Next Article in Journal
Physical and Economic Water Productivity in Agriculture between Traditional and Water-Saving Irrigation Systems: A Case Study in Southern Italy
Previous Article in Journal
Gauging the Technology Acceptance of Manufacturing Employees: A New Measure for Pre-Implementation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 12
10.3390/su16124970
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Managing the Right to Disconnect—A Scoping Review

by
John Hopkins
School of Business, Law and Entrepreneurship, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia
Sustainability 2024, 16(12), 4970; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16124970
Submission received: 17 April 2024 / Revised: 27 May 2024 / Accepted: 6 June 2024 / Published: 11 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Digital Wellbeing and Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In recent years, several countries have introduced ‘right to disconnect’ laws to protect workers’ rest times, giving workers legal rights to disconnect from work-related communication outside normal working hours. This is a response to growing concerns for the digital wellbeing of workers, the state of hyperconnectivity created by today’s digital technologies, and how it can result in constant connectivity to work. The aim of this paper is to review the existing academic literature available on this topic, in order to identify key themes and potential research gaps relating to the right to disconnect and derive practical implications for managers needing to adopt this policy. Using the scoping review method and keywords ‘right to disconnect’, n = 9966 records were retrieved from the databases APA PsycNet, EBSCOhost, Emerald Insight, Gale, ProQuest Central, Scopus, and Web of Science, from which a final sample of n = 21 journal articles from n = 15 different countries were eligible for analysis. These articles were found to primarily span three academic disciplines: law, health, and business. Four key themes were highlighted—work–life balance, scope, governance, and health and wellbeing—as being critical factors for the successful implementation of the right to disconnect, as a sustainable digital wellbeing initiative for employees.

1. Introduction

The right to disconnect (RTD) refers to the right of employees to disconnect from work-related communications during non-work hours and holidays [1]. It stems from the recognition that the information communication technologies (ICT) we have today—such as mobile phones, smartwatches, tablets, and laptops—blur the boundaries between our work and personal lives and can negatively impact “employee privacy and autonomy, employee morale, safety and health, productivity, compensation, rest and leisure, and work-family conflict” [2]. The rapid growth and adoption of remote work in recent years in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic has blurred these boundaries even further [3].
Where disconnect is formally defined as “refraining from engaging in work-related activities or communications via digital technologies, directly or indirectly, outside of working hours” [4]; RTD aims to re-establish a clear and sustainable boundary between the two different worlds, by ensuring appropriate rest time is carefully defined and preserved [5].
France is widely acknowledged as one of the first countries to introduce legislation specifically addressing RTD [2,4,6]. In 2017, they implemented a labor law that required companies with more than 50 employees to negotiate agreements with their staff on their rights to ignore their smartphones and other electronic devices after work hours. The reaction to this legislation was mixed. Some praised it for promoting work–life balance and reducing stress, whereas others raised concerns about its potential impact on productivity and competitiveness, especially among small businesses.
RTD also has clear links to sustainability and a number of the United Nations (UN) sustainable development goals (SDGs)—particularly SDG3 Good Health and Wellbeing [7,8], SDG5 Gender Equality [5], and SDG8 Decent Work and Economic Growth [8]. More specifically, RTD supports Target 3.4’s mission to promote mental health and wellbeing and reduce suicide mortality rates; Target’s 5.5 goal to ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership; and Target 8.8’s aim to protect labor rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers and reduce fatal and non-fatal occupational injuries. Overall, RTD has sparked discussions globally about the importance of setting boundaries between work and personal lives in the digital age [9,10].
In late 2023, a report was released by The Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute [11], which estimated that on average, Australian workers were performing an additional 5.4 h of unpaid work per week. This ‘time theft’ equates to an additional 281 h of unpaid work per year, or 7 additional standard weeks of unpaid work, costing workers an average of AUD 11,055 each per year. This has been partly attributed to the rise of flexible work arrangements in Australia since the COVID-19 pandemic, such as telework and hybrid working, and workers’ hyperconnectivity to digital technologies [12,13,14].
In response to this, legislation was passed in Australia in early 2024, making it the latest country in the world to support RTD [15], which was the motivation for this study. The Australian government will formally introduce RTD in late August 2024 as part of its ‘Closing Loopholes’ [16] changes, and this will mean the following:
  • Eligible employees will be given a new ‘right to disconnect’ outside of work hours.
  • Employees will have the right to refuse to monitor, read, or respond to contact (or attempted contact) from an employer or a third party outside their working hours, unless that refusal is unreasonable.
  • Rules will apply when determining whether an employee’s refusal is unreasonable or not.
  • Employers and employees will be able to go to the Australian Fair Work Commission, the national industrial relations tribunal, to seek orders on this right.
The topic of what qualifies as ‘unreasonable’ has attracted extensive debate in Australia [17,18] and will obviously vary from role to role, but certain factors that will be considered in the Australian RTD definition of unreasonable include the following: how frequently employees are contacted, how they are contacted (e.g., phone call, SMS, email etc.), their job description, whether workers are being paid to answer/respond, and what family responsibilities they have.
Though many countries have already adopted RTD—including France, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Belgium, Italy, Greece, Luxembourg, Mexico, Canada, Brazil, Peru, Chile, Argentina, and the Republic of Korea [2,4,5,7,8,19,20]—there are still many more that have not. The purpose of this scoping review, therefore, is to examine the current academic literature on this evolving topic and to identify the key themes and potential gaps for future investigation. It is hoped this will inform future managerial decision making, help to prepare organizations in other countries for the adoption of RTD, and guide future research agenda setting in this field.
Therefore, this paper describes a scoping review of the associated academic literature, which seeks to answer the following research question:
“RQ1—What are the key managerial considerations for successfully managing the right to disconnect?”
This research utilizes Boundary Theory, which is widely used in academic research to describe how, and why, workers and employers manage conflicting work and non-work demands [21]. It describes popular strategies adopted by individuals and firms to manage the boundaries between work and personal lives, as well as the impact these have on identity, relationships, and behaviors [22,23]. In this instance, the theory contributes to this examination of the boundaries between working time and rest and the need to formally reinforce the necessity for workers to properly disconnect from their jobs.

2. Materials and Methods

The methodology adopted by this investigation is that of a scoping review, which is a popular research technique for sourcing and reviewing the academic literature on a specific topic and enables researchers to gain an understanding of the research activity that has previously been conducted in that field [24,25]. Scoping reviews are extremely effective for drawing together records from a diverse range of sources and across different discipline areas [24], in order to enable articles to be aggregated and categorized via a range of characteristics—including year, region (e.g., country/continent of lead author’s institution), method, and discipline area [26]. In this instance, the scoping review method was preferred to a systematic literature review, which would have been more appropriate had the literature sources been more narrowly focused in, say, one discipline area [27,28,29]. Scoping reviews have been used to study similar topics impacting modern workers in recent years, such as teleworking and work–life balance [30] and the four-day work week [31], and can provide a useful platform for identifying potential areas of future investigation.
Arksey and O’Malley [24] recommend a framework of seven steps when conducting scoping reviews, which this research has adopted: (1) establish research focus; (2) identify relevant studies; (3) study selection; (4) identify whether a chosen article makes a relevant contribution; (5) chart the data; (6) summarize and report; and (7) expand on practical implications.
To source the appropriate material for this investigation, the search term ’right to disconnect’ was used, and the following inclusion criteria were applied to define the eligibility of the source material to be included: (1) articles must be published in the English language; (2) peer-reviewed academic journal articles only; (3) full text must be available; (4) any time/year; (5) any discipline, category, or subject area; (6) no articles to be excluded based on the journal quality ranking. Similarly, the following exclusion criteria were also applied: (1) articles not published in the English language; (2) book chapters, conference papers and working papers, etc.; and (3) incomplete papers/full text not available.
A combination of n = 7 different databases were used for this multidisciplinary scoping review, APA PsycNet, EBSCOhost, Emerald Insight, Gale, ProQuest Central, Scopus, and Web of Science, and the searches were conducted on 1 March 2024 (see Table 1). The databases selected for this scoping study were influenced by databases used in similar published studies and the past experiences of the author in successfully publishing other scoping reviews, guided by feedback received during previous peer review processes.
The final sample of articles for this review was attained via the adoption of a popular four-step process, recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) flow diagram and checklist [32]: Identification, Screening, Eligibility, and Included (see Figure 1).
Each of the n = 7 databases were opened sequentially, the keywords were entered into the ‘advanced search’ section of the database’s dashboard, and the eligibility/exclusion limiters (e.g., English language, journal article, peer-reviewed, full text, etc.) were applied in the search option fields (where possible). The Boolean term AND was specified in the search string within the databases where this command was possible, in order to tighten the boundary of the search. A total of n = 9966 records were collected after this initial Identification step had been completed across all n = 7 databases.
To ensure a reasonable exploration of the topic was present in the article, the sample was then screened to confirm the exact term ‘right to disconnect’ appeared either in the title of the article, in the Abstract section, or as a keyword, in line with the screening process recommended by Pham et al. [29]. Upon completion of this Screening step, n = 9934 records were excluded as not being relevant to this line of investigation, and n = 32 records were identified for eligibility assessment.
The Eligibility step of PRISMA-ScR involved checking and reading full texts of the remaining n = 32 records to ascertain eligibility for inclusion in the final sample. This step was completed individually by the author and two other members of the research team, who then met as a group afterwards to collectively make a final decision. The other members of the research team are both retired professors, who have extensive experience with this research method and the context in which it is currently being employed.
At this point, a further n = 11 articles were excluded from the sample of records—for either not being in English (n = 4), the full text not being available (n = 1), being duplicated (n = 4), being a book chapter (n = 1), or for being an introduction section of an article (n = 1)—resulting in a final sample of n = 21 (See Appendix A—Table A1).
ScienceDirect (Elsevier) was also originally planned to be included as a database for this investigation. However, the large sample size it returned (n = 21,030) and limited refinement functionality available (e.g., the inability to apply inclusion/exclusion criteria and select ‘peer-reviewed’, ‘full text’, ‘abstract’, ‘title’, etc.) meant it was impractical to include. Despite this, the first 200 ScienceDirect (Elsevier) search results were sorted by relevance, with the titles, keywords, and abstracts being manually screened for eligibility, and none of them were found to be relevant to this investigation. A decision was made that it was impractical to check all remaining 20,830 articles, and an assumption was made by the researcher that the articles sorted even lower in relevance would be increasingly less likely to be appropriate for this sample.

3. Results

The first mention of the RTD in the academic literature emerged in 2018, with Hesselberth’s ‘Discourses on dysconnectivity and the right to disconnect’ paper [33] in Sage’s New Media & Society journal, confirming the fact this is a relatively new phenomenon. Since then, the topic has slowly grown in interest among scholars, with a record n = 8 articles being published in 2023 [4,8,10,34,35,36] (see Figure 2).
On analyzing the final sample of literature by region, based on the location of the lead author’s institution and regions defined by the United Nations, it was clear this topic has attracted international interest, with articles originating from n = 15 different countries. However, it was also clear that this research is heavily skewed towards European countries. Over half (52%, n = 11) of current RTD articles are from Europe (Denmark, France, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Russia, and Spain), compared with only 24% from Asia (n = 5, Korea, Japan, and Malaysia) and 14% (n = 3) from North America (the United States of America and Mexico). However, this was probably to be expected, given a high proportion of the countries who have already introduced RTD being in Europe (see Figure 3a).
Similarly, when analyzing the literature sample by discipline, it was clear that law journals (33%, n = 7), health journals (24%, n = 5), and business journals (24%, n = 5) are the primary sources of research into the RTD (see Figure 3b). However, the diverse breadth of journals featuring RTD research was also clear—ranging from Earth and Environmental Science to the Russian Law Journal—underlining the multidisciplinary nature and reach of this topic.
A final sample of only n = 21 journal articles, resulting from a review of n = 7 different academic databases, is also a notable finding. This highlights a lack of academic research in this field and underlines the fact this domain could offer scholars a wide scope of opportunity, with many potential research gaps worthy of future investigation.
In the next section, the findings from this scoping review will be discussed in greater depth, resulting in the identification of four key theme areas for managing RTD.

4. Discussion

To identify the key managerial considerations for successfully managing RTD, three researchers read the full-text articles from the final sample of records and applied manual coding techniques, using deductive reasoning. Afterwards, they engaged in an iterative consultation process to simplify the coding [37,38], from which the following four key theme areas were proposed: (1) work–life balance; (2) scope; (3) governance; and (4) health and wellbeing.

4.1. Theme 1—Work–Life Balance

One key theme emerging from the literature was that of the relationship between RTD and work–life balance. Von Bergen et al. [2] discuss how work–life conflicts commonly occur due to competing demands workers have between their work and non-work activities, and these conflicts can trigger serious conditions like occupational stress [1], anxiety, and overall poorer quality of life [20]. Similarly, Choi et al. [39] found that work-related digital communication outside of regular working hours is associated with work–family conflict in Korea, particularly among female workers. They believe female workers may be impacted more by out-of-hours work communication, as women typically shoulder more household responsibilities than men in gender-traditional cultures like Korea.
To overcome this, organizations are often encouraged to develop more “employee-friendly job arrangements in terms of where, when, and how individuals work”, but these flexible work arrangements themselves may be problematic and may contribute to an ‘always on’ culture. To address that, and to appropriately position RTD within the context of work–life balance, it is important to first establish clear definitions for working time and rest.
Pucheta and Ribeiro Costa [5] cite an important definition for working time from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which includes both periods of activity and periods of availability, when workers are at the ‘disposal’ of the employer but not necessarily actively performing work activities. Similarly, the European Union (EU) Working Time Directive (Directive 2003/88/EC) defines working time as “any period during which the worker is working, at the employer’s disposal and carrying out his activities or duties, in accordance with national laws and/or practice” [5].
Varela-Castro et al. [6] define rest as “the interruption of work to relax”, as being separate from both leisure—free time dedicated to non-work-related activities—and time spent performing essential domestic activities. However, as typical rest periods often do not equate to genuine free time in today’s digital age [40], Pucheta and Ribeiro Costa [5] believe these rest periods need to be more carefully “delineated and preserved”. Those opposed to the RTD have suggested workers could be paid overtime as compensation for being accessible after working hours, but Shaari and Amirul [4] believe a lack of payment is not the real problem; rather, it is the sacrifice of well-needed rest that is required to attend to work-related matters.
To effectively support the work–life balance of workers, it is therefore necessary to establish an effective boundary between times of work activity and availability and defined rest periods. This may be particularly important for female workers, in line with the UN’s SDG Target 5.5, which aims to support women’s full and effective participation in work and ensure equal opportunities for leadership.

4.2. Theme 2—Scope

The literature overwhelmingly identifies the growth of digital technologies, like smartphones, laptops, tablets, and smart watches, as the primary reason for today’s constant time and location availability of workers—sometimes referred to as ‘availability creep’ [35]—and subsequent concerns that now exist for employee wellbeing, work–life balance, and work exploitation [2,5,7,8,10,33,41,42]. Trujillo Pons and Megino Fernández [8] call this hyperconnectivity, which they say creates an unfavorable sense of urgency in workers that drives them to immediately answer any work communication received, even though it may be detrimental to their rest time, work–life balance, or health. They believe “it is crystal clear that the line that separates effective working time from leisure and rest time is becoming thinner, which in the end practically causes the employee to never disconnect from work”. Shaari and Amirul agree [4], saying “employers communicating with their employees after the working hours are turning (this behaviour) into a norm. However, this situation is creating a dilemma for the employee. If he were to respond to the employer’s contact, then he is sacrificing his rest time which should be spent with his family or personal matters. On the other hand, if he chose to disengage, he fears the employer’s retaliation against him”. Périssé et al. [41] believe this not only impacts employees’ relationships with work, in terms of their organizational commitment and the recognition they receive for their work, but also in terms of their work–life balance and overall health.
When discussing who the RTD should apply to, Olga [9] concludes that RTD should apply to all workers in all industry sectors. However, the author also refers to the scope of a proposed directive that specifically singles out “workers who use digital tools for work purposes” and questions whether or not those who do not use digital tools for their work (e.g., farmers or gardeners) can realize the right to disconnect or must rely on the enforcement of existing working time rules [23]. Von Bergen et al. [2] raise another point for consideration, that certain employees are legitimately required to be available on call as part of their job—citing the likes of maintenance and IT workers, medical staff, and first responders—making it difficult for them to be included in regulations prohibiting after-hours work communication.
Pucheta and Ribeiro Costa [5] highlighted another important consideration for the scope of RTD: whether the obligation for action should lie with the employee or the employer. Instead of a RTD, which gives employees the right to not read/respond to work communications sent to them outside of working hours, they said it was more appropriate in Portuguese Reform to introduce “a duty on employers to refrain from contacting workers”. Rather than RTD, they describe this as a refrain from contact. Citing earlier work from Fudge [43], Olga expands upon this point, by saying they believe “the right to disconnect includes a negative obligation of the employer—to refrain from connecting/contacting a worker, as well as a positive obligation of him/her—to take the necessary measures to provide workers with the means to exercise the right to disconnect”. Golding also discusses this [35], and Lerouge and Trujillo Pons [7] also cite the example of Portugal, where it is responsibility of the employer “to refrain from contacting the employee during the rest period, except in situations of force majeure”.
This links to another important factor when defining the scope of RTD: the matter of what exceptions there should be to the rule for urgent situations when the employer is still allowed to contact employees outside of work hours. Trujillo Pons and Megino Fernández [8] discuss the need for companies to clearly define what constitutes an emergency, circumstances in which the employer has reasonable grounds for contacting employees outside of their working hours, so that these instances are “not a generality, but an exception”. As part of their endnotes, they recommend the need to “identify certain extraordinary situations in which the exercise of the right to digital disconnection may be conditioned (availability periods, on-call times, recurring needs to connect with countries in other time zones, emergencies, force majeure, etc.)”.
The importance of establishing an appropriate scope for RTD supports the UN’s SDG8, which promotes sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all, and it supports Target 8.8 in particular, which aims to protect labor rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers [44].

4.3. Theme 3—Governance

The third key RTD theme emerging from the literature was that of governance. A total of 43% of the articles in the sample (n = 9) discuss at length the characteristics of the different legal frameworks for RTD models in Europe [1,2,4,5,7,8,9,10,35] and provide comparative analysis of the variations between them. Based on these insights, the most significant observation is the two different approaches to RTD governance that have been adopted in different countries, with some having legislated it, whereas others rely on self-regulation from employers.
For example, Von Bergen et al. [2] discuss how France has legislated after-hours electronic communication between employer and employee through statutes and lawmaking, meaning government entities must enforce that right, and a court is needed to interpret it. Pucheta and Ribeiro Costa [5] explain this means RTD is “one of the topics that can be addressed by the social partners in annual negotiations on equality between women and men in the workplace, and the quality of life and working conditions”, and in instances where an agreement cannot be reached, “the employer must issue a unilateral charter, which must be submitted to the works council, that establishes the conditions under which this right to disconnect is exercised”.
Meanwhile, other countries like Germany do not formally legislate RTD; however, many companies in Germany (e.g., Volkswagen and Daimler) already have their own systems for preventing emails from being delivered to employees outside of their standard working hours [4]. This Self-Regularity Model “involves voluntary self-determination in which private firms adopt policies that fit their individual or industrial needs” and works on the principle that government intervention would constitute a legislative overreach [2].
Von Bergen et al. [2] propose a clear differentiation between legislated and self-regulated RTD models by saying, “generally speaking, businesses are not open to more governmental regulations limiting their independence while labor unions are more likely to support right to disconnect initiatives. Governmental officials should therefore anticipate disagreement and discord between business and trade unions on the topic of after work hours’ connectivity”.
Finally, Mitrus [40] discussed a specific legal case—known as the ‘Matzak judgment’—which raised a number of interesting questions relating to the regulation of working time in the EU. The Matzak judgment involved a volunteer firefighter in Belgium who was required to respond to work-related calls within an 8 min time period, and the CJEU agreed in their favor, ruling the time they spent on-call was significantly restricting their opportunities to participate in other activities and must therefore be regarded as ‘working time.’ The Advocate General, a senior officer of the law, believed “the temporal and geographical constraints imposed on the on-call worker are of decisive importance”. This further underlines the importance of establishing clear definitions for working time and rest as the principal foundations for RTD.

4.4. Theme 4—Health and Wellbeing

The final theme identified in this review was the clear link that exists between RTD and the health and wellbeing of today’s workers.
Trujillo Pons and Megino Fernández [8] describe how today’s culture of digital presenteeism and an underlying expectation to be constantly available is not beneficial for either the employer or the employee. They believe it negatively impacts the “health and mental integrity” of workers, which not only leads to personal and social costs to the individual, but also economic losses for the organization.
The health impacts on workers can manifest themselves in a range of ways, from occupational stress, anxiety, burnout [1], work-related headaches and eyestrain [45], insomnia [46], and psychological exhaustion [5] to addictions, ergonomic issues (e.g., back pain), and overall poorer quality of life [20]. This has led Todisco et al. [42] to call on managers to promote ‘digital wellbeing’ in the workplace, by ensuring their workers form a healthy relationship with technology.
Shaari and Amirul [4] believe RTD presents the foundations for a “new, human-centred consistent concept for working conditions, which respect the health, safety, and dignity of an employed person”. Similarly, Varela-Castro et al. [6] concluded that RTD improves both family relationships and physical health, whereas a lack of respect for RTD influenced “emotional balance, productivity, physical and mental health, and computer fatigue”. Magnavita et al. [1] agree, saying RTD was necessary but also “needs to be strengthened”, recommending current European Parliament guidelines should be extended to also address intrusive and toxic leadership.
Trujillo Pons and Megino Fernández [8] conclude that the overall purpose of RTD “must serve to fulfil this essential function for the worker’s rest, health, and work-life balance”.
This focus on worker health and wellbeing supports the UN’s SDG3, which aims to “ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all”, and specifically Target 3.4, which promotes mental health and wellbeing and a reduction in the suicide mortality rate by 2030 [47].

4.5. Boundary Theory

This research was conducted using the lens of Boundary Theory, which proposes that workers and leaders can work together to manage the boundaries that exist between the work and personal lives of employees, by segmenting and/or integrating the different domains [48]. Boundary Theory was selected as the lens for this research, as it is widely used to describe how workers and employers manage conflicting work and non-work demands, and this particular research contributes to this issue by examining the boundaries between working time and rest and the important role RTD plays to help workers properly disconnect from their jobs—making a significant contribution to the academic understanding of digital wellbeing and the workplace and how RTD contributes to good health and wellbeing (SDG3), gender equality (SDG5), and decent work conditions (SDG8).
From an individual employee’s perspective, as the recipient of work communications outside of standard hours, it is important that they understand the scope of RTD and manage the clear boundary between work time and the rest it offers them, in order to effectively protect their personal rest periods, health, wellbeing, and work–life balance.
From a manager’s perspective, they have a positive obligation to create a safe environment where workers are comfortable disconnecting from non-urgent work communications, as well as a negative obligation to refrain from contacting employees unless there is an urgent situation that clearly constitutes an emergency. Managers need to understand the importance of maintaining this boundary between work time and rest, which not only has implications for individual employee health and wellbeing but is also linked to the economic performance of the firm.
To this end, the theory contributes to our understanding of how effective boundaries need to be established and governed to restrict instances when employees are contacted outside of their normal working hours and protect their rights to rest and adequate recovery time.

4.6. Implications for Managers

A key role of leadership is managing and nurturing peak human performance. As such, RTD encourages managers to create a culture where employees feel comfortable disconnecting from work and understand the importance of maintaining a clear boundary between work and rest, where rest periods are carefully delineated and preserved. As a mechanism for supporting sustained digital wellbeing and work–life balance, the importance of clear definitions for working time and rest are paramount, and in today’s hyperconnected world, a worker’s working time must include both their periods of activity and availability. Managers must consider the implications of their actions and the impact their communications may have on their staff, particularly if this occurs outside of normal working hours. New norms must be formed in which communication only takes place outside of normal working hours in urgent circumstances. Otherwise, that communication should be delayed until normal work hours resume, and tools like Microsoft Outlook 365’s ‘schedule send’ function can help managers do that with their emails.
When it comes to scope, it must be decided who RTD will apply to and what constitutes reasonable grounds for ‘urgent circumstances’ for contacting employees outside of their working hours, in order to counteract the availability creep caused by today’s digital technologies. When governing RTD, managers need to understand whether it is legislated or self-regulated and whether they are adopting the right to disconnect or refrain from contact, or both. It is also extremely important for managers to recognize the clear links between RTD and employee health and wellbeing and acknowledge how employee health is beneficial for both the individual and the firm’s performance.
Finally, in terms of further practical guidance for managers, Lerouge and Trujillo Pons [7] offer the following advice: “addressing the right to disconnect in the workplace should begin with an analysis of the current situation, highlighting the work habits of all staff. How many emails are sent after hours? What about calls and other messages? Are there differences between different departments or between different groups of employees? Is it a permanent feature, seasonal, or linked to certain events like product launches? Both official work tools, such as emails and phone calls, as well as unofficial or private communication methods, such as WhatsApp, should be analyzed. Based on this initial data, indicators can be developed for the workplace as a whole and/or for different teams and departments”.
The findings from this research have now been used to develop the following framework, as a visual illustration of the key components of RTD, to provide valuable guidance for managers needing to adopt this policy in the future (see Figure 4).

5. Conclusions

This research set out to review the current academic literature available on the right to disconnect to derive practical implications for managers needing to adopt this new policy, which was discussed in the previous section, and to identify key themes and potential gaps for future research.
From a scholarly perspective, this topic first emerged in 2018 and is clearly rising in popularity internationally, particularly in Europe in the law, health, and business disciplines, and it has implications for several UN SDGs. As conversations about this topic continue around the world, and especially if countries like the US, UK, and China decide to formally investigate RTD, it is likely that academic interest in this field could grow extremely rapidly and present many new opportunities for research. Indeed, at the time of writing this paper, a bill had just been introduced proposing the RTD for workers in California [49].

6. Limitations and Future Work

The small number of articles included in the final sample of this scoping review could be considered a limitation of this research. However, the number of records included in any scoping review is largely dependent on the size of the entire research population, which is linked to the maturity of the research topic. As the subject of RTD only emerged in 2018, the number of records currently available is understandably still limited.
Arksey and O’Malley [24] discuss the importance of depth in scoping reviews “providing a detailed analysis and appraisal of a smaller number of studies”, with an emphasis on synthesizing data that provide a narrative or descriptive account of available research. Therefore, though this paper may only discuss a small number of articles, it does provide an in-depth discussion on the limited research that is currently available on RTD and identifies some important themes worthy of future investigation.
The next step for this research is a planned series of semi-structured interviews with Australian human resource managers, pre- and post- the introduction of RTD, as a longitudinal study of the reaction to, preparation for, and management of new RTD legislation. This type of research is currently lacking, and it is hoped this further study will provide valuable qualitative insights into the topic from the perspective of industry practitioners who are responsible for preparing an organizational response to these changes.
Another opportunity might be to conduct a descriptive case study, which focuses on a single or multiple cases, in order to examine RTD from within its real life environment.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Final sample of articles included in this review.
Table A1. Final sample of articles included in this review.
YearAuthorsTitleRefJournalDisciplineRegionMethodCitations
2018Pepita Hesselberth ‘Discourses on disconnectivity and the right to disconnect’[33]New Media & SocietySociology DenmarkReview209
2019C.W. Von Bergen;
Martin S. Bressler 		‘Work, Non-Work Boundaries and the Right to Disconnect’ [20]Journal of Applied Business and EconomicsBusinessUSAReview53
2019Leszek Mitrus ‘Potential implications of
the Matzak judgment
(quality of rest time, right
to disconnect)’		[40]European Labour Law JournalLawPolandAnalysis of legal judgment7
2019C. W. Von Bergen, Martin S. Bressler, and Trevor L. Proctor ‘On the grid 24/7/365 and the right to disconnect’[2]Employee Relations Law JournalLawUSAReview39
2021Nicola Magnavita, Giovanni Tripepi, and Carlo Chiorri ‘Telecommuting, Off-Time Work, and Intrusive Leadership in
Workers’ Well-Being’		[1]International Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthHealthItalySurvey99
2021Tomohide Kubo; Shuhei Izawa; Hiroki Ikeda; Masao Tsuchiya; Keiichi Miki; Masaya Takahashi ‘Work e-mail after hours and off-job duration and their association with psychological detachment, actigraphic sleep, and saliva cortisol: A 1-month observational study for information technology employees’[3]Journal of Occupational HealthHealthJapanObservational study3
2021Chesalina Olga ‘The legal nature and the place of the right to disconnect in European and Russian Labour Law’[9]Russian Law JournalLawRussiaReview9
2021Maëlle Périssé; Anne-Marie Vonthron; and Émilie Vayre ‘Nomadic, Informal and Mediatised Work Practices: Role of Professional Social Approval and Effects on Quality of Life at Work’[41]SustainabilitySustainabilityFrance Survey3
2022Lucio Todisco, Andrea Tomo, Paolo Canonico and Gianluigi Mangia ‘The bright and dark side of smart
working in the public sector:
employees’ experiences before
and during COVID-19’		[42]Management DecisionBusinessItalyInterviews15
2022WH Varela-Castro, MA Briceño-Santacruz, MO Castro-Solano ‘The Right to Disconnect: Influence on Competitiveness, Productivity and Creativity’[6]Mercados y negocios (Markets and businesses)BusinessMexicoSurvey7
2022Loïc Lerouge; Francisco Trujillo Pons ‘Contribution to the study on the
‘right to disconnect’ from work.
Are France and Spain examples
for other countries and EU law?’		[7]European Labour Law JournalLawFrance/SpainReview11
2022Mauro Pucheta; Ana Cristina Ribeiro Costa ‘Going Beyond the Right to Disconnect in a Flexible World: Light and Shadows in the Portuguese Reform’[5]Industrial Law JournalLawPortugalReview0
2022BY Choi, JY Min, SW Ryoo, KB Min ‘Use of work-related communication technology outside regular working hours and work-family conflict (work interference with family and family interference with work): results from the 6th Korean working conditions survey’[39]Annals of Occupational and Environmental MedicineHealthKoreaSurvey7
2023Fábio Lucas de Albuquerque Lima ‘When legal teleworking has time to end: symbolic mechanisms for (dis)connection in the attorney general’s office’[34]Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental (The Environmental and Social Management Journal)BusinessBrazilInterviews0
2023Elena Kolomoets; Guri Shoniya; Sultonali Mekhmonov; Shuaib Abdulnabi; Nihad Abdul Karim; Tuqaa Abid Mohammad ‘The employee’s right to work offline: a comparative analysis of legal frameworks in different countries’[10]Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental (The Environmental and Social Management Journal)BusinessRussia/Uzbekistan/IraqReview0
2023Gabrielle Golding ‘The right to disconnect in Australia: creating space for a new term implied by law’[35]UNSW Law JournalLawAustraliaReview1
2023Francisco Trujillo Pons and Diego Megino Fernández ‘Mental Health and the Right to Digital Disconnection at Work: A Panoramic Vision from the Spanish Experience and the Recent Approaches of the European Parliament’[8]Labor Law JournalLawSpainReview0
2023Davidavićiene, V., Rymaniak, J., and Lis, K. ‘Remote workplaces as a determinant of working conditions in education during COVID-19’[36]Economics
and Sociology		Sociology Lithuania/PolandSurvey2
2023SC Shaari, SR Amirul ‘Flexible Working Arrangements (FWAs) in Malaysia: The Missing Component of the Right to Disconnect’[4]Earth and Environmental ScienceSustainabilityMalaysiaDoctrinal legal research technique1
2023Seong-Uk Baek, Jin-Ha Yoon, and Jong-Uk Won ‘Association between constant connectivity to work during leisure time and insomnia: does work engagement matter’[46]Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric EpidemiologyHealthKoreaSurvey1
2023Yoon-Soo Jang, Jae-Han Lee, Na-Rae Lee, Dong-Woo Kim, June-Hee Lee, and Kyung-Jae Lee ‘Association between receiving work communications outside of work hours via telecommunication devices and work-related headaches and eyestrain: a cross-sectional analysis of the 6th Korean Working Conditions Survey’[45]Annals of Occupational and Environmental MedicineHealthKoreaSurvey0

References

  1. Magnavita, N.; Tripepi, G.; Chiorri, C. Telecommuting, off-time work, and intrusive leadership in workers’ well-being. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Von Bergen, C.W.; Bressler, M.S.; Proctor, T.L. On the grid 24/7/365 and the right to disconnect. Empl. Relat. Law J. 2019, 45, 3–20. [Google Scholar]
  3. Kubo, T.; Izawa, S.; Ikeda, H.; Tsuchiya, M.; Miki, K.; Takahashi, M. Work e-mail after hours and off-job duration and their association with psychological detachment, actigraphic sleep, and saliva cortisol: A 1-month observational study for information technology employees. J. Occup. Health 2021, 63, e12300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Shaari, S.; Amirul, S. Flexible Working Arrangements (FWAs) in Malaysia: The Missing Component of the Right to Disconnect. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2023, 1181, 012013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pucheta, M.; Ribeiro Costa, A.C. Going Beyond the Right to Disconnect in a Flexible World: Light and Shadows in the Portuguese Reform. Ind. Law J. 2023, 51, 967–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Varela-Castro, W.H.; Briceño-Santacruz, M.d.l.A.; Castro-Solano, M.O. The Right to Disconnect: Influence on Competitiveness, Productivity and Creativity. Merc. Neg. 2022, 23, 5–30. [Google Scholar]
  7. Lerouge, L.; Trujillo Pons, F. Contribution to the study on the ‘right to disconnect’ from work. Are France and Spain examples for other countries and EU law? Eur. Labour Law J. 2022, 13, 450–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Trujillo Pons, F.; Megino Fernández, D. Mental Health and the Right to Digital Disconnection at Work: A Panoramic Vision from the Spanish Experience and the Recent Approaches of the European Parliament. Labor Law J. 2023, 2023, 79–90. [Google Scholar]
  9. Olga, C. The legal nature and the place of the right to disconnect in European and in Russian labour law. Russ. Law J. 2021, 9, 36–59. [Google Scholar]
  10. Kolomoets, E.; Shoniya, G.; Mekhmonov, S.; Abdulnabi, S.; Karim, N.A.; Mohammad, T.A. The Employee’s Right to Work Offline: A Comparative Analysis of Legal Frameworks in Different Countries. Rev. Gestão Soc. Ambient. 2023, 17, e03470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Macdonald, F. Short Changed: Unsatisfactory Working Hours and Unpaid Overtime; Australia Institute Centre for Future Work: Griffith, Australia, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hopkins, J.; Bardoel, A. The Future Is Hybrid: How Organisations Are Designing and Supporting Sustainable Hybrid Work Models in Post-Pandemic Australia. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hopkins, J.; Bardoel, A. Key Working from Home Trends Emerging from COVID-19: A Report to the Australian Fair Work Commission; Fair Work Commission: Canberra, Australia, 2020.
  14. Williamson, S.; Colley, L. Working during the Pandemic: The Future of Work is Hybrid; UNSW Canberra Public: Canberra, Australia, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  15. Parliament of Australia. Fair Work Amendment Bill 2024; Parliament of Australia: Canberra, Australia, 2024.
  16. Australian Government. Closing Loopholes: Additional Fair Work Act Changes. 2024. Available online: https://www.fairwork.gov.au/about-us/workplace-laws/legislation-changes/closing-loopholes (accessed on 26 May 2024).
  17. Thompson, A. What is the ‘Right to Disconnect’? A Bluffer’s Guide to the New Laws about Getting Contacted after Hours, in The Sydney Morning Herald; Nine Network: Sydney, Australia, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  18. Wright, C.F. Smartphones Mean We’re Always Available to Our Bosses. ‘Right to Disconnect’ laws Are a Necessary Fix; The Conversation: Melbourne, Australia, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  19. Laboris, I. The Right to Disconnect Around the World. Available online: https://iuslaboris.com/insights/laws-on-the-right-to-disconnect/ (accessed on 26 May 2024).
  20. Von Bergen, C.W.; Bressler, M.S. Work, non-work boundaries and the right to disconnect. J. Appl. Bus. Econ. 2019, 21, 51–69. [Google Scholar]
  21. Nippert-Eng, C.E. Home and Work: Negotiating Boundaries through Everyday Life; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  22. Desrochers, S.; Hilton, J.M.; Larwood, L. Preliminary validation of the work-family integration-blurring scale. J. Fam. Issues 2005, 26, 442–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Matthews, R.A.; Barnes-Farrell, J.L.; Bulger, C.A. Advancing measurement of work and family domain boundary characteristics. J. Vocat. Behav. 2010, 77, 447–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Mocial Res. Methodol. 2005, 8, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Munn, Z.; Peters, M.D.; Stern, C.; Tufanaru, C.; McArthur, A.; Aromataris, E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2018, 18, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Anderson, S.; Allen, P.; Peckham, S.; Goodwin, N. Asking the right questions: Scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Res. Policy Syst. 2008, 6, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Wilden, D.; Hopkins, J.; Sadler, I. The prevalence of systems thinking in supply chain management: A systematic literature review. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 2022, 35, 491–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Higgins, J.P.; Thomas, J.; Chandler, J.; Cumpston, M.; Li, T.; Page, M.J.; Welch, V.A. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  29. Pham, M.T.; Rajić, A.; Greig, J.D.; Sargeant, J.M.; Papadopoulos, A.; McEwen, S.A. A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res. Synth. Methods 2014, 5, 371–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Elbaz, S.; Richards, J.B.; Provost Savard, Y. Teleworking and work–life balance during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review. Can. Psychol. 2022, 64, 227–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jahal, T.; Bardoel, E.A.; Hopkins, J. Could the 4-day week work? A scoping review. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 2024, 62, e12395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Peters, M.D.; Marnie, C.; Tricco, A.C.; Pollock, D.; Munn, Z.; Alexander, L.; McInerney, P.; Godfrey, C.M.; Khalil, H. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid. Synth. 2020, 18, 2119–2126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Hesselberth, P. Discourses on disconnectivity and the right to disconnect. New Media Soc. 2018, 20, 1994–2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. de Albuquerque Lima, F.L. When Legal Teleworking has Time to End: Symbolic Mechanisms for (Dis) Connection in the Attorney General’s Office. Environ. Soc. Manag. J. 2023, 17, e04143. [Google Scholar]
  35. Golding, G. The right to disconnect in Australia: Creating space for a new term implied by law. Univ. New South Wales Law J. 2023, 46, 728–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Davidavićiene, V.; Rymaniak, J.; Lis, K. Remote workplaces as a determinant of working conditions in education during COVID-19. Econ. Sociol. 2023, 16, 123–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Campbell, J.L.; Quincy, C.; Osserman, J.; Pedersen, O.K. Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociol. Methods Res. 2013, 42, 294–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Creswell, J.W. Qualitative Enquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  39. Choi, B.-Y.; Min, J.-Y.; Ryoo, S.-W.; Min, K.-B. Use of work-related communication technology outside regular working hours and work-family conflict (work interference with family and family interference with work): Results from the 6th Korean working conditions survey. Ann. Occup. Environ. Med. 2022, 34, e44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mitrus, L. Potential implications of the Matzak judgment (quality of rest time, right to disconnect). Eur. Labour Law J. 2019, 10, 386–397. [Google Scholar]
  41. Périssé, M.; Vonthron, A.-M.; Vayre, É. Nomadic, Informal and Mediatised Work Practices: Role of Professional Social Approval and Effects on Quality of Life at Work. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Todisco, L.; Tomo, A.; Canonico, P.; Mangia, G. The bright and dark side of smart working in the public sector: Employees’ experiences before and during COVID-19. Manag. Decis. 2023, 61, 85–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Fudge, J. The new discourse of labor rights: From social to fundamental rights. Comp. Labor Law Policy J. 2007, 29, 29. [Google Scholar]
  44. UN. SDG8—Promote Sustained, Inclusive and Sustainable Economic Growth, Full and Productive Employment and Decent Work for All. United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. 2024. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal8 (accessed on 26 May 2024).
  45. Jang, Y.-S.; Lee, J.-H.; Lee, N.-R.; Kim, D.-W.; Lee, J.-H.; Lee, K.-J. Association between receiving work communications outside of work hours via telecommunication devices and work-related headaches and eyestrain: A cross-sectional analysis of the 6th Korean Working Conditions Survey. Ann. Occup. Environ. Med. 2023, 35, e50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Baek, S.-U.; Yoon, J.-H.; Won, J.-U. Association between constant connectivity to work during leisure time and insomnia: Does work engagement matter? Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2023, 59, 657–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. UN. SDG3—Ensure Healthy Lives and Promote Well-Being for All at All Ages. United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 2024. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal3 (accessed on 26 May 2024).
  48. Bulger, C.A.; Matthews, R.A.; Hoffman, M.E. Work and personal life boundary management: Boundary strength, work/personal life balance, and the segmentation-integration continuum. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2007, 12, 365. [Google Scholar]
  49. DeLetter, E. California Law would Give Employees the ‘Right to Disconnect’ during Nonworking Hours; USA Today; Gannett: McLean, VA, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 16 04970 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA-ScR flowchart illustrating the identification, screening, and eligibility steps taken during this review (adapted from Pham et al. [29]).
Figure 1. PRISMA-ScR flowchart illustrating the identification, screening, and eligibility steps taken during this review (adapted from Pham et al. [29]).
Sustainability 16 04970 g001
Sustainability 16 04970 g002
Figure 2. The growth in academic interest in the right to disconnect.
Figure 2. The growth in academic interest in the right to disconnect.
Sustainability 16 04970 g002
Sustainability 16 04970 g003
Figure 3. (a) Current right to disconnect research via geographic region; (b) current right to disconnect research categorized by discipline.
Figure 3. (a) Current right to disconnect research via geographic region; (b) current right to disconnect research categorized by discipline.
Sustainability 16 04970 g003
Sustainability 16 04970 g004
Figure 4. Framework illustrating the key themes for managing RTD.
Figure 4. Framework illustrating the key themes for managing RTD.
Sustainability 16 04970 g004
Table 1. Concept, keywords, and database sources used for this scoping review.
Table 1. Concept, keywords, and database sources used for this scoping review.
ConceptKeywordsDatabases
The right to disconnect“right AND to AND disconnect”APA PsycNet
EBSCOhost
Emerald Insight
Gale
ProQuest Central
Scopus
Web of Science
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hopkins, J. Managing the Right to Disconnect—A Scoping Review. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4970. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16124970

AMA Style

Hopkins J. Managing the Right to Disconnect—A Scoping Review. Sustainability. 2024; 16(12):4970. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16124970

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hopkins, John. 2024. "Managing the Right to Disconnect—A Scoping Review" Sustainability 16, no. 12: 4970. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16124970

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop