Working from home: Why the UK leads in Europe and how other countries compare
But, aside from the UK, how do work-from-home (WFH) rates differ across Europe and the world? And what might explain variations between countries?
The Global Survey of Working Arrangements (G-SWA) shows that telework trends have evolved since the COVID-19 pandemic. The fourth wave of the survey, conducted between November 2024 and February 2025, covers full-time workers aged 20 to 64 who have completed tertiary education (college or university).
While the global telework average stands at 1.2 days per week, WFH rates vary significantly across the 40 countries surveyed, ranging from just 0.5 days per week in South Korea to 1.9 days in Canada.
Several factors underpin the UK's top ranking, according to Dr. Cevat Giray Aksoy, lead economist at the EBRD and associate professor of economics at King's College London.
'The UK scores highly on cultural individualism, which is strongly associated with comfort in autonomous work environments,' said Giray Aksoy.
Aksoy noted that the UK experienced long and stringent lockdowns, accelerating the adoption of remote work infrastructure and norms. He also explained that the UK's labour market is concentrated in service sectors — such as finance, consulting, and media — where WFH can be a practical option.
"Crucially, British workers have developed strong and durable preferences for hybrid work, typically wanting 2–3 WFH days per week. This is no longer a marginal benefit; it's a core expectation," he said.
Aksoy warned that firms ignoring this reality may face a serious disadvantage in attracting and retaining talent — particularly when competing with employers in other English-speaking countries that have embraced flexibility.
In Europe, Finland (1.7 days) and Germany (1.6 days) followed the UK in the ranking. The WFH rates are also relatively high in Portugal (1.5 days), as well as in Hungary and the Netherlands (both 1.4 days).
Employees in Czechia, Italy, and Sweden work from home 1.3 days per week, which is slightly above the global average. Romania, Spain, and Austria align with the global average, each reporting 1.2 remote work days per week.
Dr. Aksoy attributes the variation across European countries to a mix of structural, cultural, and economic factors.
'Among these, the most powerful predictor is individualism — a cultural trait that emphasises personal autonomy, self-reliance, and independence over collective goals or close supervision,' he said.
Related
Remote work: Is it time for workers to go back to the office?
Trump's remote work ban: What does it mean for carbon emissions and climate goals?
He added that other factors also play a role. These include the severity and duration of COVID-19 lockdowns, population density, and the industrial structure of each economy. For instance, countries with a larger share of remote-friendly sectors such as IT and finance are better positioned to support hybrid models. Densely populated countries also often see higher WFH levels, in part due to longer commutes.
Greece reports the lowest WFH rate in Europe at just 0.6 days per week.
'Part of the explanation lies in the structure of the Greek economy, which leans heavily on sectors like tourism, retail, and hospitality — jobs that generally require physical presence,' said Aksoy.
'But deeper cultural and institutional factors also play a role. Greece scores relatively low on individualism,' he added.
He stated that digital adoption and management practices were relatively underdeveloped before the pandemic, which likely slowed the normalisation of WFH.
While Finland ranks second in Europe with 1.7 remote work days per week, Norway and Denmark report significantly lower rates at just 0.9 days. Sweden, with 1.3 days, sits in between, reflecting a clear divide in remote work trends across the Nordic countries.
Aksoy explained that Finland has a slightly more individualistic culture and a long-standing emphasis on work-life balance and employee autonomy compared to Denmark and Norway, which may maintain more traditional management practices.
'Finnish organisations, especially in the public sector and technology industries, were early adopters of flexible work policies — even before the pandemic,' he added.
Among Europe's five largest economies, France has the lowest remote work rate, with employees averaging just 1 day per week from home. Turkey follows closely at 0.9 days, while Poland is slightly ahead with 1.1 days.
Overall levels of working from home have declined globally, dropping from an average of 1.6 days per week in 2022 to 1.33 days in 2023. In 2024 and 2025, they fell far more modestly to 1.27 days.
The research concludes that remote work levels have roughly stabilised since 2023.
'However, this stability doesn't mean stasis. Incremental shifts could still occur — driven by new technologies, changing demographics, or evolving labour market conditions,' Aksoy added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TechCrunch
30 minutes ago
- TechCrunch
French B2B fintech Qonto reaches 600,000 customers, files for banking license
'Is Qonto a real bank?' is one of the top suggested questions in Google searches about the French fintech startup. The answer is no, but it could change: Qonto has filed for a banking license in France, CEO Alexandre Prot revealed. Qonto, which targets European freelancers and SMBs, currently operates with a payment institution license it obtained in 2018, and which already enabled it to introduce a form of buy now, pay later (BNPL). But a credit institution license would let it offer broader lending, savings, and investment options to its target customers. Since its current license is valid across the EU, Qonto has already been able to expand into several European markets, and recently reached the milestone of 600,000 customers. But lacking a credit license is a hindrance for its goal to reach 2 million customers by 2030. While offering a more comprehensive solution seems like a natural move to compete with incumbent banks, obtaining a license and rolling out credit is not easy. That explains why Qonto's SMB fintech competitors have approached this issue in different ways, and why Qonto isn't exactly playing catch-up. Memo Bank was founded as a bank from the outset, and offers lending to SMBs, but that makes it an outlier. Finom operates with an electronic money institution (EMI) license, but it only just started testing the kind of lending that this regulatory middle ground allows. Revolut has a full Lithuanian license, but other than BNPL, it has yet to roll out credit options to businesses — although it plans to do so this year. Still, the marketing power of well-funded competitors that operate both in B2C and B2B may have been a sign that Qonto needed to accelerate, especially as Revolut recently loudly announced plans to seek a French license and turn Paris into its Western Europe HQ. Not mentioning competitors, Prot said that Qonto's timing was driven by 'having achieved profitability ahead of schedule in 2023.' Techcrunch event Save $450 on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Save $450 on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Boston, MA | REGISTER NOW The son of former BNP Paribas President Baudouin Prot, Qonto's CEO had obviously already thought about pursuing a credit license — and that's not just a guess. During a press briefing, Prot confirmed that he and co-founder Steve Anavi seriously considered the idea at one point, but ultimately dismissed it because it would have required too much time and additional fundraising. Having been profitable since 2023 means that this hurdle now won't require Qonto to raise more funding than the $552 million it secured in 2022 at a $5 billion valuation. Prot recently said that 'the main, or the only reason, why we could raise additional capital is if we do a large or very large M&A deal, paid mostly in cash.' In its eight years of existence, Qonto has made two acquisitions: It took over its German competitor Penta in 2022, and it bought accounting and financial automation platform Regate in 2024. The latter is a reflection of Qonto's positioning beyond banking and as an integrated finance management solution, with an offering that also includes tools for invoicing and bookkeeping. This approach helped it grow in the B2B segment across Europe. Prot declined to give a full breakdown of its 600,000 customers, but he said that Germany is now Qonto's largest market after France. In unspecified order, Spain and Italy come next, followed by the markets it entered in late 2024: Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Portugal. Still, Prot operates under the assumption that some customers won't choose Qonto unless it is a credit institution. That's because this would grant them additional guarantees on their deposits, and because they want credit to be an option if they ever need it, which some already do. Qonto validated that demand for credit with its Pay Later service; launched in 2024, it has already facilitated €50 million in financing, according to the company (approximately $59 million). But the offer is limited by its current license — both for Qonto, which can only lend from its own equity, and for its customers, who can't borrow for longer than 12 months. To help its customers access other types of loans, Qonto also put together a 'financing hub' with third-party fintech partners including Defacto, Karmen, Riverbank, and Silvr. Prot said Qonto plans to keep it for at least a few more years. And some of these offerings are more specific than what the company may want to get into. Still, becoming a credit institution in its own right would unlock new revenue for Qonto, both from the margin on credits and more upside from deposits, which it would be able to use for lending. Prot declined to disclose revenue figures but said that revenue increased by 30% in the last year. However, Prot said that this additional revenue wasn't the main factor at play. Acquiring new customers aside, Qonto also sees this as an opportunity to depend less on others and launch new products faster. In the same vein, it recently built an in-house card processor to increase acceptance rates while reducing its reliance on third parties. With a team of 1,600 people, Qonto now hopes that it will have the bandwidth to work on new product developments, such as the AI-enabled 'Qonto Intelligence' layer, while also enhancing its banking infrastructure and risk management teams. The latter is also aimed to demonstrate its readiness to France's banking supervisor, with which it plans to work closely to obtain its license. The process may still take years, but it is also part of a broader 'growing up' effort for Qonto, which recently added several senior profiles to its board of directors. These steps could also help lay the groundwork for a future IPO, though that remains a longer-term prospect. Note: This story's headline was changed to clarify that Qonto is not yet a bank.
The Verge
40 minutes ago
- The Verge
Deerhoof did not want its music ‘funding AI battle tech' — so it ditched Spotify
On Monday, the long-running indie rock band Deerhoof made an announcement: it was pulling its music from Spotify. The impetus was Spotify founder Daniel Ek's newest investment in Helsing, the German defense group that makes AI and drones. Helsing raised 600 million euros in its most recent funding round, which was led by Ek's venture capital firm Prima Materia. 'Helsing is benefiting from a surge of investment in defence groups, as a highly charged geopolitical environment spurs nations all over the world to increase military spending and the war in Ukraine triggers a rethink of battlefield technology,' the Financial Times wrote of the investment. Ek characterized the investment as 'doubling down'; he'd previously made Prima Materia's first investment in Helsing. That didn't sit right with the members of Deerhoof, who didn't like Spotify much to begin with. The streaming platform has been criticized by artists for not paying enough, as well as for its practices around 'ghost artists' and Discovery Mode. I called up Greg Saunier, Deerhoof's drummer, to talk about how streaming supports war efforts, how much money the band made from Spotify, and where they drew the moral line. This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity. Let's start with how you made the decision. Your statement reads that you saw that Daniel Ek was using his Spotify money to invest in AI, and you objected to war profiteering. I think that refers to Ek's investment in Helsing. Can you sort of give me a picture of how that decision went after you heard the news? We were in a rented minivan, on tour in the Northeast, and so I think we were just making chitchat in the car. And I was just like, 'Hey, did you guys see that latest headline?' I think it took the four members of Deerhoof maybe all of two minutes to decide. Ed Rodriguez, our guitar player, did a quick look at our Spotify numbers. How much do each of us actually make a year from being on Spotify? As far as direct income, it was something small, like maybe $1,000 a year or something for each of us. 'The band's decision was very easy and quick.' So this is our cue. We've been basically waiting for at least five years for a moment. Everybody already hates Spotify — everyone you talk to, whether they're a musician or whether they're a listener. And so we were hoping that somebody would organize a movement. We'd be the first to sign up. But that wasn't particularly happening. And so just for our own ability to sleep at night, you know — regardless of whether it creates any movement, regardless of whether Spotify themselves care — we just for our own mental health did not want our music, and particularly our music success, to be funding AI battle tech. All of us have seen the results of what AI battle tech does and, you know, AI decision making, AI targeting, facial recognition, AI systems that are developed to go through lists of addresses where suspiciously named people happen to be living, and then will automatically obliterate an apartment building. [What's happening in] Gaza just gives everybody a taste of the future that Daniel Ek is trying to make possible for other regions of the globe as well. So yeah, the band's decision was very easy and quick. There seem to be two strands here. One is objections to Spotify, and the other is objections to AI, and so I'm going to take them separately. How did you first join Spotify? You were around well before the transition to digital music, and I'm sure you remember the Napster era, so I'm curious about how this has affected your careers. I actually don't remember joining it. We were probably on [record label] Polyvinyl at the time, and it was simply one of several ways to stream music. 'Daniel Ek is the type of oligarch — and there are several who are making headlines nowadays — who seems to almost have some psychological compulsion to put his foot in his mouth.' Napster, I think, is related to the history of Spotify. Because, you know, Spotify started in Sweden. And Sweden was also famous at that time for being the main hub for The Pirate Bay. But even downloading music for free, as with Napster, is — downloads are not streams. It's a different way of consuming music. At the time that Napster was happening, people had music collections. That's what I do. I buy MP3s, often from Bandcamp or classical music from iTunes. None of the members of Deerhoof have ever got a Spotify account because none of us like streaming — it never caught on for us. A narrative we can probably all agree is the case in terms of Spotify is that it seemed slightly suspicious when it started. It has utterly snowballed in terms of the amount of hate, the amount of eyerolls, and it's not only that there's been a gradual increase in public awareness of how unfair their payment system is. It's also that Daniel Ek is the type of oligarch — and there are several who are making headlines nowadays — who seems to almost have some psychological compulsion to put his foot in his mouth and make headlines by saying unbelievably stupid things that inspire the ire of musicians and music fans. He's just that type of very obnoxious. Not all billionaires are like that. Some keep their greed hidden behind some kind of secrecy or some kind of sense of decorum. Then you get the Elon Musks and the Daniel Eks and the Donald Trumps, who are more like intentionally, overtly, publicly as cartoonishly evil as possible. We felt in our gut that having our success be funding global annihilation was maybe one step too far. That's too much. We're not doing that. We're not on the side of a billionaire who has that as their objective. It's sort of like they forced us to take a side. We probably would have bumbled along for a while longer, just sort of waiting in the background to see if somebody else made a move. But that was just too much. I cannot stomach that. There's no way in the world I'm going to be saying, 'Hey, everybody, listen to our music!' while at the same time knowing what that would mean. Do you have advice for bands who want to remove their work from Spotify? You'd mentioned wanting to be part of a movement. If you happen to spur that movement, what should people do? I mean, I just did an Instagram post. I thought a few hundred of our followers would probably see it. I didn't anticipate the possibility that this could actually be a part of a story that could build into a movement. 'It was easy for us because we're making most of our income from touring.' I suddenly feel a lot of responsibility to people. It's like any form of refusal, any form of protest, any form of civil disobedience, any form of strike, boycott. What we're doing is basically going on strike — it's not really, because we don't have any intention of going back, but it's like a strike. We were the musicians, the laborers Spotify uses as their bait for their ad company. In any of these popular situations, the more people do it, the more effective it is. I already have had many of my music friends and colleagues tell me, 'Well, I can't really afford to leave Spotify.' I'm like, I don't judge you at all. I understand the situation. It was easy for us because we're making most of our income from touring. But that's a privileged position. I don't look down at somebody who doesn't feel that their own ability to to eat and pay rent will be so adversely affected by leaving Spotify that they just can't do it. At the same time, if a lot of people do it, then what happens is, Spotify goes the way of MySpace. You know, it's just not cool anymore. It's just not a trendy thing that everybody is compelled to use. That's the ultimate goal, to make it so stupid and so uncool and such a laughingstock that nobody even wants to use it. I want to talk a little bit about AI now. You made the announcement over Instagram, and Meta is also developing AI, and last year, okayed its use by the US military. So what's the hard line for you? I feel exactly the same about Meta or Instagram as I do about Spotify in that we hope for a mass defection. We hope for a mass strike, or a mass boycott, or just a mass refusal to use it anymore, and we will be the first to go. 'We would also very much enjoy disempowering Mark Zuckerberg.' But of course, there's a gray area. We're not literally directly making dollars from Instagram, but Instagram assists us in our ability to make income from other sources, such as ticket and record sales. I take some inspiration from, you know, worldwide boycott movements. I saw Cesar Chavez speak once in the late '80s. I remember people were asking, 'Why are you so focused on grapes? Why would you boycott an organic grape while there's these pesticide-covered apples that you're not even talking about?' And [Chavez] is like, 'It's just a strategy. It's about targeted action.' You see very much the same thing happening with BDS [Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions], particularly in the past couple years. There are many institutions and companies and individuals who have ties either to [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu or Israel's government or the IDF [Israel Defense Force], but we're going to target these specific ones so that public consciousness can be focused. In a media environment that is perpetually oversaturated, it sometimes is strategic to focus one's efforts on a specific entity at a time, or not to overdo it. We would also very much enjoy disempowering Mark Zuckerberg. His particular fetishes and hobbies and fantasies of what he would like to do with his multibillion dollars is slightly different, perhaps, than Daniel Ek's, but it's obviously been clear, at least since the Cambridge Analytica scandal and Trump's first election, that that he both desires and succeeds at being involved in politics. Not to even mention his flirtation with possibly running for president. It's clear that he understands and gets a thrill from the fact that he's actually able to control world events somewhat by what he chooses to censor or shadow ban or what he chooses to teach his algorithms to promote to the top of any given person's feed. Yes, Deerhoof would like Instagram to also become uncool. I imagine that Instagram will go the way of any other platforms that don't really offer anything or create anything. What they create is loneliness, and they create what they require. They create longing, or they create distraction. They take you away from your own thoughts and your own feelings and obliterate your idle time in which you might have your own thoughts or feelings or create something, like writing a song. I don't believe that Instagram is compatible with survival in the long run. 'If it's a human right to have free recorded music, then it should be nationalized.' There's a generation — probably a couple generations now — who've grown up knowing nothing but free music, and they may feel that it's their human right. I actually can sympathize with somebody saying, 'I think I should have free music,' in which case I would say, 'Great, then obviously, if it's a human right to have free recorded music, then it should be nationalized. It should not be done for profit.' It's the same as we say about healthcare. It's the same as we say about housing. It's the same as we say about higher education. It's wild to be a touring band and be friends with French musicians. They're like, 'Oh, my salary is paid by taxes. My salary is paid by the government. I need to play 31 shows a year, and then I get paid.' In other words, the French population pays me to be a musician. [Ed. note: In France, musicians can collect a special class of unemployment income called intermittents du spectacle.] It's like, whoa, try imagining that happening here, how much that would change everything. Right now, the people who create recorded music do it for free, but any money that changes hands goes into the pockets of Daniel Ek. It goes into the pockets of somebody who uses it to automate and industrialize mass murder. That is not a scenario that most people are likely to give a thumbs up to if it's presented to them in that way. That's not Spotify's sales pitch but it should be because that's the reality, that's what you're signing up for. You just had a new album come out, Noble and Godlike in Ruin. Where can people find it? You can find it at the record store, you can find it on Bandcamp, you can find it on our website, you can find it on our label's website, and then there's any number of other tech platforms that allow for search fields in which you can type that. Or video platforms that will make it very easy for you to hear. Spotify seems like the only choice as the result of backroom deals between major labels. That made Spotify compulsory for everyone, regardless if you're Beyoncé. This doesn't mean that it's the only place to hear recorded music. Just go anywhere — literally anywhere — else.
Entrepreneur
an hour ago
- Entrepreneur
OpenAI Blasts Robinhood for Selling OpenAI Tokens
OpenAI warns consumers that Robinhood's sale of "OpenAI tokens" will not give them equity or stock in the company. On Monday, Robinhood, the stock, options, and crypto trading platform, announced it was making tokenized shares of OpenAI and SpaceX available to users in Europe. Robinhood said users in the European Union who onboard to trade stock tokens by July 7 will receive 5 euros worth of OpenAI and SpaceX tokens. CNBC reports that the company is offering $1 million worth of OpenAI and $500,000 worth of SpaceX. The news sent Robinhood's shares up nearly 13%, hitting a new all-time high for the company. That's all well and good for Robinhood, but OpenAI was not so pleased, and tweeted a response that leaves no doubt about how they feel about it: "These 'OpenAI tokens' are not OpenAI equity. We did not partner with Robinhood, were not involved in this, and do not endorse it. Any transfer of OpenAI equity requires our approval—we did not approve any transfer. Please be careful." These "OpenAI tokens" are not OpenAI equity. We did not partner with Robinhood, were not involved in this, and do not endorse it. Any transfer of OpenAI equity requires our approval—we did not approve any transfer. Please be careful. — OpenAI Newsroom (@OpenAINewsroom) July 2, 2025 When reached for comment, Robinhood spokesperson Rouky Diallo explained to TechCrunch that the OpenAI tokens giveaway is part of a campaign to give investors indirect exposure to OpenAI "through Robinhood's ownership stake in a special purpose vehicle." (A special purpose vehicle, or SPV, is a subsidiary created by a parent company to isolate financial risk, per Investopedia.) Related: Robinhood Strategies Could Be a Game-Changer for Young Investors TechCrunch says that the token release "suggests Robinhood owns shares of an SPV that controls a certain number of OpenAI's shares." Meaning they are offering ownership of the vehicle that owns OpenAI shares, not direct OpenAI shares. Robinhood's help center further explains: "When buying stock tokens, you are not buying the actual stocks — you are buying tokenized contracts that follow their price, recorded on a blockchain. You can buy, sell, or hold stock tokens — but you cannot send them to other wallets or platforms at this time." If that's confusing to you, perhaps this isn't the investment opportunity for you. And if it makes sense, you might be part-robot.
