Search results

The purpose of this paper is to compare online labor platforms (OLPs) such as Upwork, Fiverr, YoungOnes and Temper with traditional temp agencies. At a first glance, OLPs and temp agencies strongly resemble each other while they aim to meet the need for short-term labor of organizations. The authors ask the question how these labor market intermediaries differ on issues such as information technology usage, ways how labor supply and demand are matched and working conditions (e.g. status, pay and social security of workers).

Next to a review of the academic literature, the authors conducted interviews with representatives of six OLPs and temp agencies in the Netherlands as well as a legal specialist in Dutch labor law.

The authors found that OLPs and temp agencies differ on several issues. First, although OLPs rely on online marketplaces for matching labor supply and demand, temp agencies generally rely on human matchmakers. Second, although OLPs enable workers and client organizations to initiate transactions themselves, temp agencies employ representatives that do the matching for workers and clients. Third, and as a result, OLPs afford client organizations to almost instantly hire workers on-demand, whereas the flexibility and speed that temp agencies can offer depend on availability and processing capacity of human matchmakers.

According to the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to compare OLPs and temp agencies and, in doing so, offers academics and practitioners an analytical framework to compare different types of labor market intermediaries.

In order to establish sustainable development, there is a need to focus on solutions effectively improving environmental performance. Effectiveness is the product of significance and improvement potential. For buildings, the supporting structure is the predominant environmental load by materials, hence significant. The purpose of the studies presented in this paper is to determine the improvement potential of the supporting structure of buildings and explore other sustainable solutions effectively enhancing environmental performance.

For the same office layout, various combinations of structural components at different spans were studied. The environmental load of these variants was determined by means of an life cycle analysis (LCA)‐based model.

The studies presented in the paper demonstrated an environmental difference by a factor of 5 between the solutions performing worst and best. The optimal combination is the uncommon solution of TT‐slabs with timber beams and columns, expecting to establish an improvement factor of 4 with respect to common practice.

The findings of the studies presented suggest another way of building, with common structural components but whose combination is not common at present.

So far, sustainable building has not focused enough on effective solutions and has had little means to do so. Approaching the supporting structure of buildings rather than small, ineffective adaptations will significantly improve environmental building performance. An elaborate LCA of supporting structures had never been done before. The paper, on the one hand, rationalises sustainable building and, on the other hand, supports effective sustainable design.