The Institute for the Future of Work (IFOW) reconvened the expert group from the parliamentary Commission on the Future of Work in an emergency session to consider the impacts of COVID-19 on work and workers’ health, in the wider context of the new technological revolution.

COVID-19 has hit people, societies and the economy amid of one of the greatest technological transformations experienced since industrialisation, often captured under the banner of the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution.’ The global pandemic is likely to accelerate the application of new technologies, in particular data-driven technologies, by introducing new demands and targets for research. The new technological revolution, overlaid by the shock of COVID-19, is already transforming work and labour markets in ways, and at a pace, which may well be unprecedented.¹ Government and societal response to these combined challenges will shape the future of work for generations.

IFOW has argued that ‘automation’ should be redefined to cover task creation, augmentation and changing impacts on job quality, as well as the displacement of tasks and jobs. To understand and probe this ‘life cycle’ of technology design, and pervasive applications in the work space, we must be alert to the fact that automation is guided by human decisions, rather than a set of technical capabilities or process which works autonomously. So, our exploration of it should be people-centred, extending both to the role of human decision- makers and to the experience of automation for people. Now, this approach is more important than ever.

Pre-COVID projections of the impact of automation on the labour market vary. A 2018 report projected that 30% of UK jobs are at risk of automation. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) project 7.4% in a 2019 analysis. The OECD predict an average of around 14% for OECD nations. IFOW has estimated that between 15-30% of jobs will be lost within the next decade. The differences between these projections mostly reflect different definitions and assumptions about what is ‘automatable’, different understandings of the capacity of existing technology, the time horizon taken into account and a tendency in literature to date to focus on the technical capabilities of new technologies, rather than why and how automation takes place.

COVID-19 has introduced a new factor in assessing the likelihood, nature and pace of automation by placing restrictions of freedom of movement and human contact: the flexibility of the task vis-à-vis location. This means that current predictions about automation will need revisiting in terms of substance, we well as pace. In particular, this new factor will need attention, and assumptions about business needs, cost, and supply and relative advantages of labour, must be reviewed. Given the rapid changes to the organisation and management of work through the period of lockdown, so too will we have to look again at former assumptions about the task and jobs that are considered to be ‘automatable.’

For now, we must rely on survey indicators, limited qualitative research and the expert steer given by the reconvened Future of Work Commission, which reported in June 2020.² On this basis, we have found some indicators that various types of automation – as we have redefined it – have increased, in particular those associated with remote organisation and management. For example, ONS data on remote-working through the early weeks of the pandemic showed that 47% of people across the UK were doing some of their work from home, a huge jump from pre-pandemic levels. Although many people will eventually return to the office, IFOW research suggests that many of the technologies and processes developed through the last few months will become part of standard working practice for some time to come. This is in line with recent announcements on hybrid models of work being developed by many large firms, such as Google, Twitter. But this is not uniform: our analysis of homeworking across the UK, based on employment shares, shows significant regional variation. And, since remote work is relevant to other transformations in the labour market, including automation, and the extent to which different groups and places are insulated from the secondary impacts of the pandemic, the geographies of work place transformation will need the close attention of policy-makers in plans to Build Back Better.³

Latest analysis of EU data on the adoption of Enterprise Resource Planning Software, International Federation of Robotics data and the Whiteshield Global Labour Resilience Index all show that the UK is lagging in terms of technology adoption. We anticipate that some relative lags may have been exacerbated noting that technology adoption requires some level of investment – and the OECD has predicted that the UK’s national income may slump in a more dramatic way than comparator countries. The UK will need not only far greater support for technology R&D but also support for SME’s to apply, innovate and scale such technology across sectors and the country. This is necessary to ensure a healthy and diverse economic mix of activities in order to level up the regions.

That said, we must also remember that the benefits and adverse impacts of technology are not spread evenly. The recent controversy surrounding the use of algorithms to adjust A-Level grades illustrates the adverse distributional impacts that widespread use of technology can have when not taking into account latent or ‘structural’ inequalities in society. Relatedly, the Institute for the Future of Work’s analysis⁴ suggests the experience and fear of insecurity linked to automation is felt differently by different demographic groups across the country, something that can be observed in voting behaviour.
This important shift recognises the value of actively promoting race, gender and other forms of diversity not just because it is the right thing to do but to boost growth and innovation, as well as to heal ideological polarisation and rebuild trust in our government and democracy. It also opens the door to bolder measures – both incentives and requirements – for businesses to advance the equality agenda. IFOW is working on proposals for affirmative duties for the private sector, building on the successful public sector equality duty, and requirements that both good work standards and the principle of equality, are respected as Government supports technology adoption and transformations as part of the UK’s rebuild.

Where does this take us? In the UK, there is a pressing need for a holistic, joined-up cross-department Work 5.0 strategy with responsible, people-centred automation and good job creation at its heart. We need technology more than ever but this must be accompanied by multi-dimensional policy activism targeted at addressing adverse and unequal impacts and ensuring that benefits are spread, making full use of different policy levers available national and local government. It’s essential that this is driven by an overarching vision for future good work and a moral economy – as I argued here with our Nobelist Chair Chris Pissarides.⁵ Its success will depend on the active engagement and participation of key stakeholders. In this, we will need to keep learning from our EU allies, who are more practised in this respect. Our Chair advised the Danish Disruption; he could advise a similar forum for the UK.

So I will end by citing a cross-party call which we hope will be reflected in the government policy of the future:

‘this House welcoming the Government’s commitment to level up the regions; notes that a co-ordinated, cross-departmental approach to creating the conditions for good work across the country will be necessary to achieve this goal; recognises research by the Institute for the Future of Work that shows people across the country are experiencing an increased sense of economic insecurity associated with automation; further notes that incentivising the adoption of technology and automation will be required to boost regional growth; notes that a collaborative approach to managing automation and the transition of people into new good jobs is therefore crucial; calls on the Government to initiate a Work 5.0 Strategy involving the Treasury and Departments of BEIS, DWP, Education, and Health to advance socially responsible automation across the UK; and seeks a commitment and dedicated budget for a collaborative process to develop this Strategy.’⁶

This article is an extract taken from the Parliamentary Network publication ‘Just Transitions’. You can download a pdf version of the full document here.

1. The impact of automation on labour markets: Interactions with COVID-19, IFOW Report July 2020 https://www.ifow.org/publications/2020/7/31/the- impact-of-automation-on-labour-markets-interactions-with-COVID-19
2. A rapid review with the Future of Work Commission: A better future for work: the world after COVID-19, June 2020 https://www.ifow.org/ publications/2020/6/10/a-rapid-review-with-the-future-of-work-commission-a- better-future-for-work-the-world-after-COVID-19
3. Spotlight 4: Remote Working and COVID-19, IFOW Report August 2020: https://www.ifow.org/publications/2020/8/28/spotlight-4-remote-working-and- COVID-19
4. Automation, politics and the future of work, IFOW Discussion Paper November 2019 https://www.ifow.org/publications/2019/12/2/automation-politics-and- the-future-of-work
5. The Future of Good Work: The foundation of a modern moral economy, IFOW Report, February 2019 https://www.ifow.org/publications/2019/2/13/the- future-of-good-work-the-foundation-of-a-modern-moral-economy
6. Early Day Motion #279: Automation and the future of work https://edm. parliament.uk/early-day-motion/56734/automation-and-the-future-of-work