). Further, there are social objectives which have implications for decent work, such as: preventing poverty (SDG 1); promoting health (SDG 3); education (SDG 4); gender equality (SDG 5); industry, innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9); reducing inequalities (SDG 10); aspiring to sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11); and responsible consumption and production (SDG 12). Moreover, important supplementary measures for achievement of the SDGs are set out in SDG 16 (concerned with peace, justice and strong institutions) and SDG 17 (which stresses the importance of global partnerships).
In the context of the COVID pandemic, one of the key objectives for remote work was the preservation of health for those at work (and their families), which can be defended in terms of SDG 3 (Belzunegui-Eraso and Erro-Garcés Reference Belzunegui-Eraso and Erro-Garcés2020), while also having environmental benefits regarding travel (Riggs Reference Riggs2020). Governments, employers and workers (and their representatives), as well as international institutions, now have more extensive policy choices to make regarding why they might enable remote work, the preconditions for doing so, and the ways in which its usage should be regulated.
2.3.1 The Focus on the Employer’s Economic Objectives
Remote work can be presented as an economically sustainable way forward for business, corresponding to ambitions for “economic growth” that foreground SDG 8 and associated goals. See, for example, SDG target 8.1, which seeks to “Sustain per capita economic growth in accordance with national circumstances …” Remote work could even be regarded as a means to achieve target 8.2, which aims to achieve “higher levels of economic productivity through diversification, technological upgrading and innovation, including through a focus on high-value added and labour-intensive sectors”. Arguably, the prevalence of business interests in design of the SDGs is notable here (Pingeot Reference Pingeot2014; Scheyvens et al. Reference Scheyvens, Banks and Hughes2016). However, the desirability of economic growth which involves the ever-increasing expansion of business interests and profits has increasingly been questioned (see for example Zekić Reference Zekić, Bueno, ter Haar and Zekic2024).
The reasons that employers have chosen to continue forms of remote work seem to be primarily economic. Some time prior to the pandemic, it was observed (by Van Horn and Storen Reference Van Horn and Storen2000) that:
Telework programs can … lower overhead expenses for companies… For some firms, telework programs have reduced office space needs. … IBM reported savings of $1 billion on real estate costs from 1992 to 1997… most companies will use telework to save on future real estate costs.
Indeed, the traditional boundaries of the workplace have long been eroding (Tomassetti Reference Tomassetti2018: 63). It is evidently cheaper for an employer to outsource to the worker the onus of finding a place to do their work (Lord Reference Lord2020). The cost of past requirements to provide heating, water coolers, photocopiers and printers are reduced for the employer, but not necessarily for the worker. For example, hikes in expenditure on domestic energy consumption have seldom been addressed, nor have the inefficiencies that they entail (Akgüç et al. Reference Akgüç, Galgóczi, Meil, Countouris, De Stefano, Piasna and Rainone2023: 45–46, 51–53; Shi et al. Reference Shi, Sorrell and Foxon2023).
Pursuit of the economic benefits of remote work by employers has been supplemented by the hybrid work strategies identified above, which seek to enhance worker productivity by expecting part time telework to be combined with some selective physical engagement with the workplace (Licite-Kurbe and Leonovica Reference Licite-Kurbe and Leonovica2021). Hot desking means that office spaces can be smaller (and cheaper), while attendance in the workplace can be rotated. Indications are that such practices can unduly limit worker flexibility and autonomy, but also may have some welcome social effects for workers when they make contact with their colleagues (Dale et al. Reference Dale, Wilson and Tucker2024), arguably in line with psychological health under SDG 3.
The expansion of cf enables employers to subcontract services from one country to be performed in another. This practice can involve payment on an ad hoc piece-rate basis reflecting lower wages in the third country, rather than guaranteeing longer term or higher incomes (Graham and Anwar Reference Graham and Anwar2019: 21–22; ILO 2021: 44, 51). Crowdwork across borders also raises issues relating to time differences in terms of night working, as well as lengthy and often unregulated working time (Novitz Reference Novitz2020a).
In all these ways remote work can be utilised to reduce employers’ costs and the profitability of business, but at the expense of those who perform that work. This does not bode well for sustainable economic growth, which would be expected to aid equality with and between states (SDG 10). There are also other environmental and social sustainability objectives that need to be addressed.
2.3.2 Environmental Sustainability and Remote Work
As regards the environmental effects of remote work, the employer’s carbon footprint might seem to reduce with their costs. For example, in the absence of any demand to attend a workplace, workers’ travel and thereby associated pollutants could diminish. After all, during the pandemic pollution was dramatically reduced if only temporarily (Moglia et al. Reference Moglia, Hopkins and Bardoel2022). SDG 7 (energy) and SDG 13 (climate change) may be relevant here. The problem is, as observed above, that there may also be environmental inefficiencies in the heating, electricity supply and lighting of numerous homes as opposed to one entire workplace. This could be overcome as a problem if the employer permits remote working in other shared public spaces, such as libraries, but that would also depend on their provision by the state (i.e. local or national government).
If remote work is envisaged which is not solely home-based, then reduction of pollution associated with transport needs to be considered more strategically through co-ordinated government strategies, whether national, regional or transnational. It will matter whether the place where work is conducted is walkable, cyclable or reachable through public (or private) transport which entails minimal emissions (cf. Akgüç et al. Reference Akgüç, Galgóczi, Meil, Countouris, De Stefano, Piasna and Rainone2023). The environmental impact of hybrid work could also be reduced (as it is for full time in-office work) through public provision of non-polluting transport. For example, trams, trains and electric buses could be helpful, as could cycle and pedestrian lanes. But that transport system would also need to be inclusive of people with various needs, so that no one is left behindFootnote 2. This role for the state (as opposed to private enterprise) requires participatory engagement with the population, respecting the “responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels” contemplated in target SDG 16.7 (cf. Novitz Reference Novitz2020b).
There is arguably a problematic confusion between digital and green “tech”, which are not necessarily compatible. Assumptions that the digital is “clean” in terms of energy need to be interrogated. There is emerging research on the effects of cobalt mining as a source of digital hardwareFootnote 3; but also with problems associated with recycling that equipment. These are indicative of the off shoring of exploitative labour provision, but also have consequences for environmental pollutionFootnote 4. More computer usage in the context of remote work may not, therefore, necessarily avoid environmental harms, such as climate change (SDG 13). Indeed, it is becoming apparent that “[d]igitalization is not only an instrument to resolve sustainability challenges”, that is, to achieve green transitions. Rather, it is “also fundamental as a driver of disruptive change”, such that sustainable policies have to address “the threats, opportunities, and dynamics of the digital revolution” (De Felice and Petrillo Reference De Felice and Petrillo2020).
These tensions when making structural change and reorganising forms of work and protection can be viewed through the prism of “the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with nationally defined development priorities”, referred to in the preamble to the Paris AgreementFootnote 5. In these ways environmental sustainability can be linked also to social sustainability.
2.3.3 Social Sustainability
Remote work can pursue socially sustainable objectives by promoting inclusion in the labour market of those otherwise excluded by reason of prejudice, such as women (who still tend to take on the main societal role as care givers as is recognised by SDG 5) and access for those with disabilities (Jesus et al. Reference Jesus, Landry and Jacobs2020; Schur et al. Reference Schur, Ameri and Kruse2020). This could entail job creation in line with SDG target 8.3 and “full and productive employment” under target 8.5. Remote work that is genuinely social redistributive of jobs and income could further serve the purposes of SDG 10, especially targets 10.1 (“income growth”), 10.2 (“empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status”) and 10.3 (“ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome…”).
However, we know that remote work may include those who are most systematically disadvantaged but, perhaps for that very reason, provide minimal income and social well-being for those kinds of workers. Certainly, we know that remote work did not necessarily promote equality during the COVID-19 pandemic (Adams-Prassl et al. Reference Adams-Prassl, Boneva, Golin and Rauh2020; de Laat Reference de Laat2020).
For sustainability purposes, remote work should be (at a minimum) “decent work” (for which see the very title of SDG 8), not performed in precarity and certainly not enabled by “unacceptable forms of work” (McCann and Fudge Reference McCann and Fudge2017). Otherwise, there would seem to be a failure to adhere to SDG target 8.8 which seeks to “protect labour rights… for all workers”, including those who are “in precarious employment”. Failure to ensure “employment status” and coverage under national labour laws can cause problems for this class of often “invisible” workers (Crain et al. Reference Crain, Poster and Cherry2016). They may end up only being scrutinised by their employers’ algorithmic management and digital surveillance (Aloisi and De Stefano Reference Aloisi and De Stefano2022), while being unseen and unprotected by the state regulatory bodies, such as labour inspectorates.
There should also be a determination to address SDG target 8.7: “immediate and effective measures to eradicate forced labour, end modern slavery and human trafficking and secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour”. As the case of cobalt mining demonstrates (e.g. Krummel and Siegfried Reference Krummel and Siegfried2021), digital hardware has been revealed to come at the cost of informal, forced and child labour in countries of the Global South. De Stefano (Reference De Stefano, Davidov, Langille and Lester2024: 807) has also observed that the invisibility of remote work could lead to enticement of child labour into crowd work, with all the systemic deprivations that entails.
In terms of freedom of association and the effective right to collective bargaining, SDG 8 and the associated targets are silent, but SDG indicator 8.8.2 confirms the relevance of “national compliance with labour rights (freedom of association and collective bargaining)” and ILO standards relating to these. This is consistent with the insistence of the UN Special Rapporteur in 2018 that “freedom of association” as well as protection of trade unions and the right to strike are to be understood as included in the “fundamental freedoms” referred to in SDG target 16.10Footnote 6. However, realisation of these rights in the context of remote work can be obstructed by the lack of regular face-to-face contact in the workplace, alongside the forms of surveillance which can stifle collective organisation (Dukes and Streeck Reference Dukes and Streeck2023: 121; Rogers Reference Rogers2023: ch 4).
Issues also arise regarding other SDGs. One example is SDG 3 since, as the ILO/WHO Brief (2021) makes clear, health and safety issues can arise within the home (or any other location) as a workplace. Home working has the capacity to promote health in accordance with SDG 3, but not if living conditions are crowded, unsanitary, the systems of supervision create work-related stress or the hours become unduly long.
Also relevant is SDG 4 regarding education, which would seem to require that an employer should enable some training for those who are engaged in remote work in terms of lifelong learning (Moglia et al. Reference Moglia, Hopkins and Bardoel2022: 11). Moreover, there will need to be forms of social protection, including protection from poverty under SDGs 1 and 8. Also notable here is target 10.4, which demands “policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies” that “progressively achieve greater equality”.
There is again a role for government in supporting and sharing the costs of remote work by establishing sustainable cities (SDG 11), which may need to be fostered by, for example, wider email/Wi-Fi access from people’s houses and other potential work-related spaces such as public libraries, parks and private coffee and other shops. This could also bring autonomy of movement (and hours) to those who work remotely, facilitating their connections with others, enabling freedom of association (SDGs 8 and 16) even for precarious workers. However, the degree of freedom of speech, assembly and association engendered in this way will also depend on the protection of civil liberties in public spheres by the state and in private spaces by employers. There also remain live issues as to the extent to which digital spaces are public or private and how they can and should be regulated by government (Beverungen et al. Reference Beverungen, Hess, Köster and Lehrer2022).
If social sustainability safeguards are absent (as they would seem to be in many, if not most, countries across the globe in the context of platform work, for which see ILO 2021), then the question is how they can be created. In crafting appropriate regulatory responses, there will need to be engagement with SDG 16, which seeks to “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels”. This involves giving effect to fundamental rights recognised under SDG target 16.10, such as freedom of speech, assembly and freedom of association, as well as making them operative in accordance with target 16.7 as a means to achieve just transitionsFootnote 7.
Moreover, the 2030 Agenda recognises that economic, environmental and social facets of sustainable development, not only influence each other but also have no respect for geographical borders, operating across the supply chains that shape labour markets today. This means that achieving the SDGs should involve the deliberations and actions of not just a single state or civil society actor, but a “global partnership” under SDG 17. In other words, sustainable policymaking does not only have a substantive dimension, but requires multilevel inclusive and collaborative processes, involving governments as well as business and also, representatives of those who perform remote work. This SDG again evokes the aspirations of social participation in a “just transition”.
2.4 International Institutional Promotion of Sustainability in Remote Work
This part of the chapter examines how international institutions can shape compliance with sustainability. The question is whether, in compliance with SDG target 17.14, there is any likelihood of “policy coherence for sustainable development”. The potential for gravitation towards a unified stance and strategy is probed here with reference to international soft law promoting sustainability at the UN and the ILO. The utilisation of the term “sustainability” by business in corporate codes of conduct is analysed in terms of compliance with the precepts of decent remote work.
2.4.1 UN Supervisory Mechanisms Devoted to the SDGs
The UN High Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF) was established in 2013 (before the adoption of the 2030 Agenda) as the supervisory body responsible for the planned SDGs and more generally to “promote the review and stocktaking of progress in the implementation of all sustainable development commitments”Footnote 8. The HLPF was to “provide political leadership, guidance and recommendations for sustainable development”Footnote 9, but effective “orchestration” (cf. Abbott and Bernstein Reference Abbott and Bernstein2015) has proved elusive. This may be attributed to the time-restrictions imposed on a partial and annual voluntary national review (VNR) process together with the lack of any binding force of supervisory findings. While organisations such as the ILO have engaged enthusiastically in HLPF procedures, their voices can be lost due to problems of scale and resources, despite recent attempts at reform (Beisheim and Fritzsche Reference Beisheim and Fritzsche2019). In short, the limited resources of the HLPF have also limited its influence.
Different SDGs receive different levels of scrutiny in the VNR, depending on the frequency of their discussion at the HLPF. For example, so far, SDG 8 (which encompasses “decent work”) was only considered for the first time through the VNR in 2019 and again in 2021 in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the extensive use of remote work at that time, subsequently, there has been remarkably little said about its use in the VNR before the HLPF, although digital services have received attention. The Political Declaration adopted at the SDG Summit in 2023 made minimal reference to work (remote or otherwise), merely stating that “We also remain resolved to create conditions for sustainable, inclusive and sustained economic growth, shared prosperity and decent work for all, and equal pay for work of equal value, taking into account different levels of national development and capacities.”Footnote 10
More interesting comment can however be found in two further SDG reports from the UN Secretary-General in 2024. The first was a report on “eradicating poverty” that stressed the importance of establishing adequate social security protection for those reliant on digital and platform work, arguably in line with arguments relating to SDG 10 aboveFootnote 11. A second report on “long-term impacts of current trends” considered in more detail the trend towards digitalisation of workFootnote 12. One problem identified was that technological change can now “allow workers to serve multiple clients remotely from their homes, vehicles or co-working spaces instead of working full-time for a single employer”Footnote 13; another being that “many of these new forms of work fall outside the scope and coverage of labour laws and regulations, since an employer may be in one place while a worker is on the other side of the world”Footnote 14. The Secretary-General observed that the result had been a rise in “informal and precarious employment”Footnote 15 and thereby a global increase in “working poverty”Footnote 16. The report advocates action by governments, as well as workers and employers relating to access to social security, training and labour law protectionsFootnote 17. The report also expressly notes “recognition of the need for international action”Footnote 18. It is not, however, immediately obvious where such action will be taken and how.
2.4.2 Sustainable Development and “Decent” Remote Work at the ILO
International action has arguably begun at the ILO, which began to grapple with regulatory issues arising from remote work in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. An example was the guidance issued by the employers’ bureau (ACT/EMP) at the ILO regarding management of home working (ILO 2020b; analysed in Beebeejaun and Gunputh Reference Beebeejaun and Gunputh2022), but which did not refer to sustainable development.
If we are to consider ILO promotion of sustainable development, in line with SDG 8, we may wish to return to consider the basic requirements of “decent work” elaborated at the ILO. These are understood to include (i) promoting employment; (ii) enhancing social protection; (iii) promoting social dialogue and tripartism; and (iv) respecting, promoting and realising the fundamental principles and rights at workFootnote 19. The latter consists of (a) freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; (b) the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour; (c) the effective abolition of child labour; (d) the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation; and (since 2022) (e) a safe and healthy working environmentFootnote 20. The relevance of these has been considered above, in relation to the SDGs in which these facets of “decent work” and labour rights are manifested. From that discussion it is also apparent that there is also a strong argument that the tendency to label those engaged in many forms of remote work as independent contractors needs to be addressed to overcome the threshold for access to protections in these many regards under national employment and labour laws. In this respect, it is evident that revision of and elaboration on ILO Employment Relationship Recommendation No. 198 (2006)Footnote 21 is not only timely, but long overdue (cf. Creighton and McCrystal Reference Creighton and McCrystal2016; De Stefano Reference De Stefano2021).
In terms of the intersection of remote work with the environmental and social pillars of sustainability, in 2015 an ILO Tripartite Meeting of Experts agreed ILO Guidelines on Just TransitionsFootnote 22. One of the important facets of this document was its focus on the process governing “how we get there” (Galgóczi Reference Galgóczi2020: 369). The ILO Guidelines made express reference to the 2030 AgendaFootnote 23, contemplating that key economic, social and environmental policies should be pursued through tripartite social dialogue and via collective agreements “at all levels”Footnote 24.
The 2019 Centenary Declaration on the Future of Work stated in Article II(A) that the ILO should be “(i) ensuring a just transition to a future of work that contributes to sustainable development in its economic, social and environmental dimensions”. This would seem to require “(ii) harnessing the fullest potential of technological progress and productivity growth”, but notably doing so “through social dialogue, to achieve decent work and sustainable development”. Again, tripartite participatory engagement was contemplated to ensure “a just sharing of the benefits for all…” Even more pertinent is the insistence by the International Labour Office, in its 2019 report Time to Act for SDG 8, that trade unions and collective bargaining are vital to securing the SDGs, especially for female, migrant and other marginalised groups of workers (ILO 2019: 69–75). This endorsement of collective representative engagement is also to be found in the ILO WESO Report on platform work in 2021 (ILO 2021; Novitz Reference Novitz2021: 654–655).
There is no apparent forthcoming standard-setting on “remote work” per se, but the ILO Governing Body has placed “platform work” on the International Labour Conference agenda in 2025Footnote 25. This decision may yet have implications for how remote work is performed and could address questions of employment status and statutory protections for those engaged in crowdwork. We have yet to see whether any Convention or Recommendation will be phrased in sustainability terms, but the ILO Director-General’s current mission to lead a “global coalition for social justice” has been linked by him explicitly to sustainable development, as well as the fostering of global partnershipsFootnote 26.
2.4.3 Reference to Sustainability in Global Corporate Governance and Its Limitations
Historically, corporate codes of conduct have been less likely to promote freedom of association and collective bargaining; focussing rather on other issues, such as child or forced labour which business sees as setting a minimal level playing field (Hepple Reference Hepple1999: 358; Anner Reference Anner2012). A recent study conducted in 2021 cast doubt on whether this has changed since adoption of ostensible sustainability objectives (Kuruvilla Reference Kuruvilla2021: 151–155).
Indeed, corporate enthusiasm for engagement with a sustainability discourse has been contrasted with the reluctance of commercial interests to endorse harder binding human rights norms (Bellace Reference Bellace, Blackett and Trebilcock2015). The suspicion has been that what makes the discourse of sustainability attractive to business is precisely the soft law, non-binding nature of the international legal regime on this topic. There has also been a trend whereby sustainability-oriented codes place more emphasis on environmental as opposed to social objectives, which has meant that their relevance to labour conditions has often been negligible (Kuruvilla Reference Kuruvilla2021: 11; Lashitew Reference Lashitew2021).
However, that corporate approach may be changing, judging from the content of recently revised documents, such as H&M’s “Sustainability Commitment”Footnote 27 and Santander’s “Sustainability Strategy”, which govern their engagement with third party contractorsFootnote 28. These are interesting initiatives, because they self-consciously reference both environmental and social facets of sustainable development together, alongside the language of “responsible business conduct” (RBC) and “economic, social and governance” (ESG) norms. Both documents seek to be “inclusive” in terms of their treatment of work. Santander does so by listing “human rights” to be respected which accord with core ILO labour standards, while H&M recognises the extension of these entitlements to “all” forms of work, referring for example expressly to “platform work”. They both acknowledge the legal right to organise and join trade unions. In this respect, H&M goes further in terms of provision for a parallel track where lawful access to trade union representation is prevented in the country concerned. Neither mentions “remote work” or “telework” directly as a specific issue to be interrogated, which is interesting given that this could be an increasingly pertinent issue in relation to global suppliers, but one might expect these types of work to be covered by the general obligations stated. To that extent these promises of policy commitments to sustainability seem indicative of continuing change and improvement in the content and implementation of these corporate codes.
Both H&M and Santander documents also make reference to the processes of risk assessment associated with “due diligence”. In this way, they reflect the evolving international instruments concerning multinational corporate governance that have emerged on the global regulatory stage. These include: the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (1976 and revised most recently in 2023)Footnote 29, the ILO Tripartite Declaration concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (1977 and revised most recently in 2022)Footnote 30, the UN Global Compact created in 2000 (revised in response to the 2015 UN SDGs)Footnote 31 and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (adopted 2011 regarding which there is also ongoing revision and adaptation)Footnote 32. Their evolution and elaboration over decades, responding specifically to ILO norms, have led to normative interaction and some cohesion between the norms they espouse, but they have their limitations (Novitz Reference Novitz2024: ch6). None of these instruments refer explicitly to remote work either, but they have been promoting due diligence.
The problem is that, while the due diligence approach to a respect, protect and remedy human rights framework might have initially been perceived by business as threatening (Bellace Reference Bellace, Blackett and Trebilcock2015); its current manifestation has had less influence than was initially thought. The reason may be that due diligence tends to be more reactive to breaches of human and labour rights, rather than being proactive for their prevention (Landau Reference Landau2023: 185). This may also be due to the failure to adequately engage in this process representatives of the workers most affected by a corporation’s conduct, especially when they work casually through platforms or remotely (see Brudney Reference Brudney2023; Marshall et al. Reference Marshall, Landau, Shamir, Barkay, Fudge and van Heerden2023). The participatory dimension of just transitions in the green and digital sphere has therefore yet to be successfully realised. But more than this, corporate governance measures on sustainability can only take us so far since, as identified above, achievement of sustainability for remote work requires coordinated engagement from government (at all levels) together with corporations and worker representatives. This suggests that a tripartite model for regulation, as advocated by the ILO, could be helpful for inclusive global partnerships which set more detailed parameters for sustainable remote work.
2.5 Conclusion
This chapter has explored the arguments for regulating remote work from a sustainable development perspective, with reference to economic, environmental and social objectives. It has also established that the SDGs in the 2030 Agenda do not only set substantive objectives but also contain procedural norms, which are also essential for just transitions which concern the transformation of the labour market to encompass digital remote work.
The chapter has highlighted the growing interest of UN institutions, including the ILO, in regulation of remote work, and the ways in which this has been connected to aspirations for sustainability. In particular, it does seem that ILO standards concerning decent work have not only shaped facets of the content of SDG 8, but also the text of recent corporate sustainability commitments. The difficulty is that while the texts of these corporate codes respect substantive aspects of fundamental labour standards espoused by the ILO, they have yet to operationalise due diligence commitments in a way likely to respect ILO Guidelines for a Just Transition.
There has to be greater appreciation that trade unions (and other representatives of those who provide services in the contemporary labour market) alongside governments can and should make a meaningful contribution to due diligence risk assessment. More than this, there needs to be commitment from business to proactive engagement in tripartite social dialogue and policy design on issues such as remote work. Finally, corporate self-regulation cannot replace much-needed government engagement with the preconditions for sustainable remote work, such as transport, public spaces and other smart city infrastructure, but also the effective enforcement of labour laws designed to address the more exploitative possibilities of remote work. The dynamics of the interactions between the tripartite policy actors in this sphere now require greater attention from the ILO, being the next step towards genuine global partnership for sustainability.
Open access