As world experiences a trend towards a wider variety of forms of work, policy makers and social security administrations are looking into what this means and how to address new arising challenges.
On the one hand, a variety of employment and contract models can represent a positive opportunity for both employers and workers in terms of more flexibility, and for policy-makers it can mean more job creation and labour market integration. On the other hand, it can pose a challenge to social security schemes. In many countries, self-employed and non-standard workers are not offered the same protection as traditional employees, especially in the domain of unemployment, sickness or maternity benefits or for accident protection at the workplace. New ways of organizing work and production also represent a challenge for the sustainable and adequate financing of social security programmes. Income generated through online platforms may not be subject to contributions, the lower wages earned by many in non-standard work will elicit lower contributions and thus lower future benefits, the absence of employer contributions will heighten this challenge, and increasing automation and the development of robot technologies may lead to the replacement of some types of jobs, again reducing social security contributions.

Illustrative image (internet)

Efforts are being made to see how social protection schemes can benefit all types of workers, and to suppress thresholds and barriers that prevent workers in precarious situations to adequately benefit from these very schemes. 
According to the ILO's World social protection report 2020-22, social protection is defined as a “set of policies and programmes designed to reduce and prevent poverty, vulnerability and social exclusion throughout the life cycle”. Social protections are comprised of nine main areas: child and family benefits, maternity protection, unemployment support, employment injury benefits, sickness benefits, health protection (medical care), old-age benefits, invalidity/ disability benefits, and survivors’ benefits.
Typically, social protections are supported by a combination of non-contributory tax-financed benefits (e.g., means-tested social assistance or universal programmes) and contributory schemes (e.g., social or private insurance). Access to certain social protections are dependent on how work relationships are categorized in national policies and legal frameworks.
Although social protection schemes vary by country, the strongest connection to employment exists for those benefits linked to specific employment contracts directly provided or sponsored by an individual employer. Full-time, permanent employment is considered to be the default form of employment in most social protection systems. Workers in other forms of employment, including some categories of temporary, part-time and independent workers are often not, or not to the same extent, covered. This creates gaps in social protection coverage.

The degree and types of social protection available in different forms of employment is an important element of quality of employment. Social protection coverage can create incentives for employers and workers to favour one form of employment over another. It is therefore important for labour statisticians to understand the statistical frameworks related to social protection systems, so that they can utilise the information relevant to classifying and measuring employment forms.
Key social protection indicators include: legal and effective coverage, level of benefits, duration, and expenditure and revenue. NSOs may also consider analyzing coverage of risks and social protection functions within the working age population, which include: maternity, paternity and parental leave, healthcare, contributions to pension schemes, unemployment insurance coverage, sickness benefits/paid sick leave, employment injury benefit, survivor/death benefits and disability benefits (invalidity).

In April, the European Commission proposed measures encouraging EU countries to allow non-standard workers and the self-employed to adhere to social security schemes, build up and take up adequate social benefits, and facilitate the transfer of social security benefits between schemes. The proposal covers a broad range of social security benefits.

New ways of financing social security are also being investigated by policy makers and experts, including taxation of machines or robots, increasing valued added tax, or introducing an “Eco tax”. However, each one of these fiscal transfers poses new challenges that have to be considered carefully. Not least, they signal a reduced role for social insurance and a greater role for state financing. The EU has so far avoided the issue of taxing robots and technology, and has rather focused on driving forward innovation while ensuring a stronger focus on upskilling and reskilling of the workforce. The ILO recently published a research paper on the future of work and innovative approaches for social protection.
Some countries are piloting experimental projects. One policy option may be universal basic income (UBI). Paid unconditionally to all, this would help satisfy the human right to social security. The detail of the design of UBI is one key issue, not least how such a programme will operate alongside existing social security guarantees. The impact of labour market activity is another key issue. As a global first, a national pilot study is underway in Finland.
There are a number of countries that have successfully extended social protection to intermittent and casual workers or those with multiple jobs. 

Digital platforms have the potential to provide employment and income generation opportunities with a high degree of flexibility, for instance for persons with limited mobility or care responsibilities. This was also observed in the ILO survey, wherein 22 per cent of the workers responded that they preferred to work from home and 12 per cent responded that they could only work from home. The preference to work from home was largely due to their health situations, and crowdwork provided such workers an avenue to create employment and income opportunities. For those who could only work from home, there was a strong difference by gender, with 13 per cent of women workers providing this reason compared to 5 per cent among men. This was largely due to household and care responsibilities among the women workers. For women workers, working from home not only reinforces gender roles, alienating them from social relations but it can also exacerbate their income insecurity as they lack social protection coverage and earn low incomes.

Despite this potential, serious concerns remain with regard to the workers’ unclear legal status, job and income insecurity, low earnings, non-payment, lack of social protection coverage and lack of voice and representation (Berg et al., 2018; De Stefano, 2016; Eurofound, 2018; ILO, 2018b). Further, empirical studies demonstrate important challenges regarding the working conditions, wages and social protection coverage of platform workers (Berg, 2016; Berg et al., 2018; De Stefano, 2016; Eurofound, 2018; Pesole et al., 2018). The greater exposure of workers to social risks increases the demand for comprehensive and adequate social protection that guarantees income security and access to health care throughout people’s lives, and facilitates life and work transitions (Global Commission for the Future of Work, 2019).

While some of the challenges are not new, the surge of the platform economy presents new challenges for the social protection of workers (Forde et al., 2017). Social protection coverage for platform workers varied by region. In developing countries a large proportion of the workers in the ILO survey had high levels of education, with a majority of them in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. These workers, with such high levels of education, would aspire to formal jobs with better incomes and social protection. Instead, that a very small proportion of workers in developing countries contribute towards pension or retirement plans; it varies between 21 per cent (Africa) and 32 per cent (Asia). Furthermore, a very small proportion of workers were covered by disability benefits in these regions, with the highest being in Latin America (15 per cent). This also suggests that, as social protection systems are still relatively weak in many developing countries, platform operators and requesters have additional incentives to undertake tasks using the pool of labour from these countries, facing less pressure from workers and governments to ensure social protection for platform workers.
Strengthening social protection systems for the future of work
The emergence of new forms of employment, which is often associated with gaps in social protection coverage, especially for women, underlines the urgency of closing coverage gaps and adapting existing social protection systems to the specific situation and needs of such workers, to realize the human right to social security for all.

Equitable, inclusive and sustainable social protection systems, including floors, that allow for adequate redistribution and protection to all, are key to address the current challenges (ILO, 2017a). It is important that social protection systems are adapted in a way that ensures continued protection for workers who move between different employment arrangements, jobs, sectors of the economy or countries, and ensure.