Informal Home Care in the Digital Transformation: Platform Design and Work Ethics of Care

Abstract

With the aging society in Germany, the demand for informal care in private households is rising. This has led to a growing market for digital platforms that broker informal care services. Research shows that workers in elderly care, as a sub-sector of care work, often embody a work ethic centered on caring and helpfulness. However, this strong ethic can result in self-exploitation. Despite prior insights, the mediating role of digital platforms and their repercussions on work ethics remain underexplored. Therefore, this article asks how workers’ ethics of care unfold within the design of platforms in platform-mediated care. Ten narrative-oriented, in-depth interviews with platform workers on two platforms were conducted. Findings reveal that care workers in this field of platform work have a work ethic of care strongly oriented towards identification with the role of caregiver and the needs of the client. The open and unstructured design of these platforms—where worker qualifications are rarely verified to attract large numbers—devalues and informalizes care work. The lack of recognition as a legitimate profession perpetuates the perception of care work as unskilled, diminishing its professional status and fostering feelings of unprofessionalism and self-exploitation.

1. Introduction

In an aging society, the proportion of older individuals in need of care who live at home has been steadily increasing in Germany. As of early 2023, four out of five people requiring care resided in their own homes (Statistisches Bundesamt 2023). Alongside already overburdened relatives and professional care services—whose limited time is often focused on medical needs—informal home care for daily life is gaining importance. At the same time, there is a growing shortage of skilled workers in elderly nursing care, as well as in informal home care in Germany (Morici and Lauxen 2024). These circumstances lead to a widening gap between the demand for care and the resources available, a situation often referred to as the care crisis (Dowling 2021). To address this gap in the care system, various commercial, online mediation platforms have emerged, offering informal care work. These platforms present themselves as a practical solution1 to the care crisis (Lentz et al. 2025; Dowling 2022; Ticona and Mateescu 2018). They primarily aim to support older individuals in maintaining their independence and simplifying daily routines, thereby complementing professional and medical care services.

Informal home care in Germany is governed by § 45a SGB XI2, which stipulates that care workers should enable those in need of care to remain in their home environment for as long as possible, maintain social connections, and manage their daily lives independently. Care workers perform tasks that facilitate living at home, which vary depending on the individual’s health and living situation (Morici and Lauxen 2024). Typical tasks include accompanying individuals to medical or official appointments, assisting with meal preparation, providing basic personal care, conducting memory exercises, supporting mobility (e.g., walking or using a wheelchair), and offering companionship (ibid.). Workers in informal elderly care do not require high formal qualifications. Instead of adhering to strict nursing standards, caregivers in this sector tailor their approach to the unique needs of each client. When employed by a care service, these workers are entitled to labor rights, including the minimum wage, which applies within the care sector. However, such standards are contingent upon their status as employees and do not extend to self-employed caregivers, as is often the case in platform work.

In platform-based care, the platform acts as a digital intermediary (Crouch 2019) between care workers and elderly individuals with care-needs or their relatives. Potential caregivers and people with care-needs can each create differently structured profiles and, depending on the platform model, are connected with each other either via a matching function or through their own search. There are various business models in the area of mediated informal care for the elderly (e.g., subscription model, brokerage commission, and commission models), through which the platform operators earn money from the mediated work. However, all care platforms broker services and can be classified as work platforms within the platform economy, i.e., digital platforms on which workers offer their work services directly to customers as external providers without an employment relationship with the companies (Kirchner 2019, p. 4). Formally, the workers on the platform are therefore self-employed, as the platform does not take on the role of an employer, although it has a significant influence on labor relations (Crouch 2019). Work platforms are divided into various subcategories (e.g., Greef et al. 2020). The care activities examined here are aimed at older people in need of care and are therefore tied to a fixed place of work, such as the elderly person’s neighborhood or region. Due to the typically long-term nature of employment relationships, employees are often required to reside in the client’s region.3 Care activities are coordinated digitally but take place at a fixed location, as they are carried out in customers’ homes, which classifies them as gig work (Fetterolf 2022). Although there has been an increase in the number of registrations on some platforms (Baum et al. 2020), gig work platforms in elderly care have so far been a marginal phenomenon. However, in view of the growing care gap for older people and the commodification of care work, the importance of placement platforms could increase in the future (Huws 2019).

Previous research highlights that the interpersonal and nurturing nature of care work distinguishes it from other, more extensively studied sectors of the gig economy (Ecker et al. 2021). The close and intimate relationship between the care recipient and the caregiver (Weishaupt 2006) creates a dynamic of subjugation within direct care work and social interactions (Staab 2014). Care work is often associated with workers identifying as helpers, a role linked to an ethic of care (Kumbruck et al. 2010). However, this ethic—closely tied to femininity—often leads to a low perceived value of both the necessary qualifications and the work itself, ultimately fostering self-exploitation (ibid., Fraser 2016).

When care work is mediated through gig platforms, the platform emerges as a new actor in the employment relationship (Greef et al. 2020). As a socially constructed technology (Bijker et al. 1987), the platform provides the technical infrastructure and is designed through its user interface and technological features in alignment with the interests of its creators. Research in other areas of the platform economy has shown how technology influences labor dynamics (e.g., Moore et al. 2019; Heiland 2019; Gould et al. 2016; Dolata 2019).

The shaping role of human-constructed technology (MacKenzie and Wajcman 1999), also in the care gig economy (e.g., Ticona and Mateescu 2018; Flanagan 2019; Ettarfi 2024; Fetterolf 2022), describes how platform design influences the performance, perception, and experience of care work, with technology influencing but not determining it. This suggests that the work ethic inherent in the dependency and responsibility dynamics of care relationships aligns with the technology utilized in the gig economy.

Despite the growing body of research on the topic of care in the gig economy, the question remains as to what extent the ethics of care and the self-image of workers will evolve under the technical structures of the various work platforms. Understanding how workers perceive themselves within these technologically mediated power structures provides deeper insights into the field, revealing subtle shifts in power and mechanisms of (self-)exploitation. The ethos of care itself, as well as the attitude toward the person being cared for, can be derived from the caregiving relationship (Kumbruck et al. 2010). However, how it unfolds and the consequences that arise from this relationship are closely linked to the framework conditions, which, in this case, are mediated by the platform through technology. In the context of platform-mediated home care, an analysis of workers’ ethics of care is currently lacking, which leads to the central research question:

How do workers’ ethics of care unfold in platform-mediated care?

In this regard, the study will examine the following: (1) What kind of self-image do platform workers in this field develop? (2) How do different platform designs and functionalities influence the impact of work ethics? To address this, the first step will be an exploration of the work ethic of care and its historical development, as is expected in this field as a sub-area of care work. Based on this, insights from research on gig economy care work and the influence of platform design are outlined. To clarify the context, the aim and significance of informal care for the elderly are discussed against the background of the care shortage in Germany. To illustrate the effects of different platform designs, platform workers from two platforms are interviewed. The analysis reveals how the work ethic unfolds under the technologically mediated conditions of the platforms. Furthermore, it is shown how non-standardized or poorly standardized structures on the two platforms lead to the negotiation of important labor standards occurring on an emotional level between family members and workers. In these negotiations, the internalized ethos of platform workers to help others comes into play, without the ability to rely on formalized structures.

2. Background

2.1. Ethics of Care and Self-Exploitation

Caring for the elderly on digital platforms entails direct interactions with elderly individuals while carrying out caregiving tasks. Current research (e.g., Nowak 2023) indicates that professionals in this field follow a unique work ethic of care. The “ethic of care” here is not just understood in the strict philosophical sense, which involves a worldview and an ethical framework that evaluates human actions based on moral principles (Gilligan 1982). Instead, it is linked to discourse in nursing science and the sociology of work, where the work ethic of care refers to an attitude shaped by the history of care work and the asymmetry between care workers and recipients (Kohlen and Kumbruck 2008). Care work differs from other forms of interactive service work because the user is dependent on care due to their vulnerability, resulting in an asymmetrical relationship (Becker et al. 2017; Artus et al. 2017). This dependency fosters a unique sense of responsibility in caregivers, as they are entrusted with the well-being of those they care for (Becker et al. 2017). The sensitive consideration of this asymmetry in practice is part of the ethics of care (Senghaas-Knobloch 2008). Care has two sides to its ethical requirements: caring for others and caring for oneself (Aulenbacher and Dammayr 2014), which complement each other. However, this logic is embedded in social and market structures where self-care is seen as an individual responsibility (Tronto 1993). A central tension arises between the role as a worker and the role of the caregiver. On the one hand, caregivers are seen as loving, self-sacrificing individuals with an innate ability for their work; on the other, they are employees who must maintain professional boundaries to protect themselves from burnout (Nowak 2011) and self-exploitation through a one-sided attitude of care and empathy towards others (Senghaas-Knobloch 2008). This tension is particularly evident in the high level of self-commitment typical of care work, where instrumental goals often take a backseat (Becker et al. 2017). For care workers, this can result in a heightened sense of responsibility for their clients, leading them to become “prisoners of love” (Folbre 2001). The care relationship of responsibility does not end there when it comes to working conditions. Empathy plays a crucial role in this relationship, particularly in the asymmetric dynamic between the caregiver and the person in need of care. The responsibility is deeply embedded within the individuals involved, and it cannot be easily detached, as it is an integral part of their ethical commitment to the care process. This sense of duty frequently leads to the acceptance of poor working conditions, overtime, and work intensification (Reich 2012; Schilliger 2024). Many workers push beyond their physical and emotional limits, neglecting their own needs and well-being (Frieß 2006, p. 15).

Societal perceptions of elderly care are rooted in the origins of professional elderly care, which dates back to the mid-19th century in Germany. At that time, institutionalized elderly care emerged within the Protestant church and was primarily carried out by deaconesses, deaconess sisters, and female volunteers. Previously invisible care work in families was reframed as a religious vocation, considered a female “service of love” (Senghaas-Knobloch 2008). Maternal skills, rather than specialized knowledge, were emphasized. To this day, the social care system is closely tied to church-led initiatives and shaped by its historical foundation under the guiding principle of charity (Kumbruck et al. 2010).

The professionalization of care activities began in the 1960s, introducing collective bargaining agreements and union representation (Nowak 2011). However, historical developments continue to influence the sector. The perception of care as a “natural” female ability or a calling persists at a cultural-ideological level, significantly shaping caregivers’ actions (ibid., p. 75). Skills are often seen as inherent rather than learned or formally certified, fostering a strong sense of identity and dedication among care workers.

Historically, care work has been characterized as invisible labor (Hatton 2017), receiving little recognition and no remuneration. Housework often remains unseen because it takes place in private spaces and has traditionally been performed unpaid by women, failing to be recognized as “real work” for the reasons described (England 2017). Even when performed as paid labor, care work continues to be undervalued and perceived as requiring no special qualifications (Crain et al. 2016). In addition, the emotional aspect of interactive care work is often particularly not recognized as “real” work, leading care workers to exceed their personal limits out of a sense of responsibility (Hochschild 1983). This perception is reinforced by prevailing social values and norms that portray such work as inferior and taken for granted (Hatton 2017). The devaluation of care work stems from its historical framing as a self-evident vocation rather than a skilled profession (Staab 2014). In contrast to tasks defined by Tayloristic technical precision, social services involve relational and emotional work, making traditional control mechanisms less applicable. Instead of direct control, emotional factors are used to regulate care work. In the context of interactive care work, social care and responsibility for those in need ensure that work is managed without direct hierarchical control (ibid.).

Closely tied to this form of emotional control is the lack of formal certifications. Workers without formal qualifications face both ideological and monetary devaluation. The absence of standardized certificates prevents the establishment of standardized wages. The assumption that care work is a “labor of love” (Jaffe 2023), combined with the reality that untrained relatives often perform similar tasks without certification, hinders professionalization. This perception of care as feminized, “everyman’s work” (Haubner 2021) not only leads to self-exploitation (Fraser 2016) but also reinforces de-certification, further exacerbating asymmetries in the work process and systematically underpaying care workers (Staab 2014).

However, existing research on care ethics and the devaluation of care work has primarily focused on care performed outside digital platforms.

2.2. State of Research: Informal Eldercare in the Gig Economy

Informal eldercare will be examined here within the specific context of the platform economy. When work is mediated via platforms, it is not organizational structures that define the employment relationship and the self-perception of workers, but rather the technical structures of the platform—especially in cases where personal contact between platform employees and workers is minimal or entirely absent. Unlike in traditional employment relationships, where personal contact is more frequent, much of the communication in platform-based work is mediated through technology. Instead of a traditional employment relationship, platform work relies on a triangular relationship (Greef et al. 2020) between the platform, the care worker, and the client. Work in the gig economy offers greater flexibility compared to traditional employment; however, this flexibility comes with significant insecurities. Workers are directly dependent on demand fluctuations and face disadvantages in terms of social security and labor rights (Crouch 2019). While platforms benefit from workers’ labor, they do not assume the role of employers. Instead, workers are often classified as self-employed (Woodcock and Graham 2020), allowing platforms to externalize the costs of social protection (Srnicek 2018; Fitzmaurice et al. 2020; Vallas and Schor 2020). At the same time, platforms must ensure a sufficient supply of both customers and workers with the necessary qualifications (Kirchner and Beyer 2016). It is crucial to emphasize that platform companies operate as commercial marketplaces with their own economic interests (Nachtwey and Staab 2020; Srnicek 2018). The technical infrastructure and algorithmic control on work platforms are central themes in the discourse on platform work (Ivanova et al. 2018; Lee et al. 2015; Rosenblat 2018; Griesbach et al. 2019; Heiland 2019). Research shows that platform technologies structure work processes in certain sectors down to the smallest detail, significantly influencing workers’ practices, orientations, and self-image. Through the structure of the platforms, the roles defined there (worker and client), their respective options and registration processes, communication channels and restrictions, the respective terms and conditions, and the technical user interface, platforms set the framework that they want to implement as a marketplace. “By normalizing technical standards, platforms set the rules for market processes” (Nachtwey and Staab 2020, p. 291).

Technology is not neutral but determined by power structures (Bijker et al. 1987). Also in the platform economy, it actively structures work processes (Moore et al. 2019; Schreyer and Schrape 2018). In platform work, where personal interaction is often replaced by technological interfaces such as websites or apps (Heiland 2019), the platform design becomes central. The logic of platforms (Kirchner and Beyer 2016) enables a loose coupling of location, labor, and products, contrasting with the traditional economy, where organizations are structured around stable social relationships, fixed participants (employees), and clearly defined services or products. In this new model, the traditional employment relationship—with contracts binding employees and employers—has been replaced by a tripartite relationship involving clients, workers, and platforms. The platform does not assume the role of an employer with associated rights and obligations but instead occupies an intermediary position. Employment relationships are governed not by contracts but by terms and conditions or through the platform interface itself (Greef et al. 2020).

The design of work platforms dictates how worker profiles are created, suggests descriptions, categorizes activities, and thereby shapes the work process (Jarrahi et al. 2020). Numerous empirical studies demonstrate how platform design shapes work processes, enabling new forms of control (Kellogg et al. 2019; Krzywdzinski and Gerber 2021) or influencing workers’ perceptions of fairness (Fieseler et al. 2019). Importantly, platform designs are not arbitrary; they are strategic management decisions (Ravenelle 2019). Companies invest significantly in user experience design and customer journey optimization, aiming to maximize profits. As a result, platform design is described as a powerful structuring force, defining the communication and action possibilities of all participants and shaping work in its entirety (Hertwig and Papsdorf 2022).

Previous research has noted that platform work in care sectors is underrepresented compared to the male-dominated fields of the gig economy, such as delivery, courier, and transportation services (Ticona and Mateescu 2018; Kampouri 2022). Nonetheless, home care in private households and other forms of paid care work via digital platforms have been described as industries experiencing steady growth since the 2000s (Doty 2017; Huws 2019; van Doorn 2021). The limited research in this area is partly due to the challenges of accessing this field (Orth and Baum 2024). Nevertheless, care work in the platform economy has gained increasing attention in academic discourse (e.g., Pulignano et al. 2023; Wiesböck et al. 2023; Hopwood et al. 2024; Khan et al. 2024). Platforms in this field are understood as a means of transforming unpaid care work into commercial services (Huws 2019). While this work is now paid, it remains shaped by market forces and is still predominantly performed by women, meaning that existing inequalities persist or may even be reinforced (ibid.; van Doorn 2021; Rodríguez-Modroño et al. 2022). The platforms themselves try to present themselves as emancipatory in the face of these findings (Lentz et al. 2025). Pulignano et al. (2023) describe how, in the cleaning industry, the risks associated with the platform economy in domestic work are shifted onto the workers. Both the cultural and institutional invisibility (Ticona and Mateescu 2018; Rodríguez-Modroño et al. 2022), as well as the simultaneous spatial mechanisms of invisibility in urban landscapes (Gruszka et al. 2024) due to its occurrence within private households, distinguish care work in the gig economy from other forms of platform labor.

There are also some contributions for the area of informal eldercare specifically (e.g., Baum 2024b; McDonald et al. 2024, Trojansky 2020). The care gig economy in this area is characterized as a growing, predominantly female-dominated, and undervalued market, where workers are simultaneously independent (e.g., in wage negotiations) yet reliant on platforms for work organization and processes (Baum 2024b). However, care work on platforms can also provide a space where workers can combine their caring identity with entrepreneurial self-marketing (Baum and Kufner 2021). Platform workers in the care sector have numerous diverse formal and informal qualifications (Baum 2024a), but how these qualifications are valued has not been considered through the lens of the ethics of care perspective. Khan et al. (2024) introduce an ethics of care perspective on platform-mediated interactive care work, particularly emphasizing self-care and the micro-level focus on relationships. This approach will be applied here with a stronger emphasis on platform design contexts.

Building on this field of knowledge, this paper examines the ethics of care within the context of a technologically defined framework. Research on platform-mediated care work has also explored how the technical structure of platforms affects power relations. Additionally, in the domestic and care sectors, platforms do not merely act as intermediaries; they actively shape new market processes (such as reserve army mechanisms) and working conditions, often to the detriment of the workers (Wiesböck et al. 2023). For example, in the informal and often invisible care sector, platform features can increase individual visibility without necessarily leading to formalization or equality (Ticona and Mateescu 2018; Ettarfi 2024). The way in which workers present themselves through their profiles on the platforms, thereby marketing themselves to customers and achieving individual visibility, is also embedded in the technology (Piña et al. 2024). In some cases—particularly in cleaning services—platforms use rating mechanisms that exacerbate power imbalances between clients and care workers (Bor 2022). The influence of platform design can also be seen in worker profiles (Fetterolf 2022) and contractual conditions. In the Australian context, Flanagan (2019) describes a shift from dyadic systems of domination to systemic domination of domestic services through intermediary platforms. It is argued that platforms transform care relationships into service relationships and lead to the dehumanization of care workers through the partial formalization of the relationship, which is not established directly between people but rather through the use of technology (Strüver 2021; Strüver and Lentz 2024). Koutsimpogiorgos et al. (2023) use the example of major cleaning services to illustrate how platforms strategically adjust their terms and conditions to align with the legal frameworks of different countries, thereby exerting control over the status of care workers. They emphasize the importance of considering both the business model and the terms and conditions when analyzing platforms. McDonald et al. (2021) analyze how platforms exert control in the care economy using labor process theory, focusing on contractual conditions and platform structure. Their findings highlight mechanisms such as shifting risks and responsibilities to workers and clients, allocating business costs to workers, dictating contractual agreements, and monitoring service quality standards. However, McDonald et al. (2021) acknowledge that their analysis of contractual terms does not address how these control mechanisms are implemented or how they impact workers. For the cleaning industry, Gruszka et al. (2024) demonstrate how patterns from non-digital cleaning are inscribed into the platform interface and expressed through the means of digital infrastructure and platform design. This will be addressed here, considering the care relationship and work ethics that arise from direct interactive work. This article seeks to fill this gap by examining how self-image and work ethics unfold under the conditions of the platform economy. The assumption underpinning this investigation is that, in informal eldercare as platform work, qualification certification and the associated ethics of care practices are also technically framed. This forms the starting point for the empirical study.

2.3. Informal Care for the Elderly and Its Significance in the German Care System

As life expectancy increases and societies age, the demand for professional, informal, and semi-professional care continues to rise. The professional care sector faces a growing shortage of skilled workers, driven not only by demographic changes but also by the nature of the occupation, which is characterized by low job satisfaction and high stress levels (Bispinck et al. 2012). These factors make professional training in this field unattractive to younger generations (Haubner 2017), leading to a widening gap between demand and supply in the care sector (Dowling 2021).

When examining platform work in informal care in Germany, it is essential to consider the shortage of skilled workers in professional elderly care, the rising demand for informal care, and the politically driven promotion of lay caregivers, i.e., individuals without formal nursing qualifications who take on care tasks voluntarily or for low wages (Haubner 2017). Few other occupational fields experience a comparable lack of qualified personnel alongside a continuously growing demand. Given this increasing demand, the expanding care gap, and the political strategy of addressing these issues through a “care mix”—which includes greater involvement of volunteers and semi-professionals—it is likely that the importance of everyday home care will continue to grow in the coming years (ibid.). The informal care examined in this paper is part of the broader shift of caregiving into private households. This shift means that services are increasingly provided either as unpaid personal labor or as paid but informal employment within private households (Jaehrling 2004, p. 620).

The legal framework of § 45a SGB XI mandates that caregivers undergo training to qualify for the reimbursement of certain services by care insurance funds. However, untrained individuals may also perform this work if financed through other means. Informal home care operates at the intersection of volunteer and paid work, with a key characteristic being that the same tasks are often performed by untrained family members as part of unpaid care work (Aulenbacher et al. 2018). Nevertheless, the focus here is on work offered through platforms as part of a business relationship for monetary compensation, making it clearly classifiable as paid care work (Huws 2019). At the same time, this work and the self-perception of care workers must be understood within the historical context of unpaid care labor, particularly given that many of these tasks have traditionally been carried out in private households.

Lay care has been actively promoted in Germany since the late 2000s, with the goal of integrating lay caregivers into civil society as a key pillar of an aging society (Haubner 2017, p. 13). Daily living support at home complements medical care by providing specialized psychological and social assistance, helping elderly individuals manage their daily lives independently. This also includes very practical help in everyday life, such as personal hygiene or assistance with routine tasks. This type of care does not focus on traditional nursing tasks, such as administering medication, but rather on supplementary activities that support independence, facilitate everyday challenges, and enhance the abilities of those in need of care.

The increasing involvement of caregivers without formal qualifications in this context has led to a decline in professional standards and a rise in informal care arrangements for the elderly (ibid., p. 219). However, the term “unqualified” refers only to the absence of formal certification or training. In practice, both specialized knowledge and personal qualities—such as life experience, empathy, and patience—play a crucial role in care work (Waerness 2000). While the personal attributes of caregivers are widely acknowledged, the lack of formal qualifications is often used to justify lower wages for these workers (Lutz 2007).

Possible formal qualifications for informal caregivers include training in a medical or nursing profession or specialized further education programs for lay caregivers in Germany. These further training programs typically consist of 40 h and cover topics such as interacting with dementia patients, responding appropriately in emergency situations, understanding legal frameworks, and using mobility aids such as wheelchairs. The structure of these programs varies across Germany’s federal states, and completion of such training is only mandatory when services are reimbursed through social benefits for everyday care. Even in these cases, legal requirements differ by federal state (Morici and Lauxen 2024). For other types of compensation, such as private payments, no formal qualifications are required. The lack of standardized certification reinforces the perception of this work as an occupation open to anyone (Haubner 2020, 2021).

The growing reliance on informal and semi-professional caregivers reflects both the increasing demand for elderly care and the structural gaps in the professional care sector. In Germany, the sectoral minimum wage in care (Lenzen and Evans-Borchers 2024), which has been in place since 2010, also applies to low-skilled informal care workers (with training under one year). Employers involved in public services, as well as some others, have collective agreements that take low-skilled care workers into account. However, these regulations only apply to employees, and since platform workers do not have an employment status, they are formally solo self-employed and can set their own rates. Other employee rights, such as continued payment in case of illness, vacation entitlement, and social security, are also not provided in platform work, where workers are formally solo self-employed (Beckmann and Hoose 2022).

The lack of standardized qualifications and formal recognition reinforces the perception of care work as low-skilled, despite its essential social and emotional components, leading to precarious working conditions and lower wages for caregivers.

3. Materials and Methods

The study is based on 10 narrative-oriented, in-depth interviews (Lamnek and Krell 2016) with platform workers from the home care sector. The interviews were conducted using semi-structured guidelines developed from theory and adapted to the realities of the field during the process. The data obtained in this way were transcribed and subsequently analyzed using MAXQDA software (Version 2022) through qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz 2012). Since different business models coexist in the gig economy, two platforms with varying business models, features, and designs were selected to increase diversity. To gain a deeper understanding of the platform details, the registration process was completed on both sites, with field notes taken on profile creation, the interface, and user experience. Both platforms serve the same market, so they share some common features. However, they have different business models, which result in variations in technical design and highlight the effects of differing framework conditions (

Table 1. Platform design characteristics.

	Platform A	Platform B
Business model	Subscription model—Clients and workers pay for premium accounts.	Commission model—The platform receives a fee for every hour worked.
Registration process	Information like location and availability is required, further information like information about the experience or a picture optional.	It is a longer process in which the documents are checked, and a digital interview takes place.
Formal qualifications	Option to indicate qualifications, but no obligation.	Option to indicate qualifications, but no obligation.
Matching	Swipe matching function available, but search is usually performed independently via private message.	Placement suggestions from an employee.
Interface	After registration on the website, communication and processes are largely regulated via an app that both customers and workers have.	Registration and matching take place on the website, and processes are organized independently of the platform.
Documentation of working time	Regardless of the platform.	Via app in connection with the invoicing.
Invoices	Invoices are handled differently regardless of the platform.	Invoices are generated by the platform.
Hourly wage	Negotiated between client and care worker, salary expectations can be specified.	Fixed price includes a fee for the platform, fixed in the app.
Substitution during vacation or illness	Organized by the platform.	Organized by clients and workers.

):

• Platform A operates with a subscription model, which does not strongly pre-structure the employment relationship between the care provider and the requester. The focus here is on matching. Wages, form of contract, and other details are optional for the registered persons on the platform;
• Platform B operates with a commission model, which structures the employment relationship more strongly and, for example, specifies the salary and form of contract. An app plays a central role here, in which both the customers and the workers register, and which is used for matching, as well as for documentation and the creation of invoices.

Most interviews took place between October and December 2023 and lasted one to two hours. Some follow-up interviews were conducted in 2024. The respondents came from different regions of Germany. Care was taken to include both Western and Eastern Germany, as well as perspectives from rural and urban areas (

Table 2. Overview of interview respondents.

ID4	Region	Sex	Platform
PA1	Hesse	Female	PF A
PA2	Thuringia	Female	PF A
PA3	Saxony	Male	PF A
PB4	North Rhine-Westphalia	Male	PF B
PA5	Bavaria	Female	PF A
PA6	Hamburg	Female	PF A
PA7	Brandenburg	Female	PF A
PA8	Berlin	Female	PF A
PB9	North Rhine-Westphalia	Male	PF B
PB10	Rhineland-Palatinate	Female	PF B

Source: own data.

).

Interviewees were directly approached via the platform following consultation with its public relations department. The public relations staff member activated a special account through which the care worker could be contacted. This unusual method provided good access to the field. Other workers were recruited through social media groups. Despite the limited number of interviews within the hard-to-reach target group (Orth and Baum 2024), a diverse range of socio-demographic groups and perspectives was successfully represented. This, combined with the interview format that allowed for in-depth insights into a few cases, made it possible to approach theoretical saturation despite the small sample size.

Elderly care is part of care work, which is still predominantly performed by women. As a result, the platforms have a very high proportion of female workers. However, to gain a comprehensive picture of the field, male voices were also included. Three of the ten interviewed platform workers were men. The interviewees were between 22 and 67 years old, with most falling within the 50–60 age group.

All interviewed care workers were paid for their work on the platforms. However, the importance of platform work for their household income varied greatly. Working hours and regularity also differed. For some, the job was like a paid hobby, while for others, it served as an important financial supplement to support their self-employment or pension and maintain their standard of living. However, none of the respondents could fully finance their lives through platform work.

Another source of data was the tracking and documentation of the registration process on both platforms, along with a document analysis of training materials for caregivers.

4. Results

The workers who carry out elderly care activities on the platforms have different motives and backgrounds. Many have care experience from their personal lives, some come from professional nursing or other social professions or are looking for a part-time job in which they can do something good for older people. Informal caregiving is not an activity from which one can live exclusively, but for many caregivers, the money from the work is an important supplement in a mix of income, such as from other work or self-employment, pensions, social services, or income from a spouse. The interviewees became aware of the platforms through online research, advertising, or recommendations from others.

The following section examines how formal qualifications are assessed in this field and how the technical framing of these qualifications is evaluated. Building on this analysis, it explores how these work orientations contribute to the devaluation of the activities—not only by the platforms but also by the care workers themselves. This dynamic is illustrated through the example of cleaning tasks, which were not originally intended to fall within the scope of care workers’ responsibilities. Finally, the findings on the ethics of care for others as a core aspect of identity and the resulting self-exploitation are presented.

4.1. Qualifications and Platform Design

The registration processes on both platforms (especially on Platform A) are very simple. Workers only need to create a profile with basic data, which are not verified. Clients with a subscription can then contact them directly: “You enter the profile […] and then I get new jobs reported or even addresses. So, someone writes to me, and I can say: interested or not.” (PA1, pos. 17). Another worker reports that she had to provide a police clearance certificate at another company in order to provide care, but not at Platform A: “I only had to provide [profile data such as place of residence]. And yes, that was it.” (PA6, pos. 87). The lack of verification is also evident from the fake profiles that are active on the platform. Reports of such profiles are sometimes processed slowly, as the interviewee reports (PA8, pos. 34). On Platform B, as shown in the registration process, workers are at least required to provide a police clearance certificate, confirm their identity, and complete a short digital interview. However, qualifications are not required here either, although caregivers are sometimes confronted with complex diagnoses and life circumstances.

On both platforms, there is the option for workers to specify qualifications during the registration process. However, this is not a prerequisite for access, is not mandatory, and has no effect on the fixed price on Platform B. As described above, in Germany, individuals have the opportunity to undergo short further training according to §45a SGB XI to become informal caregivers. However, platform workers do not necessarily perceive such additional training as essential. This is exemplified by the interview respondent from Platform A:

“I don’t need this qualification. I don’t need a nursing degree or the paragraph 45a SGB XI to take care of someone. Because when relatives take care of their patients at home, no one asks about it. […] So it is not credible that on the one hand I need highly qualified degrees and on the other hand I don’t need any at all—a patient is a patient.”

(PA3, pos. 175)

This example shows how platform workers view themselves. The interviewee compares himself to relatives who do not provide care as part of a paid job, demonstrating how strongly he identifies with the role and does not see himself as a worker, but rather as a helper. Some interviewees value practical experience more than formal qualifications and consider it sufficient to qualify for the job. The interviewee PA6 describes how many people develop the self-confidence to take on such tasks through private experiences, thus informally qualifying themselves without any formal qualification:

“There are also many people who say, ’I took care of my grandparents, I would like to do something like that again.’ So I think we need less the ones who really have a lot of training or further education, but more the ones who just say, ’I can do that too’.”

(PA6, pos. 85)

For this work, everyday life experiences are also considered a form of qualification, which is how the care workers themselves perceive it. One caregiver describes how she raised two children alone as a single mother, which led her into numerous challenging situations and later enabled her to work in informal care for the elderly. Regarding her qualification, she says the following: “That’s the best school—school of life.” (PA5, Pos. 27). However, these experiences are not systematically recorded or visibly standardized in the platforms’ registration process and are thus not made usable for the worker. When asked what formally qualifies her for her work, she explains the following:

“Nothing, I have to admit. However, I did bring a bit of experience with me because I did it purely privately out of friendship. So I relied on my feeling. And that works wonderfully, because the further training is sometimes so out of touch with reality—so overloaded with theory, in some cases.”

(PA5, pos. 11)

Here again, the connection to activities carried out as part of a friendly, private service is evident. The workers use their private experiences and perform tasks they have already carried out in their personal lives, which is why they do not see the point in formal qualifications. The fact that formal qualifications are held in such low regard by the interviewees is also due to the fact that they are not mandatory. The platforms do not consistently require or verify them. Platform A leaves it up to the workers to decide whether to provide their qualifications. Platform B does regulate invoicing, wages, and legal forms, but it is unclear whether the services are billed through social security or paid for privately. One worker who has completed several relevant training courses describes how no one from Platform A has checked her qualifications. Despite her expertise, she works under the same conditions as colleagues without training: “Well, I stand out a lot [on Platform A] if you look at other profiles.” (PA8, pos. 30). She has many years of experience, but it is not verified by the platform, and anyone could make this claim, so she does not even know if she is selected by customers because of it.

The interviewees emphasize that personal qualities and experiences are often sufficient, but they also point out certain deficits. Specifically, with regard to difficult life situations, such as dementia or physical disabilities, one interviewee notes: “What wouldn’t be a bad thing in any case would be to be questioned a bit. I would find that quite nice.” (PA6, pos. 111). Similarly, on Platform B, workers criticize the lack of minimum requirements:

“The only thing I think needs to be optimized [at platform B] is actually ensuring basic knowledge. […] That’s missing, and it’s a shame. Because it’s a service I provide. If I provide the service, I also have to be qualified to do so.”

(PB9, pos. 37)

The attitude of platform workers toward formal qualifications is therefore not clear-cut. While some claim that formal qualifications are not important for the job, they still acknowledge that certain skills are required, which can be acquired through means other than formal education or further training. Among these workers, there is a strong identification with the role of a helper rather than as a worker, and the boundaries between private activities and paid work often blur. However, neither formal nor informal qualifications are considered in the platform design. The customer journey creates the impression that one can quickly, easily, and without prior knowledge find a side job. Workers on both platforms question this and even express a desire for their services to be recognized with more consideration, ensuring that basic knowledge is present, particularly with regard to the services provided to customers.

4.2. Devaluation of Work

The workers themselves observe that their services are in high demand, particularly in large cities where there is a higher concentration of people and where the platforms are more frequently used compared to rural areas. The interviewees indicate that they encounter little difficulty in generating new orders, as one worker from Berlin states: “I have a waiting list. I have a lot of requests!” (PA8, pos. 125). In rural regions, especially in Eastern Germany, analog channels (e.g., multipliers and associations or private referrals) work better for generating orders, but even here, it is not a problem for the workers to find new clients in need of help. Despite this favorable market situation, the urgent need, and high demand, the interviewees do not have the impression that their work is considered to be of particularly high quality.

The identity as an empathetic helper, the devaluation of their own qualifications, and the perspective of the activity as a job for everyone tend to result in acceptance of the conditions imposed on them by the elderly and their relatives, or even in accommodating their clients at the expense of their own working conditions. In this way, caregivers do not perceive their work as rare and special, but rather as inferior when it comes to the “simple” activities or believe that they are perceived as such by others. One interviewee describes how he thinks informal care work is perceived:

“Because informal care is always rather seen as-, I’ll call it “ridiculous” in quotation marks- [4.2s] Yes, they’re the ones who go out for coffee. They’re the ones who play boardgames. And that’s just not the case!”

(PB9, pos. 83)

Although he points out here that there is more to the job than (supposedly) simple activities, the quote also shows that he believes others perceive this work as less demanding. One worker also says, with regard to the shortage of workers in the job and his desire to encourage more people to work as caregivers, “Anyone who is willing can do it.” (PA3, pos. 181). Although he listed numerous skills earlier in the interview, he views the problem of the shortage of skilled workers primarily in terms of the elderly, rather than in terms of workers who benefit from formal qualifications.

The devaluation of the activity can also be seen in an example that occurred very frequently in the sample on both platforms: seniors or their relatives want the caregivers to take on cleaning work in the household. Although household support can be part of the job, the activities that support the client in maintaining their ability to live at home are the ones for which the caregivers have registered on the platform. The interviewee, PB9, reflected on this himself with reference to the paragraph that regulates the payment of care by the health insurance companies.

In other words, it’s delegated from above, which is completely wrong, because the guidelines clearly state in the paragraph that you relieve, yes, relieving in care actually always means that I do something together with the clients so that I can maintain their independence, which is what the paragraph is designed for. We are deployed in home care in order to maintain the client’s independence. That doesn’t apply if I go somewhere and clean the apartment, I’m not maintaining the skills of the person where I’m employed, I’m providing a service at the expense of the care insurance funds, which is not intended at all.

(PB9, pos. 11)

Despite this clear division, many of the interviewees have been asked to do cleaning work since being placed through the platforms. While some workers have left these families or have been able to set boundaries, others have taken on this task entirely on their own. PA2 explains: “Well, I’m just […] responsible for the household, yes.” (PA2, pos. 49). Another worker, PB4, even cleans the apartment in the absence of the client, so as not to disturb them, which fundamentally goes against the idea of care. This is how he describes it: “I clean there because he needs help around the house. He’s not even there at the time. He goes shopping or out into the fresh air.” (PB4, pos. 15).

Cleaning activities in the absence of the client are clearly not part of a caregiver’s job profile. The fact that these tasks are nonetheless carried out as a matter of course shows that the platforms do not provide sufficient information about which activities fall within the profile of an informal caregiver for the elderly. At the same time, it is also clear that the workers do not perceive themselves as being in a self-confident negotiating position where they can reject tasks that fall outside their role.

4.3. Ethics of Care Among Workers

With regard to the qualities needed to work as a caregiver, it was highly noticeable that even qualified workers did not emphasize their formal qualifications as a central quality. Instead, in almost all cases, they highlighted empathy or, in some instances, empathy and patience. In line with the described ethics of care practice, one worker described:

“What do you think the term is? Empathy. That is the most important thing. Empathy, also in the sense that it includes what I’m calling it now. But being able to put yourself in the person’s shoes, to perceive their needs. Not all people do that, that I perceive their needs from what they do, the person, and not necessarily express them. So that’s fundamental. And then, of course, meeting them.”

(PA5, pos. 13)

As frequently as empathy was mentioned in the interviews as a central characteristic for the job, the interviewees’ accounts suggest that it is seen as an innate trait. “And that you can’t learn. You can’t learn empathy. You’re an empathic person or you’re a compassionate person, but you can’t become empathic if you are not” (PA6, pos. 97). The empathy, compassion, and sensitivity toward the client inherent in the worker are considered by the workers to be more important than formal qualifications. As Haubner (2017) describes, there is also a close link between the work ethic of the helpers and their qualifications.

“You have to have a flair for it. And you know what? I’m from the old school. And it’s like that with so many things! As [we in our region] say: you either have it or you don’t. To come up with further training and learning. It’s limited. If you don’t have that as a person, like I do. That’s not to praise me, it’s an observation. And I can study and everything. That’s the elementary thing, that you have that in your personality, that you have that disposition. Let me put it this way”

(PA5, pos. 15)

The care worker in the previous quote characterizes empathy as a distinctive trait that not everyone possesses. In this context, the required qualification takes on an identity-forming role. The care worker perceives themselves as someone with this unique ability, which distinguishes them from others. However, this also illustrates how the identity of being a helper shapes care workers into individuals who are strongly oriented towards their clients.

The extent to which these orientations towards the client can be expressed varies greatly depending on the working conditions already embedded in the platform design technology, as reflected in the differences between Platform A and Platform B.

The client-centered perspective is also evident on Platform A when it comes to wages. This shows how the caring attitude in the relationship is reflected in the negotiation of working conditions. The interviewee describes, in relation to his client, that he accommodates the client in terms of price because the client has built a house suitable for the disabled and cannot afford the service otherwise. At this point, it becomes clear how the concern for others, in the empathy-driven care relationships of the interviewees, is prioritized over the necessity of receiving a fair wage. The value of his own work, which should be appropriately remunerated, takes second place to the client’s needs. Care for others is thus prioritized over self-care, and the interviewee does not even mention his own needs.

“And of course the client is not particularly well off financially either. He has had a house built that is suitable for the disabled […] he can’t afford it any other way.”

(PA3, pos. 44)

On Platform A, where workers set and settle their own wages, waiving part of their own wages was an issue in several cases. The difficult (financial) situation of the seniors was consistently cited as a motive. However, the value of their own work was never discussed:

“Well, I do have price details, but if someone comes forward in an emergency situation and simply says: but I don’t have that. I come from the Ruhr area and there they always say: what doesn’t fit, will be made to fit5.”

(PA6, pos. 23)

On Platform B, this issue does not arise at all, as the hourly wage is fixed. There are no negotiations, only a standardized procedure: “So, he transfers the hour I spend there to my account, but he gets the invoice from [PF2] […] the invoice is issued for me. I just have to document in the app when the appointment is, what time I was there, and for how long, of course” [PB10, pos. 106].

Another example of these differences is vacation time, which is very much centered around the client’s needs on Platform A. The caregiver in the following example describes how she aligns her private life with that of the family in which she works, because she wants to relieve them. It is important for her to be there for the family; helping is more important to her than her own plans, even though she only works a few hours for the family. Here too, it becomes evident how caregiving for others is a central aspect in the negotiation of working conditions:

“Then I say: “Come on, I’ll do it for you” and it works. Especially when the family has gone on vacation, I’m sometimes asked: “Here, do you have time?”, or “Do you have plans?” And for me, I take a vacation once a year in one month of the a year. And that’s usually during the summer vacation, the big summer vacation. It’s usually about six weeks and the other vacations I’m just there and I never make any plans. Because I say: “Here, if you need help, I’m there for you.””

(PA2, pos. 79)

Similarly, on Platform B, we can observe how the app’s features simplify the negotiation process for workers, with technology providing a seamless way for them to take time off when it aligns with their own needs.

“For example, you can update your profile to indicate that you are on vacation or whatever, during which time your account will be temporarily blocked.”

[PB4, pos 32]

Thus, technology can become a helpful tool alongside the deep-seated relationship of care, enabling workers to care for themselves as well and strengthening their perception of themselves as laborers when designed correctly. For some caregivers, the identity as a helping person goes so far that they focus more on the fact that clients struggle to finance their care than on the fact that it is still a paid job. One interviewee describes that caregivers receive a lot in return, independent of payment. From this perspective, the caregiver also accommodates the client when it comes to money:

“Also, the compassion for someone who is really in a bad situation, to somehow help them out. And you get an incredible amount in return, which has nothing to do with money anymore. You have to count that too.”

(PA3, pos. 183)

This once again highlights the attitude with which workers approach their work on the platform. At the same time, however, the platforms are businesses that generate profits from the paid work of these individuals. With both business models, the platform companies benefit significantly from the workers’ self-sacrificing attitudes.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

Regarding the initial research question—“How do workers’ ethics of care unfold in platform-mediated care?”—it becomes clear that both platforms, despite differing business models and user interfaces, shape the caregiving framework through their design decisions. These choices, embedded in both the interface and the registration process, portray care work as low-threshold rather than professionalized. The ease of access and lack of recognition for qualifications in the registration process do not help workers view care work as “real work” (England 2017), instead perpetuating an image of an easy job for everyone. When registering, the platform companies focus primarily on providing a smooth start for the customer journey through design and getting workers on board. The registration process is deliberately simple, giving the impression that care work is an easy task that anyone can perform (Staab 2014; Haubner 2021). Skills and qualifications are increasingly seen as innate traits, and the prevailing ideology suggests that certain groups, particularly women, are naturally empathetic and suited for care work. The platforms further reinforce this by portraying the work as requiring no semi-skilled or acquired skills. This contributes to the view of care as an inherent skill and is reflected in the self-image of platform workers as helpers rather than professional service providers who maintain a distance from their work (Nowak 2011). The ethics of care, which is characterized by a strong concern for others (Tronto 1993), develops under these conditions set by the technology, and the needs of platform workers are often neglected.

It is important to consider that caregivers enter the private sphere of individuals during sensitive times in their lives. They face difficult physical and mental health conditions and must manage them professionally. However, these challenges are not addressed; instead, they are obscured by the platform’s design. In line with the findings of van Doorn (2017), the examined platform presents the work as uncomplicated, akin to neighborly help that anyone can provide (Haubner 2021). This framing reinforces an ethics of care rooted in the historical tradition of domestic labor and asymmetric care relationships (Senghaas-Knobloch 2008), which leads to further de-standardization and devaluation of qualifications in low-skilled care work. In our sample, workers strongly identified as helpers rather than as professional workers who must adhere to specific standards of self-care (Tronto 1993). This identification as a helper rather than a worker can also be understood in terms of the history of care for the elderly and the codification of activities that are also carried out unpaid by relatives. The platform’s design further devalues the work by presenting it as accessible to everyone, encouraging caregivers to adopt a one-sided work ethic of care that views them as indispensable and willing to make personal sacrifices for clients. Caregivers see their most important skills—such as empathy and compassion—as part of their personality and are therefore willing to invest a large part of their personality into their work (Senghaas-Knobloch 2008). As noted in other care activities (Staab 2014), this sample also illustrates caregiving as a key mechanism for self-control and subjugation, with workers frequently taking on tasks beyond their official duties. On both platforms, workers strongly identify with their roles as helpers, but as workers (Nowak 2011), they simultaneously feel that their work is undervalued and perceived as requiring few skills.

The significant influence of platform design on work practices aligns with broader research on the structuring effects of technology, particularly in platform care economies (e.g., Piña et al. 2024; Wiesböck et al. 2023). In contrast to Strüver’s (2021) findings of a dehumanized relationship through technology, this study suggests that in elderly care the inherently interactive and asymmetric relationships actually foster, rather than diminish, the relevance of personal relationships between workers and clients. Rather than imposing rigid structures, the technology enhances dynamics based on care and a willingness to help. Following Khan et al. (2024), it is also evident here how crucial the personal negotiation level in interactive platform work is for understanding work through an ethic-of-care lens. However, this perspective could be expanded through a comparative analysis of the impact of work ethics on two platforms. At the same time, our findings highlight a stronger imbalance between self-care and other-care compared to the previous study.

On both platforms, working conditions that would otherwise be regulated and standardized by laws and contracts in traditional employment relationships are instead informally negotiated between clients and workers. However, there is no regulated employment relationship due to the triangle dynamic of platform work involving the platform, workers, and clients. Due to their status as solo self-employed individuals, labor regulations that apply to employees in the care sector do not apply to these workers (Greef et al. 2020). The platforms (particularly Platform A) position themselves as neutral mediators, even though they profit from the work. In this informal context, personal relationships play a central role. Emotional bonds between care workers, elderly clients, and their relatives often form the foundation for negotiating key aspects of the employment relationship.

This dynamic leads to strong informalization and the negotiation of core working conditions in a highly emotional, pseudo-familial relationship with clients, in a relationship characterized by the ethics of care. The devaluation of the work, through its low esteem and lack of recognition of qualifications, also fosters a modest self-image among caregivers, further weakening their bargaining power. The framework of compassion and accommodation can push caregivers to accommodate the needs of relatives and clients to an extreme, accepting working conditions that would not be legally feasible in a classic, standardized employment relationship.

However, this negotiation is not neutral; it is shaped by the asymmetrical nature of care relationships (Artus et al. 2017), leading workers to accommodate client needs, even in matters such as payment or vacation scheduling. Contrary to Pulignano et al. (2023), unpaid work in this sample did not arise from fear of negative reviews, but rather from a deep sense of responsibility (Becker et al. 2017), anchored in the ethics of care, toward recipients and their families. In this context, technology did not directly discipline workers but instead promoted a work ethic in which concern for the care of others outweighs concern for the care of oneself (Tronto 1993), thus contributing to self-exploitation.

Regarding differences between the platforms, it can be argued that platform companies could set clearer standards through design choices to foster greater formalization (Ticona and Mateescu 2018). This could complement a work ethic shaped by personal judgment and emotional engagement, with clearer standards. A key distinction lies in how payment and time off are handled. On Platform B, wages are pre-determined and managed by the platform, eliminating negotiations and preventing workers from forgoing wages due to care obligations—a situation observed on Platform A. Similarly, Platform B allows workers to sign off for vacation or sick leave, whereas Platform A lacks such provisions. As a result, workers on Platform A remain highly attuned to client needs, while Platform B’s structure introduces a more regulated system for balancing personal and caregiving needs (Kumbruck et al. 2010). This comparison highlights the potential for platforms to establish standards through design, such as fixed hourly wages, to partially standardize care work and reduce negotiations in an emotional relationship. However, these efforts are still underdeveloped, and the lack of clear information, job profiles, and qualification standards continues to favor customer-driven negotiations.

On Platform B, where the hourly wage is fixed, a higher qualification does not result in higher pay. This failure to recognize formal qualifications complements earlier findings on the unpaid use of informal experience (Baum 2024b) and the access to informally acquired qualifications in care, without making them visible (Lutz 2007).

One limitation of the study is its focus on only two platforms, despite the diversity of platform models. Other platform structures may influence work and ethics differently, warranting further research. The small sample size also limits generalizability, though it allows for a detailed analysis of individual experiences and key mechanisms. Notably, migrant 24/7 care workers, who play a central role in home care, were excluded from the study, as their working conditions differ significantly. This exclusion highlights the need for further research on work ethics, particularly with regard to intersectional discrimination, commodification, and dependency dynamics (e.g., Aulenbacher et al. 2024), which should also be considered in platform design and care ethics.

With a different platform design, platforms could promote a self-image that structurally supports the perception of workers as professionals, enhancing the activity and providing workers with tools to strengthen self-care in their work ethic and differentiate themselves through technology. The persistence of qualification ambiguity in platform-based care, despite the potential for platforms to establish quality standards during registration, represents a missed opportunity. Platforms could mitigate these issues by providing more information on workers’ rights, training opportunities, and clearer activity requirements during registration. The absence of formal structures, ambiguous job profiles, and the internalized willingness to help all contribute to the devaluation of care work. This devaluation is further exacerbated by the dissolution of work boundaries, reinforced by the ethics of care itself.

Introducing qualification requirements could help standardize service quality, ensure a minimum level of care, and provide workers with a clearer framework for skills and fair wages. While informal skills are undoubtedly crucial in care work, their diffuse and non-formalized nature prevents them from being reflected in pay. The current lack of qualification clarity perpetuates an unstandardized work environment, where caregiving orientations overshadow professional recognition.

To understand why platforms contribute to the devaluation of care work and miss opportunities to establish care standards for older adults, we must view them as marketplaces. In the platform economy, the boundaries between market and organization blur, with platforms acting as digital marketplaces (Nachtwey and Staab 2020). It can be assumed that design decisions are based on the business models (e.g., a fixed hourly wage if it is a commission model) and not on the conditions for the workers. A critical issue in the German care market is the ongoing care crisis (Dowling 2021), where demand for home care is rising while staffing shortages persist. This imbalance is expected to worsen, and platforms, functioning as market intermediaries, are primarily motivated to retain as many workers as possible, prioritizing supply over service quality. Since platforms operate with profit motives (Srnicek 2018), their main goal is to attract workers by lowering entry barriers rather than raising care standards. Unlike care companies competing on quality, platforms treat both workers and clients as customers, thriving by maximizing participation on both sides. For example, platforms with subscription models can only sell subscriptions to care seekers if enough workers are registered. Unlike other sectors, care platforms do not implement control mechanisms to ensure service quality. In a field already affected by labor shortages, the competition for workers takes precedence. As a result, platforms devalue care work by marketing it as universally accessible, further entrenching the self-exploitative aspects of the care work ethic. The further examination of platform design decisions in a broader context could provide a promising direction for future research.