{"id":22287,"date":"2026-10-19T06:16:54","date_gmt":"2026-10-19T06:16:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/teise.org\/?p=22287"},"modified":"2026-10-26T07:12:50","modified_gmt":"2026-10-26T07:12:50","slug":"20261019-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/20261019-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Digital Exclusion and Opportunities in the Labour Market: What Do Data from 27 EU Member States Reveal?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Could digital exclusion be associated with labour market inequality? An analysis of data from 27 European Union Member States for 2016\u20132025 found that, among people aged 25\u201354, higher rates of email non-use were associated with both higher unemployment and lower employment. However, this association became considerably less clear when alternative statistical models were applied.<\/p>

Lithuanian researchers examined this relationship in the context of intersectional discrimination. The study\u2019s lead researcher, Dr Raimonda Bublien\u0117, a researcher at the Institute of Law at the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences, points out that as job searching and communication with employers become increasingly digitalised, it is important to consider not only access to technology but also whether non-use of digital tools creates additional barriers.<\/p>

\u201cEmail non-use does not, in itself, tell us whether a person lacks digital skills, nor does it explain why they are unemployed. However, the observed association between email non-use and unemployment among people aged 25\u201354 raises the question of whether everyone retains equal opportunities to participate in the labour market as it becomes increasingly digitalised. If digital tools become a standard channel for job searching and communicating with employers, we need to pay closer attention to the barriers that may arise as a result,\u201d says Dr Raimonda Bublien\u0117, the study\u2019s lead researcher and a researcher at the Institute of Law at the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences.<\/p>

\u00a0<\/p>

Different Age Groups, Different Results<\/b><\/p>


<\/b>According to the study, a 10-percentage-point increase in the email non-use rate was associated with an average increase of 1.09 percentage points in the unemployment rate among men aged 25\u201354 and 1.39 percentage points among women in the same age group. This is a statistical association, but it does not, in itself, mean that email non-use causes unemployment.<\/p>

A similar pattern was observed for employment. In the same age group, a 10-percentage-point increase in the email non-use rate was associated with an average decrease of 1.38 percentage points in the employment rate among men and 1.09 percentage points among women.<\/p>

Among men and women aged 55\u201374, the estimated relationships followed a similar direction, but the evidence was insufficient to draw reliable conclusions about unemployment or employment.<\/p>

When country-specific long-term trends were included in the statistical model, the association between email non-use and unemployment almost disappeared among men aged 25\u201354. Among women in the same age group, higher email non-use was associated with higher unemployment in the initial model, but the association became negative when the model was changed, indicating the opposite direction. These changes show that the results depend on the statistical model selected and do not support the conclusion that email non-use causes higher unemployment.<\/p>

\u00a0<\/p>

What Do These Figures Actually Show?<\/b><\/p>


<\/b>The study examined the proportion of the population that does not use the internet to send or receive emails. However, email non-use does not, in itself, indicate whether a person lacks digital skills, prefers other means of communication, or faces barriers to internet access.<\/p>

It is also important to note that the analysis used aggregated data from 27 EU Member States rather than individual experiences. The study identifies statistical associations but does not establish causality. For example, email non-use rates in later years were also statistically associated with unemployment in earlier years. This makes it difficult to reliably determine the direction of the relationship between these factors or to rule out other possible explanations.<\/p>

Thus, the findings raise the question of whether digital exclusion may be associated with labour market inequality, but this study alone cannot establish how or why such an association arises.<\/p>

\u00a0<\/p>

Intersectional Discrimination in the Digital Age<\/b><\/p>


<\/b>Intersectional discrimination refers to situations in which a person\u2019s position is affected by multiple, intersecting grounds of discrimination, such as sex and age or sex and disability. Examining each factor separately may leave some forms of inequality unnoticed.<\/p>

This issue is also important in European Union law. The Pay Transparency Directive recognises that sex-based discrimination may intersect with discrimination on other grounds, such as age, disability, religion or ethnic origin.<\/p>

The issue is also relevant to Lithuania\u2019s legal framework. A new version of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Equal Opportunities will enter into force in 2027, transposing into national law the provisions of the Pay Transparency Directive and the Directive on standards for equality bodies in the field of equal treatment and equal opportunities for women and men in matters of employment and occupation. Notably, the revised law will, for the first time, establish and define the concepts of \u201cmultiple discrimination\u201d, \u201cintersectional discrimination\u201d and \u201cdiscrimination by association\u201d.<\/p>

The study raises an important question for Lithuania and other EU Member States: could differences in digital communication be associated with unequal opportunities to obtain employment? Answering this question would require more detailed data on people\u2019s digital skills, job-search experiences and employers\u2019 decisions. Such data would help identify the barriers faced by people who do not use conventional digital communication tools and determine how these barriers affect different groups\u2019 opportunities in the labour market.<\/p>

The findings have been published in the peer-reviewed international journal Social Sciences in an article entitled \u201eIntersectional Discrimination in Employment in the Digital Age: Sex, Age, Email Non-Use and Unemployment in the EU\u201c<\/a>. The authors are Raimonda Bublien\u0117, Ingrida Ma\u010dernyt\u0117 Panomariovien\u0117 and Aurelija Burinskien\u0117.<\/i><\/p>

The research was conducted as part of the MEDALIC<\/a> project (\u201cMultiple Discrimination and Labour Income: A Comparative Analysis of Legal Regulations in European Countries\u201d), funded by the Research Council of Lithuania (agreement No. S-PD-24-155).

Read the article: https:\/\/www.mdpi.com\/2076-0760\/15\/9\/638<\/a>.<\/p>

Prepared by Dr Raimonda Bublien\u0117,
Research Fellow at the Institute of Law, Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences.
\nMedia enquiries: raimonda.bubliene@lcss.lt | +370 5 210 1672<\/i><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ar skaitmenin\u0117 atskirtis gali b\u016bti susijusi su nelygybe darbo rinkoje? I\u0161analizavus 2016\u20132025 m. duomenis i\u0161 27 Europos S\u0105jungos valstybi\u0173, nustatyta, kad tarp 25\u201354 met\u0173 \u017emoni\u0173 didesnis el. pa\u0161to nenaudojimo rodiklis buvo susij\u0119s ir su didesniu nedarbu, ir su ma\u017eesniu u\u017eimtumu. Vis d\u0117lto, pritaikius kitus statistinius modelius, \u0161is ry\u0161ys tapo gerokai ma\u017eiau ai\u0161kus. Lietuvos mokslinink\u0117s \u0161i\u0105 s\u0105saj\u0105 nagrin\u0117jo daugialyp\u0117s diskriminacijos kontekste. Tyrimo vadov\u0117, Lietuvos socialini\u0173 moksl\u0173 centro Teis\u0117s instituto mokslinink\u0117 dr. Raimonda Bublien\u0117, atkreipia d\u0117mes\u012f, kad skaitmenizuojantis darbo paie\u0161kai ir bendravimui su darbdaviais svarbu klausti ne tik apie prieig\u0105 prie technologij\u0173, bet ir apie tai, ar j\u0173 nenaudojimas nesudaro papildom\u0173 kli\u016b\u010di\u0173. \u201eEl. pa\u0161to nenaudojimas savaime nepasako, ar \u017emogus stokoja skaitmenini\u0173 \u012fg\u016bd\u017ei\u0173, ir nepaai\u0161kina, kod\u0117l jis neturi darbo. Ta\u010diau 25\u201354 met\u0173 \u017emoni\u0173 grup\u0117je nustatyta s\u0105saja tarp el. pa\u0161to nenaudojimo ir nedarbo kelia klausim\u0105, ar darbo rinkai skaitmenizuojantis visi \u017emon\u0117s i\u0161saugo vienodas galimybes joje dalyvauti. Jei skaitmenin\u0117s priemon\u0117s tampa \u012fprastu darbo paie\u0161kos ir bendravimo su darbdaviais kanalu, turime atid\u017eiau vertinti ir kli\u016btis, kurios d\u0117l to gali atsirasti\u201c, \u2013 sako tyrimo vadov\u0117, Lietuvos socialini\u0173 moksl\u0173 centro Teis\u0117s instituto mokslinink\u0117 dr. Raimonda Bublien\u0117. \u00a0 Skirtingas am\u017eius \u2013 skirtingi rezultatai Tyrimo duomenimis, el. pa\u0161to nenaudojimo rodikliui padid\u0117jus 10 procentini\u0173 punkt\u0173, 25\u201354 met\u0173 vyr\u0173 nedarbo lygis buvo vidutini\u0161kai 1,09 procentinio punkto, o moter\u0173 \u2013 1,39 procentinio punkto didesnis. Tai statistin\u0117 s\u0105saja, bet ji savaime nerei\u0161kia, kad el. pa\u0161to nenaudojimas lemia nedarb\u0105. Pana\u0161ios krypties s\u0105saja nustatyta ir vertinant u\u017eimtum\u0105: tose pa\u010diose am\u017eiaus grup\u0117se el. pa\u0161to nenaudojimo rodikliui padid\u0117jus 10 procentini\u0173 punkt\u0173, vyr\u0173 u\u017eimtumo lygis buvo vidutini\u0161kai 1,38 procentinio punkto, o moter\u0173 \u2013 1,09 procentinio punkto ma\u017eesnis. 55\u201374 met\u0173 vyr\u0173 ir moter\u0173 grup\u0117se apskai\u010diuoti ry\u0161iai rod\u0117 pana\u0161i\u0105 krypt\u012f, ta\u010diau j\u0173 nepakako patikimoms i\u0161vadoms apie nedarb\u0105 ar u\u017eimtum\u0105. \u012e statistin\u012f model\u012f \u012ftraukus atskir\u0173 valstybi\u0173 ilgalaikes tendencijas, 25\u201354 met\u0173 vyr\u0173 grup\u0117je s\u0105saja tarp el. pa\u0161to nenaudojimo ir nedarbo prakti\u0161kai i\u0161nyko. Moter\u0173 grup\u0117je pirminiame modelyje didesnis el. pa\u0161to nenaudojimas buvo susij\u0119s su didesniu nedarbu, ta\u010diau pakeitus model\u012f s\u0105saja tapo neigiama \u2013 rod\u0117 prie\u0161ing\u0105 krypt\u012f. \u0160ie poky\u010diai rodo, kad rezultatai priklauso nuo pasirinkto statistinio modelio ir neleid\u017eia daryti i\u0161vados, jog el. pa\u0161to nenaudojimas lemia didesn\u012f nedarb\u0105. \u00a0 K\u0105 i\u0161 ties\u0173 rodo \u0161ie skai\u010diai? Tyrime vertinta, kokia gyventoj\u0173 dalis nesinaudoja internetu el. lai\u0161kams si\u0173sti ar gauti. Ta\u010diau el. pa\u0161to nenaudojimas savaime neparodo, ar \u017emogui tr\u016bksta skaitmenini\u0173 \u012fg\u016bd\u017ei\u0173, ar jis renkasi kitus bendravimo b\u016bdus, ar susiduria su prieigos prie interneto kli\u016btimis. Svarbu ir tai, kad analizuoti apibendrinti 27 ES valstybi\u0173 duomenys, o ne atskir\u0173 \u017emoni\u0173 patirtys. Tyrimas atskleid\u017eia statistines s\u0105sajas, ta\u010diau ne\u012frodo prie\u017eastinio ry\u0161io. Pavyzd\u017eiui, v\u0117lesni\u0173 met\u0173 el. pa\u0161to nenaudojimo rodikliai statisti\u0161kai siejosi ir su ankstesni\u0173 met\u0173 nedarbu. Tai neleid\u017eia patikimai nustatyti, kuria kryptimi veikia \u0161ie veiksniai, ir atmesti kit\u0173 galim\u0173 paai\u0161kinim\u0173. Taigi, rezultatai leid\u017eia kelti klausim\u0105, ar skaitmenin\u0117 atskirtis gali b\u016bti susijusi su nelygybe darbo rinkoje, ta\u010diau vien \u0161io tyrimo nepakanka atsakyti, kaip ir kod\u0117l \u0161i s\u0105saja atsiranda. \u00a0 Daugialyp\u0117 diskriminacija skaitmeniniame am\u017eiuje Daugialyp\u0117 diskriminacija apima situacijas, kai \u017emogaus pad\u0117t\u012f veikia keli persipinantys diskriminacijos pagrindai, pavyzd\u017eiui, lytis ir am\u017eius arba lytis ir negalia. Vertinant kiekvien\u0105 veiksn\u012f atskirai, dalis nelygyb\u0117s gali likti nepasteb\u0117ta. \u0160is klausimas svarbus ir Europos S\u0105jungos teis\u0117je. Darbo u\u017emokes\u010dio skaidrumo direktyvoje pripa\u017e\u012fstama, kad diskriminacija d\u0117l lyties gali persipinti su diskriminacija d\u0117l kit\u0173 po\u017eymi\u0173, pavyzd\u017eiui, am\u017eiaus, negalios, religijos ar etnin\u0117s kilm\u0117s. \u0160i tema aktuali ir Lietuvos teisiniam reguliavimui. Nuo 2027 m. \u012fsigalioja Lietuvos Respublikos lygi\u0173 galimybi\u0173 \u012fstatymo nauja redakcija, kuria \u012f nacionalin\u0119 teis\u0119 perkeliamos Darbo u\u017emokes\u010dio skaidrumo ir Lygyb\u0117s \u012fstaigoms taikom\u0173 standart\u0173 d\u0117l vienodo po\u017ei\u016brio \u012f moteris ir vyrus ir vienod\u0173 j\u0173 galimybi\u0173 u\u017eimtumo ir profesin\u0117s veiklos srityje direktyv\u0173 nuostatos. Pa\u017eym\u0117tina, kad pirm\u0105 kart\u0105 naujos redakcijos \u012fstatyme \u012ftvirtinamos ir apibr\u0117\u017eiamos s\u0105vokos \u201edaugialyp\u0117 diskriminacija\u201c, \u201es\u0105veikin\u0117 diskriminacija\u201c ir \u201esiejamoji diskriminacija\u201c. Atliktas tyrimas kelia svarb\u0173 klausim\u0105 Lietuvai ir kitoms ES \u0161alims: ar skaitmenin\u0117s komunikacijos skirtumai gali b\u016bti susij\u0119 su nevienodomis galimyb\u0117mis \u012fsidarbinti? Norint atsakyti \u012f \u0161\u012f klausim\u0105, reik\u0117t\u0173 i\u0161samesni\u0173 duomen\u0173 apie \u017emoni\u0173 skaitmeninius \u012fg\u016bd\u017eius, darbo paie\u0161kos patirt\u012f ir darbdavi\u0173 sprendimus. Tai pad\u0117t\u0173 nustatyti, koki\u0173 kli\u016b\u010di\u0173 kyla \u017emon\u0117ms, kurie nesinaudoja \u012fprastomis skaitmenin\u0117s komunikacijos priemon\u0117mis, ir kaip tai veikia skirting\u0173 \u017emoni\u0173 grupi\u0173 galimybes darbo rinkoje. Tyrimo rezultatai paskelbti tarptautiniame recenzuojamame \u017eurnale Social Sciences straipsnyje \u201eIntersectional Discrimination in Employment in the Digital Age: Sex, Age, Email Non-Use and Unemployment in the EU\u201c. Straipsnio autor\u0117s \u2013 Raimonda Bublien\u0117, Ingrida Ma\u010dernyt\u0117 Panomariovien\u0117 ir Aurelija Burinskien\u0117. Atlikta \u012fgyvendinant Lietuvos mokslo tarybos finansuojam\u0105 projekt\u0105 MEDALIC (\u201eDaugialyp\u0117s diskriminacijos ir darbo pajam\u0173 analiz\u0117: Europos valstybi\u0173 teisinio reguliavimo lyginamasis tyrimas\u201c, sutarties Nr. S-PD-24-155). https:\/\/www.mdpi.com\/2076-0760\/15\/9\/638 Pareng\u0117 dr. Raimonda Bublien\u0117, Lietuvos socialini\u0173 moksl\u0173 centro Teis\u0117s instituto mokslinink\u0117 sta\u017euotojaKontaktai pasiteirauti: raimonda.bubliene@lcss.lt +370 5 210 1672<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":22290,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,268],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22287","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-naujienos","category-268"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22287","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22287"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22287\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22334,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22287\/revisions\/22334"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22290"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22287"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22287"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22287"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}