Digital work platforms have solidified the ‘gig economy’ as a distinct segment of the labour market. These platforms facilitate connections between workers and clients (individuals and firms hiring workers via platforms) for one-time, occasional or recurring tasks and services. Far from mere intermediaries, these platforms reshape work organisation and transaction patterns, influencing global labour market dynamics. While scholarly and media attention has predominantly focused on platform accountability, particularly with the adoption of the EU Platform Work Directive (2024/2831), client accountability must also be addressed to mitigate structural imbalances within the gig economy.
‘Digital work platforms’ (usually) operate within a triadic relationship, connecting workers, platforms and clients in ways that shape the organisation of labour. This structure manifests differently depending on the type of gig work being performed, making it essential to distinguish between on-site gigs and online gigs. On-site gigs, facilitated by platforms like Lieferando and Betreut.de, involve physical services like food delivery or cleaning, performed at a client’s premises. These services are geographically bound, making their regulation relatively straightforward.
By contrast, online gigs, enabled by platforms such as Upwork and Content.de, involve remote services like translation, programming or content writing. The World Bank estimates 545 such digital work platforms serving 154–435 million online gig workers globally, making the online gig economy the first globally accessible labour market. These platforms are further anchored by proprietary algorithms that perform sophisticated ‘market organiser’ functions: they match workers with clients based on skills and project requirements, manage workflows through task distribution and deadlines and facilitate interactions via communication channels and payment processing. The online gig economy thus exists at the intersection of higher-skilled freelancers and algorithmic management.
This structure creates profound tensions. Platform proponents argue that workers can secure flexible, remunerative work while platform critics make forceful rebuttals on the contention that platforms function as all-pervasive worker controllers, dictating task allocation, pricing and evaluations through opaque algorithms. This tension is particularly evident in the case of online gig workers. While they may seem well positioned to exert greater control over their participation, particularly when their skill sets attract numerous clients, the reality is more complex. Even with specialised qualifications and global market access, online gig workers face algorithmic oversight, limited transparency in platform operations and fluctuating demand – factors that collectively undermine their autonomy and reinforce platform dominance. The current legal frameworks governing platform work in the European Union shed further light on this topic.
Regulatory developments in Germany and the EU
The 2024 EU Platform Directive (2024/2831) represents a key legislative milestone in gig economy regulation. Among its provisions, the Directive mandates that platform work must align with the Treaty on European Union 2009 (TEU)’s Article 3: promoting societal wellbeing and sustainable development based on ‘balanced economic growth, competitive social market economies, full employment and social progress’ (TEU, preamble [1]; Article 2(1)(b)). It introduces a two-year transitional period for member states to incorporate these measures into domestic laws.
Crucially, the Directive makes concrete the definition of employment relationships between digital work platforms and their workers (TEU, Article 4). This definition means that in theory, these workers can claim protections consistent with their employment status, such as minimum wages. The Directive also places limits on platform algorithmic management through worker personal data processing prohibitions (Article 7), automated systems transparency (Article 9(3)) and platform human oversight (Article 10). However, while the Directive establishes platform accountability, it omits the responsibilities of client firms within the digital labour market. Whether the Platform Directive adequately protects gig workers remains an open question.
Extending accountability through due diligence
Due diligence frameworks, originally developed to safeguard human rights and environmental standards, offer a promising model for extending responsibility to client firms. Both German and EU legislation now establish such obligations, with the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (‘Lieferkettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz’ – LkSG) and the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (2024/1760) requiring companies to identify, prevent and remedy adverse impacts in their supply chains. Findings from a GIZ-commissioned study on digital work platforms highlight that, while large German firms actively pursue transparency to meet their due diligence obligations under human rights and environmental standards, they frequently miss addressing online platform work in their reporting. This oversight points to a significant gap in recognising corporate responsibility towards this new form of work.
Unlike traditional employment-focused approaches, these frameworks prioritise organisational implementation and enforcement through internal management systems. This approach aligns particularly well with the operations of digital work platforms, leveraging their sophisticated data collection systems for regulatory compliance. The LkSG, although initially designed for traditional supply chains, bolsters the Platform Directive’s protections by offering a robust framework for corporate responsibility. Its principles parallel the realities of digital service provision, where work products and responsibilities traverse multiple jurisdictions.
Notably, the LkSG defines categories that correspond to gig work arrangements: quasi-employees, direct suppliers (core service providers) and indirect (non-core) suppliers. While these categories were not originally designed with platform work in mind, they could effectively protect both individual gig workers and team- or small-company-based gig workers, with the latter’s organisational structures closely aligning with traditional supply chain frameworks. Under §3(1), companies must implement due diligence procedures to safeguard working conditions and freedom of association across their supply chains. However, the current lack of conclusive data about companies’ use of online platform work and associated working conditions poses a significant challenge for effective implementation.
Implementing shared responsibility
Building on these frameworks, a model of shared responsibility that distributes obligations between platforms and client firms could address these gaps. For instance, client firms could be required to contribute to workers’ social security accounts based on project value. Germany’s social insurance system offers instructive examples through sector-specific schemes such as the construction sector’s Sozialkassen and the artists’ Künstlersozialkasse. These systems demonstrate how financial responsibilities for worker protection can be shared across multiple stakeholders while maintaining flexibility and economic efficiency. Such measures are particularly valuable for cross-border transactions, where traditional employment protections may be insufficient.
Hope for the future and conclusion
The path toward mitigating platform-worker power imbalances may lie in the Platform Directive’s ‘groundwork’. The two-year implementation window, combined with growing awareness of worker risks in digital service procurement, presents a crucial opportunity for German trade unions, employers and labour advocates to shape uniform, predictable regulation – avoiding fragmented, burdensome frameworks. The next step is to make clear distinctions on when platforms should bear primary accountability (e.g. for algorithmic management systems) versus when client firms should assume responsibility (e.g. for fair compensation and working conditions) through supply chain due diligence obligations. Such clear delineation of responsibilities would enable the systematic embedding of due diligence principles in platform work regulation, creating equitable conditions while maintaining the sector’s innovative character.
Karthika Nadarajah is a PhD candidate at Radboud University, Nijmegen specialising in online labour markets and leads the research function at Comdu.it Deutschland, a diaspora-led development organisation.
Image credit: HD Wallpaper via freerangestock