{"id":1384023,"date":"2025-03-13T20:59:07","date_gmt":"2025-03-13T19:59:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ie.edu\/insights\/?post_type=articles&p=1384023"},"modified":"2025-03-18T09:23:45","modified_gmt":"2025-03-18T08:23:45","slug":"a-green-digital-and-just-transition-the-not-so-bizarre-eu-policy-love-triangle","status":"publish","type":"articles","link":"https:\/\/www.ie.edu\/insights\/articles\/a-green-digital-and-just-transition-the-not-so-bizarre-eu-policy-love-triangle\/","title":{"rendered":"A Green, Digital and Just Transition? The Not-So-Bizarre EU Policy Love Triangle"},"featured_media":1384025,"template":"","meta":{"_has_post_settings":[]},"schools":[],"areas":[728],"subjects":[423],"class_list":["post-1384023","articles","type-articles","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","areas-europe","subjects-law"],"custom-fields":{"wpcf-article-leadin":["The EU\u2019s transition toward ecological sustainability and digital transformation requires modern labour policies, worker-centered flexibility, and inclusive participation, writes Antonio Aloisi."],"wpcf-article-body":["In the portfolio of Teresa Ribera Rodr\u00edguez, Executive Vice-President for a \u201cClean, Just, and Competitive Transition\u201d, the European Union\u2019s future<\/a> is envisioned as a synergy of ecological sustainability, technological innovation and (social) justice.\r\n\r\nToo good to be true? Not necessarily. This trio aims to address today\u2019s challenges and opportunities in societies disrupted by geopolitical tensions, automation fears, and the climate crisis.\r\n\r\nYet, while the importance of both green and digital trends is clear, combining them \u2013 or \u201ctwinning<\/a>\u201d them \u2013 creates uncertainty.\r\n\r\nThe central questions remain: How can policymakers and socio-economic players ensure that these transitions are just and mutually-reinforcing, creating a future that benefits all? Does this integration offer real value beyond mere rhetoric? Is the EU in a position to champion the creation of a new sustainable model?\r\n\r\nEnvironmental and digital concerns directly affect how businesses operate and work is organized. Therefore, the urgency of concentrating efforts at the workplace level cannot be underestimated. In short, work processes should be central to the debate on technology adoption and adaptation to climate change, mitigation of its effects and upgrading of energy and industrial policies. Updating labour regulation can create or strengthen the conditions necessary for achieving the goals of this EU policy love triangle.\r\n\r\nTwin, Just\u2026 and the Synergies and Tensions of the Transitions<\/strong>\r\n\r\nThe term \u201cjust transition\u201d was acknowledged in the preamble of the 2015<\/a> Paris Agreement, which highlights \u201cthe imperatives of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs\u201d, and then reiterated in the 2023<\/a> International Labour Conference. It is now gaining traction in scholarship<\/a> too.\r\n\r\nAt the EU level, the phrase \u201ctwin\u201d describes the relationship between green and digital transformations and was presented as a central political priority in the Commission Work Programme in 2020<\/a>. While the term has been used for at least a decade, it remains unclear whether it refers to two transformative processes occurring simultaneously or suggests a deeper, more synergistic relationship between them.\r\n\r\nThe word \u201ctwin\u201d suggests that green and digital transitions, while distinct, share important similarities. Both are reshaping job dynamics in similar ways \u2013 creating new opportunities (like green jobs or data-driven professions) while phasing out old ones. Digital transformations are rapidly changing how we work, often introducing efficiencies and new capabilities but also displacing traditional roles through automation. Similarly, environmental initiatives create demand for green industry skills while making some traditional practices obsolete (such as coal mining and fossil fuel extraction). Both transitions also risk exacerbating inequalities\u2014geographical, gender-based, and sectoral.\r\n\r\nDespite these similarities, the transitions differ in important ways<\/a> \u2013 like fraternal twins who don\u2019t look alike. The green transition is predominantly led by governments and supranational institutions, aiming to achieve specific environmental targets and reform societal norms and industrial practices. In contrast, the digital transition is steered mainly by the private sector, focused on dematerialization and improved coordination, although it is also supported by public efforts and incentives.\r\n\r\nTheir objectives also differ significantly. The green transition challenges us to rethink or even reduce certain economic activities to meet environmental goals. The digital transition, however, aims to transform production methods through technology to boost efficiency within the existing economic model. The green transition\u2019s progress can be slow, hindered by resistance, pushback and ideological opposition. Meanwhile, the digital shift moves swiftly, though not without its own challenges, propelled by market forces.\r\n\r\nSo, are these transitions truly compatible? Some view the digital transition as a tool potentially instrumental for achieving net-zero goals. Yet, experts<\/a> highlight that it is \u201cneither automatic nor self-evident\u201d that the twin transition will simultaneously deliver sustainability and decent work. Tensions between these domains are evident. Environmental goals may require scaling down certain technologies, potentially slowing digital progress in some sectors. Green initiatives might also curb economic growth, particularly affecting blue-collar jobs. Similarly, efforts to address economic disparities could detract from environmental investments.\r\n\r\nDigital technologies create their own environmental problems. The surge in digital tool usage can spike greenhouse gas emissions due to increased energy demands for powering and cooling vast ICT infrastructures, not to mention the environmental costs from water use, material waste, and consumerism driven by rapid obsolescence. Moreover, while digital technologies offer efficiency and connectivity, their unregulated expansion can intensify resource extraction for electronics, deepen dysfunctional<\/a> hierarchies, and threaten fundamental rights at work.\r\n\r\nBeyond buzzwords. What are the policy implications?<\/strong>\r\n\r\nThe interplay between the green and digital transitions is more than just terminology\u2014it represents a crucial turning point for regulatory actions, adaptation strategies, and practical implementations. Both transitions operate within a dense framework of principles, institutions, and legal regulations. This requires all stakeholders to carefully consider how policies and practices should be shaped to guide these transitions, particularly considering the socioeconomic risks, policy trade-offs, and implications for the future of work.\r\n\r\nIn the words of the European Commission<\/a>, \u201cThe twin transitions will be fair or will not be.\u201d This is not an empty slogan. Historically, discussions about green and digital transitions have focused on mitigating negative impacts\u2014from technological disruptions or climate policies\u2014rather than proactively shaping the future of work in ways that anticipate and integrate these changes.\r\n\r\nMy research for the EU Joint Research Centre<\/a> suggests that while \u201ctwin\u201d or \u201cjust\u201d transition have so far been primarily rhetorical concepts rather than frameworks guiding in-depth policy, the best way to overcome the knowledge and intervention gaps is to integrate the practical tools of digitally enabled work reorganization with environmental sustainability objectives that benefit both people and planet.\r\n\r\nModernizing Labour Regulation for a Just Transition<\/strong>\r\n\r\nBuilding on established policy analysis, we can identify several policy tools that address both the environmental and digital rights of workers. These interactions suggest potential synergies, yet their integration in legal terms is sparse and largely confined to measures. Despite these gaps, labour regulation can connect the green and digital domains.\r\n\r\nEasier said than done. Deep-seated rigidities hinder the adoption of modern work arrangements such as remote work, flexible schedules, and four-day work weeks \u2013 initiatives that could reduce environmental footprints more than conventional work models.\r\n\r\nThree key challenges stand out: first, current labour regulations are not designed for arrangements where working time is flexible, workplaces are hybrid or cyber-physical, and work consists of a series of non-linear tasks. Second, workers in \u201cunconventional\u201d arrangements outside the archetype of a full-time, workplace-based employment often lack substantive legal protection. Third, workers affected by the green transition and digital transformation frequently have no voice in decision-making, and this leads to resistance at the organization level.\r\n\r\nThe result is a clash between the desire for modern, eco-friendly work models and the stark reality of outdated frameworks. Hence, even forward-thinking and responsible companies, innovative managers, and pragmatic social partners may hesitate to innovate in terms of their work arrangements due to the lack of clear legal guidance and the prevailing regulatory uncertainties.\r\n\r\nForward-Looking Approaches<\/strong>\r\n\r\nThe changing nature of work calls for a regulatory environment that can accommodate these shifts without sacrificing worker protection or environmental integrity. As I argue in The Joint Research Centre paper<\/a>, a more adaptable legal framework could encourage innovative work models aligned with sustainability goals through three core strategies:\r\n

1. Worker-centered flexibility across time and space<\/strong><\/p>\r\nReducing and redistributing work hours can improve work-life balance and employee well-being while addressing issues like gender inequality. When organizations adopt flexible, trust-based work schedules and environments, they can better meet individual needs, and use technology in empowering ways. Furthermore, this model also supports environmental goals by cutting carbon footprints and resource consumption through shorter, more efficient work hours.\r\n\r\nReimagining when and where work happens can create greener and more efficient working patterns while potentially boosting productivity through organizational changes\u2014such as better collaboration, smarter scheduling, and appropriate workloads. For instance, a shorter workweek supported by digital tools could enhance focus during work hours, boost productivity<\/a>, and increase competitiveness. Staggered work patterns can eliminate inefficiencies like unnecessary meetings, as long as they do not inadvertently foster workaholism in new forms.\r\n\r\nAsynchronous work arrangements allow for more choice in when and how tasks are performed, addressing challenges such as underemployment and excessive working hours, which are plaguing today\u2019s job market. Freeing work from rigid schedules and linear<\/a> time arrangements allows employees to manage their responsibilities more autonomously\u2014working at their own pace and on their own terms\u2014fostering a healthier and more inclusive work environment.\r\n

2. Retargeting employment legislation<\/strong><\/p>\r\nExisting labour frameworks, with their rigid binary classifications, struggle to accommodate dynamic and modern work arrangements. The traditional (if not outdated<\/a>) distinction between \u201cemployment\u201d and \u201cself-employment\u201d is increasingly blurred by the rise of new technologies and the pressing need for environmentally sustainable practices. Our current legal schemes may actually hinder rather than help the adoption of new work models designed to reduce carbon footprints or leverage digital tools.\r\n\r\nFor instance, when work arrangements escape conventional spatial and temporal boundaries (freelancers, remote, and gig workers<\/a>), they often fall outside current protections. This creates a paradox where potentially sustainable work patterns are left vulnerable. Environmentally friendly work arrangements may not fit existing legal definitions of employment, and this creates an urgent need for new laws that support these emergent practices while maintaining worker protections.\r\n\r\nEU social law needs to be more inclusive. By reducing the emphasis on contractual status, policymakers can extend basic rights to all workers, regardless of their formal employment. Several recent legislation and judicial decisions have already started paving the way for this broader protection, recognizing the rights of \u201ceveryone who works<\/a>\u201d, irrespective of the traditional dichotomies.\r\n

3.<\/strong> Ensuring worker participation<\/strong><\/p>\r\nThe central roles of workers, firms, and their representatives in reshaping work practices have often been overlooked. Traditional organizational methods frequently create a disconnect between innovative ideas and existing operational and managerial cultures, stalling progress toward sustainability. Including workers, social partners<\/a>, and other representative bodies in decision-making, ensures that workplace modernization is not only technologically and environmentally sound but also equitable.\r\n\r\nA participatory approach to redefining work relations and organizational structures prevents environmental and technological efforts from being treated as separate issues, which weakens their impact. Through genuine participation, stakeholders can better integrate the policy goals of the \u201ctwin\/just transition\u201d.\r\n\r\nWhen decisions about improving work conditions and employee well-being are made inclusively, they gain broader support. Strategies based on the principles of involvement and co-determination<\/a> can overcome legal and practical hurdles, enabling a sustainable business model which promotes high-quality employment, equal opportunities, and strengthened social cohesion.\r\n\r\nA wealth of initiatives are working to combine cutting-edge technological development with worker wellbeing and green objectives. These include new AI models built around \u201cparticipatory algorithmic governance<\/a>\u201d, which treat workers\u2019 well-being as a goal to be optimised, much like performance or productivity.\r\n\r\nA Necessary Transformation<\/strong>\r\n\r\nThe workplace is the critical arena where green and digital transitions can converge productively, ensuring that they reinforce rather than undermine each other and that their effects on workers are managed effectively. While current legal framework may lack comprehensive tools that protect both environmental<\/a> and digital rights simultaneously, EU labour law principles and norms provide a foundation for rethinking work structures in ways that are universally appealing and \u201csocially desirable\u201d.\r\n\r\nTo unlock the full potential of the green-digital convergence, institutions must focus on three core strategies: promoting worker-centred flexibility, ensuring universal labour protections regardless of type of employment status, and increasing worker participation in the shaping of new technologies and environmental policies. These actions can modernize work, creating a more just and sustainable future that leaves no one behind.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nA version of this article ran in two parts with <\/em>The Conversation<\/em><\/a>.<\/em>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\u00a9 IE Insights."],"wpcf-audio-article":[""],"wpcf-article-extract":["The EU\u2019s transition toward ecological sustainability and digital transformation requires modern labour policies, worker-centered flexibility, and inclusive participation, writes Antonio Aloisi."],"wpcf-article-extract-enable":["1"]},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ie.edu\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/articles\/1384023","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ie.edu\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/articles"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ie.edu\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/articles"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ie.edu\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1384025"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ie.edu\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1384023"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"schools","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ie.edu\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/schools?post=1384023"},{"taxonomy":"areas","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ie.edu\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/areas?post=1384023"},{"taxonomy":"subjects","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ie.edu\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/subjects?post=1384023"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}