Gendered digitalisation in the Social and Solidarity Economy

1. Introduction

The digitalisation of the economy is driving the growth of work through digital platforms, giving rise to an economic model commonly referred to as the platform economy (Chen et al., 2024; Codagnone, 2022; Doorn, 2022; Nieborg & Poell, 2018). This model has introduced new organisational and productive paradigms that impact both the field of work and the distribution of value and decision-making (ILO, 2021; Jorge-Vázquez & Chivite Cebolla, 2018), promoting an extractivist model conceptualised as platform capitalism (Srnicek, 2017) and surveillance capitalism (Zuboff, 2019). These interrelated approaches reinforce the concentration of power in the hands of a few global platforms, and accentuate the effects of digital extractivism and the role of platforms not only in economic interaction but also in the structural control of information flows and the distribution of value (Poell et al., 2019).

In this technodeterministic scenario, characterised by technological solutionism (Morozov, 2013) and scalability (Pfotenhauer & Jasanoff, 2017) current innovation trajectories are defined. Against this backdrop, the social and solidarity economy (SSE) positions itself as an economic model grounded in values and democratic practices oriented towards social justice, equity, and sustainability (Espelt, 2022; Garcia Jané, 2017; Laville, 2016; Suriñach, 2017). Thus, it constitutes a critical alternative that challenges the logic of digital capitalism (Pfeiffer, 2022; Rivera Outomuro, 2018; Sadowski, 2020) and encompasses initiatives aimed at democratising production, distribution, and consumption processes, while promoting models of collective ownership, participatory governance, and economic solidarity (Coraggio, 2011; Laville, 2015).

However, social and solidarity initiatives are not exempt from the influence of the fetishisation of scalability, commonly understood as the pursuit of attracting the largest possible number of users and expanding networked structures, often resulting in the dominance of larger, monotechnological platforms (Pfotenhauer & Jasanoff, 2017; Lampinen et al., 2022). Nor are they free from a technodeterminist perspective, which, in the context of the expansion of the platform economy, sidesteps how technology can act as a vehicle for reproducing structural inequalities, such as gender hierarchies, sustaining and reinforcing the logics of patriarchal capitalism.

In this line, the intersection between Social and Solidarity Economy and feminist economics (Carrasco Bengoa & Diaz Corral, 2017; Di Masso Tarditti et al., 2021; Pérez Orozco, 2019) opens a critical perspective on digital technologies, dismantling the idea of their neutrality (Haraway, 1985; Levi, 2024; Winner, 1980) in order to foster new imaginaries (Aguilar & Sotomayor, 2018; Comajoan Colomé, 2024; Piñeiro & Lucio, 2023) and democratic practices (Rubim & Milanez, 2024; Levi, 2024). Consequently, feminist scholarship conceptualises responses to digital inequalities through two closely interrelated dimensions. The first concerns the transformation of technological design processes as a condition for advancing social justice (Costanza-Chock, 2020; Helm, 2024). The second relates to the adoption of contextualised and intersectional approaches that foreground power relations shaping digital infrastructures and practices (Grohmann & Salvagni, 2023; Haraway, 1985; Poell et al., 2022; Vergès, 2022). Across both dimensions, the sustainability and expanded reproduction of life emerge as a central analytical axis (Agenjo-Calderón, 2023; Carranza-Barona & Villavicencio Salazar, 2024; Carrasco Bengoa & Díaz Corral, 2017; Coraggio, 2013). However, existing research indicates that such transformations are neither automatic nor evenly realised, but rather contingent on specific political, institutional, and socio-technical conditions.

Against this background, this article is guided by two analytical hypotheses: (H1) the sexual division of labour (Galerand & Kergoat, 2013; XES, 2024) influences the distribution of digital competences in SSE organisations, and (H2) it is reflected in the configuration of professional profiles according to gender. The analysis of hypothesis 1 involves an understanding of digital competences in their broadest sense, extending beyond technical skills to encompass the knowledge and attitudes that enable individuals to engage with digital technologies effectively, critically, and safely. They encompass computer and operating system use, internet navigation, information search, management and analysis, as well as data processing.

This study examines how the digitalisation of the economy impacts SSE organisations, both through the incorporation of digital professionals and through digital competences (Arroyo, 2018; Caralt et al., 2017; European Commission, 2023b; m4Social, 2022), within the framework of the sexual division of labour (Acker, 1990; Gerber, 2022; Larrañaga et al., 2011; Nobre, 2015; Salvagni et al., 2022; Scholz & Schneider, 2017).

The analysis reveals the tensions between declared values and everyday practices, incorporating a feminist perspective oriented towards the promotion of democratic values and practices, and towards the construction of an alternative based on social justice, advancing towards genuinely transformative models. This is particularly relevant in a context in which digital technologies are employed to promote and coordinate fascist practices, disseminate authoritarian and nationalist ideologies, and mobilise support through the creation of echo chambers and the spread of disinformation (Fuchs, 2022). These dynamics are growing as a consequence of a wider social crisis and call for adequate strategies and practices of resistance (Ahmed, 2017; Jubeto Ruiz, 2023, p. 73; Rubim & Milanez, 2024).

Accordingly, this article contributes to the conceptual debate regarding the practical implications of digital solidarity economies (Rubim & Milanez, 2024) and their convergence or alienation with democratic digitalisation and gender justice over capital accumulation (Ahmed, 2017; Carrasco Bengoa & Diaz Corral, 2017; Di Masso Tarditti et al., 2021), within the capitalist and patriarchal system (Wanderley, 2015).

To this end, the study analyses a sample of 153 organisations based in the city of Barcelona, a key territory in the development of the SSE in Catalonia (Spain), distinguished by its cooperativist trajectory and the consolidation of citizen initiatives with a democratic vocation (Estivill et al., 2017; Garrido-Skurkowicz, 2020; Gimenez Aliaga, 2022). Following, the literature review, methodology, results, and conclusions of the study are presented.

2. Literature review

The Social and Solidarity Economy is shaped at the intersection of two conceptual and practical traditions: social economy and solidarity economy. The social economy, according to the European tradition, encompasses organisations such as cooperatives, mutuals, and democratically managed associations, with the aim of creating social and political alternatives that prioritise collective goals over profit (Brydon-Miller et al., 2003; Espelt, 2022; Garrido-Skurkowicz, 2020; Gimenez Aliaga, 2022).

The solidarity economy expands this framework with a transformative dimension, serving as a form of resistance against the capitalist system. It promotes sufficiency, self-management, and the sustainability of life, underpinned by values of solidarity, reciprocity, and economic democracy (Agenjo-Calderón, 2023; Coraggio, 2017; Rubim & Milanez, 2024; Mance, 2000; Miller, 2010; Pérez de Mendiguren Castresana & Etxezarreta Etxarri, 2015; Singer, 2002). In this case, the concept of solidarity can be understood as a practice embedded in struggles against racism, capitalism, and patriarchy, and, following Avery F. Gordon (2022: 303), as a force present in collective processes that aim to transform material structures and envision alternative ways of life. This vision has manifested in global struggles for freedom (Lubin, 2014) and in platform workers’ struggles, generating spaces of resistance, solidarity, and self-organisation against technological exploitation (Woodcock, 2021). Both examples reflect a transnational solidarity, practised from difference (Fleischmann et al., 2022).

Complementing this perspective, feminist scholarship places at its core the need to redefine work, incorporating care policies based on the socialisation of responsibilities, community promotion, the universalisation of social rights (health, education, pensions), and the ecological and bodily dimension (Carrasco Bengoa & Díaz Corral, 2017; Grisoni & Ruiz, 2019). This approach enables the expansion of the boundaries of reproductive labour and the analysis of occupations that are typically feminised and penalised within the capitalist labour market (Esquivel, 2011). From this perspective, structural inequalities in the labour market are evident, including lower participation, higher unemployment and underemployment, and concentration in low-skilled and informal positions, particularly in care sectors (Esquivel, 2011; Bottini et al., 2021; Hopp & Kasparian, 2021).

Extending this analysis, feminist economics and the SSE share values such as the critique of neoclassical economics, equity, and the recognition of work beyond monetary income. While SSE primarily focuses on equitable relations among worker-members, it pays comparatively less attention to gendered power hierarchies (Wanderley, 2015). In this setting, platform cooperativism emerges as an alternative to democratise the digital economy, challenge gender stereotypes and the sexual division of labour, and promote an inclusive model that encourages the use of free technologies and the collective, democratic control of digital infrastructure (Frischmann, 2012; Fuster Morell & Espelt, 2018; Ghirlanda & Kirov, 2024). However, this model is not without contradictions in relation to the patriarchal and capitalist system and the full incorporation of feminist values (Di Masso Tarditti et al., 2021; Helm, 2024; Homs Ramírez De La Piscina et al., 2024; Nobre, 2015; Scholz & Schneider, 2017).

In this regard, studies such as those by Lídia Arroyo (2018) have shown that digital inclusion alone does not guarantee equitable economic growth, given the social constraints that limit equal access to digital resources and labour opportunities. At the same time, specific analyses of feminist practices in the SSE in Catalonia and their alignment with feminist values (XES, 2024) reveal that gender equality remains one of the principal challenges for such organisations today. Examples include imbalances in governance bodies, the incorporation of harassment protocols and equality plans, the lack of shared responsibility practices, and the challenges associated with the inclusion of women and/or other gender-diverse identities in leadership positions (XES, 2021).

At the same time, recent years have seen the European Union (EU) institutions prioritise a dual focus on social economy (SE) and digital transformation, with particular attention to the impacts of the platform economy (Codagnone, 2022; De Nigris et al., 2020; Font-Cot et al., 2023).

On the one hand, European policies have highlighted the social economy’s alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (European Commission, 2021a; United Nations, 2015) – despite criticisms of these goals (Esquivel, 2016) – as well as its potential to create quality employment for over 13.6 million people and to foster social and territorial cohesion (ANSOL, 2023; Government of Spain, 2023), within the broader framework of social innovation (Helm, 2024). Accordingly, European policies recommend supporting these organisations for their gender-sensitive approaches, their recognition of unpaid care work, and their contribution to sustainable growth (European Council, 2023a; ILO, 2022).

On the other hand, the impacts derived from platform economy (Directiva (UE) 2024/2831; Gobierno de España, 2021; Nicora, 2022) have attracted the EU's attention. In recent years, the number of workers on digital platforms has grown significantly, although there are challenges in obtaining precise data (European Commision, 2021; European Council, 2023b). In this context, the transition to jobs with advanced digital skills is reconfiguring the labour market and affects 80% of occupations, as stated by Nora Wukovits-Votzi at the European Employment & Social Rights Forum 2025 (European Commission, 2025). The EU advocates the need for states to focus on digital competences, which encompass five areas as key elements to address technological and ecological transitions: 1) information and data literacy, 2) communication and collaboration, 3) digital content creation, 4) safety, and 5) problem-solving. Priority skills include interaction with artificial intelligence, digital identity management, working in remote or hybrid environments, media literacy to tackle misinformation and deep-fakes, and cybersecurity to protect data and well-being. Additionally, awareness of environmental sustainability in digital practices is emphasised. Mastery of these competences requires not only technical skills but also critical capacity to interpret the digital environment and anticipate invisible risks (Vuorikari et al., 2022). In this regard, the 2023 European Skills Agenda 2023 highlights the need to enhance the digital skills of the workforce to adapt to changes in the labour market (European Commission, 2023b, 2023a).

Various factors, such as race, gender, class, or migratory status, influence the assessment of these competences, revealing that the concept is far more complex, contested, and politicised than is commonly acknowledged. For instance, the predominance of female labour, often regarded as “unskilled”, illustrates how the skills regime reinforces class divisions and naturalises national distinctions through racialisation and migration controls. In this regard, studies such as Natasha Iskander (2022), analysing the case of Amazon, demonstrate how the category of “skill” functions as a mechanism of control, legitimising exploitation and dehumanisation by reducing workers to their corporeality through algorithms and surveillance systems that reproduce Taylorist practices and generate high rates of injury, while workers develop forms of resistance. These perspectives emphasise that competences cannot be considered neutral attributes, but rather social and political categories that organise labour, legitimise exclusions, and require critical analysis (Osterman et al., 2022).

Framing the discussion around European public policy initiatives and their interaction with solidarity in digital economies, this article focuses on how SSE organisations in Barcelona, transitioning towards a platform model, are, or are not, perpetuating a sexual division of labour in relation to the integration of specific digital competences and professional profiles.

In this regard, this article incorporates the concept of the sexual division of labour to assert that this division continues to structure labour practices, professional trajectories, and working conditions, functioning to maintain the capitalist order (Kergoat, 2001). Understanding these divisions of labour is crucial for addressing struggles for social justice and gender equality. Therefore, the use of this term, as noted by Galerand and Kergoat (2013), not only aims to intervene in a social relation of exploitation but also to highlight how this division leads to the appropriation of labour and specific exploitation within the labour market. Similarly, it is understood that sex does not constitute a neutral biological reality, but a discursive construct regulated by social and political norms. In this sense, sex is performative, as it is produced through practices and discourses that establish its significance (Butler, 1993, 2006). However, despite seeking to contribute from the perspective of the SSE to observe whether or not a specific sexual division of labour is being perpetuated within practices aimed at confronting the capitalist-patriarchal system, we consider it necessary to share the tensions and critiques that the use of this concept itself may provoke in the context of the perpetuation or confrontation of existing systems of domination (Collins, 1990; Wanderley, 2015; Williams, 1995). This is particularly relevant concerning the predominance of soft skills – social and communication skills – traditionally associated with female labour (Arroyo, 2018) and the feminisation of certain positions in the labour market (Esquivel, 2011; Bottini et al., 2021; Hopp & Kasparian, 2021).

Concerning the interest in analysing whether there is a sexual division of labour in relation to digital competences in SSE organisations, research has highlighted how conventional companies perpetuate gender and class barriers in access to leadership positions and in the configuration of the digital labour market (Wajcman and Young, 2011; 2023; Hennekam and Shymko, 2020; Whitaker, 2020; Amundsdotter and Andersson, 2012; Acker, 2006). The historical association of technology with masculinity and the exclusionary culture of the tech sector contributes to the low representation of women in STEM and ICT, perpetuating significant economic and social inequalities across Europe (Wajcman & Young, 2011; European Commission, 2025). Despite measures implemented by the European Commission to promote the participation of women and girls in digital education, employment, and entrepreneurship (European Commission, 2018), the gap persists. In this context, it is relevant to examine whether SSE organisations behave differently, providing a critical understanding of how gender inequalities manifest in the digital sphere and assessing whether they promote more just and equitable models of digitalisation.

3. Methodology

The empirical analysis applies to a sample of 153 organisations representing the Social and Solidarity Economy operating or with tax residence in the city of Barcelona. The city of Barcelona represents a key space in the development of the SSE in Catalonia, standing out for its active involvement in the creation of entities that not only offer goods and services but also emphasise their political, social, and transformative dimensions. The Catalan social economy has played a relevant role in the struggles of popular and working classes, with a strong connection to the cooperative tradition and social demands (Espelt, 2022).

In Barcelona, the SSE has become a driver of socio-economic transformation, supported by a solid cooperative tradition and numerous citizen initiatives with a democratic vocation (Estivill et al., 2017; Garrido-Skurkowicz, 2020; Gimenez Aliaga, 2022). It has been strengthened through the articulation between social movements and institutional actors aimed at reinforcing democratic governance (Chaves et al., 2020; Eizaguirre Anglada et al., 2017). Examples in this regard include the Procomuns Event, which proposed 87 measures for the city in relation to the platform economy (Fuster Morell & Senabre Hidalgo, 2020); Sharing Cities Action, where mayors and city representatives discussed how to promote and share socially responsible models of the collaborative economy (Fuster Morell, 2018); and the Càtedra_Oberta initiative, driven by the Barcelona City Council, together with Barcelona Activa, the city’s socio-economic agency, and the Open University of Catalonia, which frames MatchImpulsa project. The present study was carried out within this programme.

MatchImpulsa was designed as a public policy and research-action programme, implemented from 2021 to 2024, aimed at promoting the feminist platformisation of the social economy in Barcelona. It also functioned as a socio-economic recovery measure in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, collaboration with SSE organisations in conceptualising and evaluating the actions implemented under the MatchImpulsa programme, the launch of alternative funding campaigns via the Goteo platform (MatchGoteo), and participation in the digitalisation working group of the Barcelona Social and Solidarity Economy Strategy 2030 (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2021; Chaves-Avila & Gallego-Bono, 2020) exemplify the application of the Quadruple Helix Innovation Model (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009) through the work of the Chair. This model contributes to the development of inclusive public policies adapted to digital transformation (Espelt, & Vega-Rodríguez, 2025; Salvagni et al., 2022) and illustrate innovative public policy development at the local level (European Commission, 2016) through: 1) the triangulation of methodologies such as action research, co-creation within the ESSBCN2030 framework, Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) analysis, web and participant observation, and online interviews and surveys; and 2) a transversally feminist design, systematically integrating a gender perspective across all phases and dimensions of the programme (Espelt, & Vega-Rodríguez, 2025). This was reflected in the design, monitoring, and impact analysis, gender-sensitive budgeting, and the guarantee of parity in participation, including non-binary registration and a minimum 40 % representation of women and other gender identities.

The sample corresponds to a plural and meaningful representation of the different types of entities and practices that make up the social and solidarity ecosystem (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2020). Specifically, it includes both non-profit organisations (associations, foundations, cooperatives, and mutuals) and for-profit entities aligned with the values ​​and practices of the SSE, encompassing governance models from horizontal to hierarchical. It spans varying levels of digitalisation and platformisation, from emerging projects aiming to develop platform cooperativism to initiatives with a minimum viable platform seeking further evolution. The initiatives also reflect diverse digital business models, varying service and/or product offerings, sources of funding, impact assessments, adherence to feminist values, and use of free and open-source software.

The 153 initiatives under analysis are predominantly small organisations (n = 108), with an average of 16.52 employees. Regarding age, most entities (n = 93; 60.78 %) have been active for 1–10 years; 14 (9.15 %) for 11–15 years; 19 (12.42 %) for 16–25 years; 14 (9.15 %) for more than 25 years, and 13 were founded from 2022 onwards. In terms of legal form, the majority are cooperatives (n = 106; 69.28 %), primarily worker cooperatives (n = 78; 50.98 %), followed by service cooperatives (n = 13; 8.50 %), integrated cooperatives combining work and services (n = 10; 6.54 %), educational cooperatives (n = 3; 1.96 %), and second-level cooperatives (n = 2; 1.31 %). The sample also includes 22 associations (14.38 %), 7 foundations (4.58 %), 3 entities classified as other types of companies (1.96 %), and 15 organisations that did not specify their legal form (9.80 %).

Regarding gender composition, 72 organisations (47.06 %) are predominantly female, 39 (25.49 %) predominantly male, and 42 (27.45 %) report a balanced distribution; none indicated the inclusion of non-binary persons. Most employees and members are aged between 30 and 50 years (n = 120; 78.43 %), with 17 organisations (11.11 %) predominantly under 30, and 14 (9.15 %) averaging over 50. Concerning origin of their members, 99 organisations (64.71 %) do not include migrant or racialised persons, 48 (31.37 %) do, and 6 (3.92 %) did not respond. Regarding functional diversity, 127 projects (83.01 %) reported no employees with disabilities, 15 (9.80 %) included them, and 11 (7.19 %) did not provide this information.

For data collection, an online form – digitESSt, conceived as an open resource of the MatchImpulsa programme to enable any SSE organisation to conduct a self-assessment of its digitalisation – was designed and launched in November 2022 and remains active on the website https://digitesst.matchimpulsa.barcelona/ (in an updated version). The initial form is based on the Democratic Qualities Framework for Collaborative Economy Platforms (Fuster Morell & Espelt, 2018) and includes the two dimensions analysed in this article: one identifying digital competences and the other specifying the technological and digital profiles within the organisations’ work teams. The twelve digital competences examined comprise: 1) the use of computers and operating systems (abbreviated as computer use); 2) internet browsing; 3) online communication and collaboration (Online Communication); 4) the searching, management, and analysis of digital information (Digital Information Search); 5) written information (e.g. Word or Writer); 6) the handling of graphic content; 7) the handling of audiovisual content; 8) data processing and management using spreadsheets or databases (Data Pocessing); 9) data analysis and visualisation through tools such as Data Studio, Grafana, or Tableau (Data Visualisation); (10) the presentation of content using programmes such as Impress or PowerPoint (Content Presentation); 11) the development or maintenance of code and software; and 12) the Digital security of systems, devices, and data. The form included a closed-ended, single-option question in which participating organisations indicated whether a given digital competence was present and provided its gender distribution: We have it equally, predominantly women, predominantly men, we don’t have it, N/A (Information not available). The form did not allow for open-ended or multiple-response answers.

In addition, the study considered fourteen possible technological and digital professional profiles, presented in a multiple-response question. These included: 1) user support agents, 2) database administrators, 3) systems administrators, 4) systems analysts, and 5) systems architects. They also encompassed roles such as 6) community managers, 7) digital media specialists, 8) ICT trainers, 9) account managers, 10) project and service managers, and 11) ICT operations managers. Finally, the list incorporated 12) programmers, 13) quality managers, and 14) ICT security managers. Other options are also possible. In this case, the question was multiple-choice, and participating organisations could select more than one profile and indicate if regarding its gender distribution there were equally represented profiles, predominantly women, predominantly men. This formulation aimed to capture a more nuanced perception of gender balance within work teams, incorporating an inclusive perspective that recognises non-binary gender identities.

According to Royal Decree 901/2020 (Boletín Oficial del Estado, 2020), organisations with over 50 employees must have an equality plan. The online form asked whether these plans included measures related to digitalisation, with the options: No equality plan; Equality plan without digital measures; Equality plan including digital measures.

The survey also explored the perceived effects of digitalisation, focusing here on increases in gender, age, or other inequalities within teams. Other possible effects included: improved team processes; enhanced economic sustainability; increased sales or market share; new community engagement dynamics; higher competition; lack of digitally skilled staff; high investment costs; facilitation of internationalisation; collaboration with other entities; and innovation and organisational growth.

Finally, to assess responses to online violence and data protection challenges, the survey examined the adoption of digital gender-based violence protocols. Two aspects were analysed: 1) the presence of protocols or codes of conduct on digital platforms, and 2) whether these protocols address issues such as sexual orientation or identity discrimination, gender expression or sexual characteristic discrimination, condescending behaviour, dismissal of opinions, questioning of tasks, sexist or sexualised comments, unsolicited contact, harassment, or exposure to sexualised digital content.

Regarding data treatment, a descriptive statistical analysis was applied, which allowed for the characterisation of the sample, the identification of general patterns, and the comparison of trends across different organisations.

4. Results

This section is structured in three parts. The first presents the findings related to the digital competences incorporated by SSE organisations, as well as an analysis of whether a sexual division of labour linked to digital competences exists within the organisations studied. The second part provides a similar analysis to identify the professional profiles that constitute the organisations’ teams, along with their gender distribution. Finally, to contextualise the results regarding the gendered division observed in the acquisition of digital competences and professional profiles, the sample organisations are characterised. In this regard, the existence and scope of equality plans are examined, with particular attention to measures related to digitalisation and its perceived effects on SSE entities. Likewise, the organisations’ responses to online violence are analysed, considering both the adoption of specific protocols and the recognition of various forms of gender-based discrimination and violence.

A first overview of the results regarding the twelve digital competences reveals an uneven distribution across the 153 organisations studied (Figure 1). Advanced competences show notably lower adoption levels: only 23 organisations report abilities in data visualisation, 46 in software programming and maintenance, and 68 in digital security. In contrast, the most consolidated competences, with adoption rates above 90 %, are basic, such as computer use, internet navigation, text processing, data processing, and content presentation. Intermediate competences, such as digital information search, online communication, handling of graphic and audiovisual information, and audiovisual content creation, display more varied adoption, highlighting significant gaps in many organisations, – particularly in audiovisual content production, where almost half report lacking this competence. These findings highlight both the prevalence of basic digital competences and the persistent gaps in areas critical for advanced digital transformation.

A more detailed analysis of digital competences in relation to the sexual division of labour reveals that some are more predominantly feminised than exclusively masculinised (Figure 2). For instance, in the handling of graphic and audiovisual information, 41 organisations reported a predominance of women versus 11 of men, a difference of 30 cases; in text processing, 33 versus 5, a difference of 28; and in content presentation, 31 versus 6, a difference of 25. These data indicate that, in these areas, digital competences are more strongly associated with women, reflecting a marked sexual division of labour in information management and communication. The results demonstrate a gender disparity in intermediate digital competences, although this must be understood in light of the high share of responses indicating that competences are distributed equally. This is the case for 11 of the 12 competences analysed, with the sole exception of code and software.

Continuing the analysis of the distribution of digital competences between men and women, and against the backdrop of a generally perceived gender balance, the results indicate that – except for competences such as data visualisation, coding and software, and digital security – women predominate in 9 of the 12 digital competences studied when responses in the “predominantly women” category are considered (Figure 2). It is thus confirmed that the more technical and specialised competences, such as digital security and code and software, are more masculinised. Furthermore, these are also the competences least reported by the organisations: data visualisation (83.01%, 127 organisations do not possess it), coding and software (68.63%, 105), and digital security (52.94%, 81). Audiovisual content creation also emerges as a scarcely present competence (44.44%, 68 organisations do not possess it). These results suggest that such areas are perceived as either less of a priority or less accessible to the organisations analysed.

Regarding the presence of different technological and digital profiles within the organisations, the 153 organisations reported a total of 345 roles, as multiple selections were allowed per organisation. The most frequently cited roles among the organisations were Community Manager (40.52%, 62) and Project and Service Manager (37.91%, 58), followed by Database Administrator (24.84%, 38) and User Support Agent (24.84%, 38). Less common roles included Programmer (16.34%, 25) and Account Manager (15.03%, 23) (Figure 3).

Roles such as journalists, accountants, and individuals with basic ICT knowledge have a nearly anecdotal presence in this classification. This may indicate either that they are not perceived as technological profiles within the framework of the survey or that they play a very limited role within the technological structures of the analysed organisations. These profiles fall within a broader group, each receiving between 16 and 1 of the 345 total responses, and include profiles such as ICT Trainer, Quality Manager, ICT Security Manager, ICT Operations Manager, Systems Analyst, and Accountant. It is also worth noting the option “no technological or digital profile”, selected by 7.84% of organisations (12 responses), highlighting the total absence of such roles in some entities.

Based on the data presented, several significant conclusions can be drawn regarding the gender distribution of technological profiles within the organisations studied. The roles of Community Manager (35.48%, 22 of 62 organisations) and Project and Service Manager (32.76%, 19 of 58 organisations) show the most notable gender balance. This is followed by Account Manager, with 30.43% of responses indicating a predominantly female presence (7 of 27 organisations selecting this response). Nevertheless, a degree of male dominance persists, as in 5 of the 13 profiles analysed, more than 50% of responses indicated the “Predominantly Men” option. These figures may suggest significant female representation in roles where interaction, coordination, communication, and project management are central—areas traditionally more accessible to women within the technology sector.

Conversely, more technical profiles – such as Systems Analyst, ICT Operations Manager, Systems Administrator, ICT Security Manager, and Programmer – show a clear trend towards masculinisation, with the majority of organisations reporting a predominantly male presence. Specifically, 75% of organisations selecting Systems Analyst (6 of 8), 66.7% selecting ICT Operations Manager (6 of 9), 65% selecting Systems Administrator (13 of 20), 63.6% selecting ICT Security Manager (7 of 11), and 52% selecting Programmer (13 of 25) indicated male predominance.

Overall, the data highlight a gendered division of technological labour within SSE organisations, with more technical and strategic roles remaining strongly male-dominated, while roles related to project management, communication, and user support tend to show a higher or more balanced female presence. However, the presence of non-binary people and the feminisation of technical roles remains very limited.

It is noteworthy that, although an initial overview of the distribution of digital competences within SSE teams suggests that the majority are distributed equally between men and women, and that the organisations generally have a higher female presence rather than of migrant or functionally diverse individuals, 53 of the 153 organisations in the sample (35.29 %) claim to have an equality plan, yet only three report including specific measures related to digitalisation within this plan. Only two projects have more than 50 employees and are therefore legally required to have an equality plan. Furthermore, when organisations were asked about the effects of digitalisation, only 9.80% (15) indicated that digitalisation could contribute to increased gender, age, or other inequalities within teams.

This limitation regarding the implementation of equality plans, which is also linked to organisational size, persists when analysing the presence of selection protocols to prevent discrimination and measures against sexual harassment. Out of the total respondents, 35 indicated that such protocols exist, 85 reported that they do not, and 33 were unsure or did not respond. These results suggest that a majority of organisations lack formal mechanisms to prevent or respond to online harassment and abuse, highlighting a significant gap in the implementation of digital gender protection measures. The high proportion of uncertain responses further indicates a lack of awareness or clarity regarding existing protocols, pointing to the need for targeted guidance and training to ensure that organisations can effectively safeguard their digital environments against gender-based violence.

These findings are based on more detailed information obtained by asking organisations whether their gender-based violence protocols address specific issues. Among the 35 organisations reporting the existence of a protocol, the most frequently included concerns are discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity (34 organisations, 97.14%), discrimination based on gender expression or sexual characteristics (33 organisations, 94.29%), harassment inside or outside the workplace (29 organisations, 82.86%), and comments on physical appearance, sexist or sexual in nature (29 organisations, 82.86%). Other issues addressed include unsolicited contact and/or advances (24 organisations, 68.57%), receiving sexual digital content (24 organisations, 68.57%), disregard for opinions (20 organisations, 57.14%), questioning of tasks and capabilities (20 organisations, 57.14%), paternalism (17 organisations, 48.57%), and condescending explanations (16 organisations, 45.71%). Only 7 organisations (20.00%) reported that their protocols do not cover these issues (Figure 4). Among the organisations that report the existence of protocols, the most frequently mentioned issues, albeit still to a minor extent, are discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This occurs in a context where a recent study of 448 female technologists in Spain shows that 62.9% of respondents claim that either there are no protocols or they are unaware of the existence of protocols in their companies for reporting cases of sexual harassment. Moreover, 22.7% have experienced this phenomenon in their professional lives (Santos Dias & Ruiz de Alda, 2022). Among the organisations that report the existence of protocols, the most frequently mentioned issues, albeit still to a minor extent, are discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This occurs in a context where a recent study of 448 female technologists in Spain shows that 62.9% of respondents claim that either there are no protocols or they are unaware of the existence of protocols in their companies for reporting cases of sexual harassment. Moreover, 22.7% have experienced this phenomenon in their professional lives (Santos Dias & Ruiz de Alda, 2022).

These results are complemented by the information regarding the existence of codes of conduct or specific protocols to address discrimination and gender-based violence on websites, platforms, or applications. Among the surveyed organisations, 123 organisations (80.39 %) reported not having such protocols, 20 (13.07 %) responded “N/A”, and only 10 (6.54 %) confirmed the existence online.

5. Conclusion

The findings of this study reveal the challenges posed by a gendered division of labour in digital competences and professional roles within SSE organisations in Barcelona (Caralt et al., 2017; European Commission, 2023b; m4Social, 2022). This division reproduces gender patterns already documented in the conventional labour market (Hennekam & Shymko, 2020; Wajcman, 2011), while introducing new inequalities in digital competences and technological profiles, which emerge from new organisational and productive paradigms linked to digital labour (Acker, 1990; Gerber, 2022; ILO, 2021b; Jorge-Vázquez & Chivite Cebolla, 2018; Nobre, 2015). This occurs in a context where limitations are observed in relation to the implementation of equality plans or protocols to avoid discrimination and measures against sexual harassment.

Firstly, the results corroborate existing literature on the sexual division of labour, whereby soft tasks are feminised and technical ones masculinised (Esquivel, 2011; Bottini et al., 2021; Hopp & Kasparian, 2021), reinforcing gender hierarchies functional to the capitalist order (Kergoat, 2001; Pérez Orozco, 2019). This pattern is evident in technological leadership roles, where masculinised competences – such as data visualisation and coding – are both underrepresented and difficult to access (Hennekam & Shymko, 2020; Wajcman, 2011; Costanza-Chock, 2020; European Commission, 2024), a finding that corroborates Hypothesis 1, which posited that the sexual division of labour (XES, 2024; Galerand & Kergoat, 2013) influences the distribution of digital competences.

Moreover, the sexual division of labour is reflected in the configuration of professional profiles by gender (H2), with the findings also supporting Acker’s (2006) argument that organisations – even those with transformative objectives – reproduce inequality regimes through seemingly neutral practices. The failure to include non-binary people underscores the need to increase the visibility within organisations and, consequently, across professional roles.

These results reinforce previous research highlighting the current limitations at the intersection of the SSE and feminist economics (Carrasco Bengoa & Diaz Corral, 2017; Di Masso Tarditti et al., 2021; Pérez Orozco, 2019), particularly when considering the discrepancies between the values characterising these organisations, their profile as entities with a high presence of women or non-dissenting individuals, and the practices they implement to promote gender justice regarding the integration of digital competences and professional profiles. However, we must acknowledge the existing difficulties in transforming and countering the reproduction of structural inequalities, the perpetuation of gender hierarchies, and the logics of patriarchal capitalism. Consequently, the findings highlight the need to promote new technological imaginaries (Aguilar & Sotomayor, 2018; Comajoan Colomé, 2024; Piñeiro & Lucio, 2023) and digital democratic practices (Rubim & Milanez, 2024; Levi, 2024).

The research shows that, in the absence of an intersectional feminist perspective, SSE digital alternatives may end up reproducing the very exclusions they seek to counter. As Di Masso Tarditti et al. (2021) warn, the SSE is not free from contradictions (Helm, 2024; Homs Ramírez De La Piscina et al., 2024; Nobre, 2015; Scholz & Schneider, 2017) when adopting technologies without dismantling the patriarchal logics that underpin them. This observation underscores the importance of adopting contextualised, intersectional approaches that recognise power relations (Grohmann & Salvagni, 2023; Haraway, 1985; Poell et al., 2022; Vergès, 2022).

To move towards truly solidarity-based digitalisation models, the values of SSE organisations and their digital practices must be aligned to consolidate a democratic model of digitalisation that functions as antifascist resistance (Fuchs, 2022; Jubeto Ruiz, 2023, p. 73; Morozov, 2011). In this regard, two areas for reflection are proposed:

Critical approach to technologies

In the context of the SSE, addressing the gender digital divide cannot be limited solely to the technical training of teams. As Costanza-Chock (2020) argues, this requires a broader development of capacities that includes not only technical competences but also critical reflection on the social and cultural impacts of technology. Moreover, it has been noted that digital inclusion alone does not guarantee equitable economic growth, as social factors constrain equal access to digital resources and employment opportunities (Arroyo, 2018). This entails understanding how technologies can reproduce or challenge existing power dynamics. In this regard, European policies (European Commission, 2023a, 2023b, 2025) should prioritise feminist and community-based approaches, ensuring that training and access to technology go beyond the mere acquisition of technical skills, align with a comprehensive understanding of competences, and incorporate a critical examination of the power structures that technologies may reinforce or transform.

Any action aimed at promoting digital competences and professional profiles within organisations through public policies should inherently integrate a feminist perspective in design, development, and analysis. Methodologies such as action research or co-creation, particularly when oriented towards generating specific political outcomes (Hedensted Lund, 2018; Ruess et al., 2023), have considerable potential to foster transformative practices that, from participatory and community spaces, promote both the development of digital competences and the empowerment of individuals and organisations, drawing on processes oriented towards knowledge and FLOSS technology transfer. In this regard, the implementation of pilot programmes, such as MatchImpulsa or other initiatives focused on free technology (Levi, 2024), represents a starting point for consolidating good practices that emphasise solidarity, a value shared by both feminist struggles and the SSE. Likewise, these policies should promote data transparency and facilitate the traceability of gender and budget indicators, while also working to dismantle barriers to access through criteria that support training and project funding, particularly for initiatives led by vulnerable groups and/or people with other capacities often undervalued by the market (Osterman et al., 2022).

Although the SSE has been recognised by European institutions as an economy that fosters social cohesion and quality employment (European Commission, 2021b), tensions related to existing funding – particularly in generally small organisations – persist, straining the relationship between this formal recognition and the daily practices of organisations, which require new competences and professional profiles, especially in the digital context. Future studies could explore how public policy might acknowledge SSE initiatives as sovereign agents in technological design, and thus in the promotion of free and feminist infrastructures.

Critical awareness and gender analysis for social justice

Digitalisation in the SSE should not be limited solely to building alternative and resistant practices to the capitalist system – as evidenced by the existing segregation in advanced competences and certain specialised profiles – but should also be grounded in values and practices of solidarity, reciprocity, and economic democracy (Coraggio, 2017; Rubim & Milanez, 2024) which only an intersectional feminist approach can enable for gender justice. In a context dominated by technodeterminism and the fetishisation of scalability – understood as the minimisation of the financial implications associated with the breadth of technological impact– the SSE must clarify its strategic stance: whether to prioritise scaling or to advocate for proliferation-focused approaches (Morozov, 2013; Pfotenhauer & Jasanoff, 2017; Lampinen et al., 2022). Here, proliferation is understood as the diffusion of ideas – and, in this case, practicesv – over time, through the circulation of digital and physical artefacts, interpersonal encounters, and diverse coordination models, including in crisis contexts that catalyse action.

The limitations identified in terms of the sexual division of digital competences and technological roles within the SSE reinforce the need for future studies to address how solidarity, along with the consolidation of more egalitarian organisational structures, can foster hope in the construction of a fairer and more democratic economy (Beltrame, 2017; Davis, 2024; Miller, 2010). This is especially urgent in a context of growing territorial, technological, and gender inequalities (Custodio Martínez, 2025; Gerber, 2022; Peck, 2023; Renan Barzilay, 2019; Zuboff, 2019), as well as transnational resistance and organising against digital capitalism and structural forms of domination (Woodcock, 2021; Ziadah & Bhandar, 2022). It will also be interesting to explore whether organisations with more equal gender-equitable distribution in professional profiles are more likely to integrate a greater number of digital competences and, consequently, not only address the challenges of digitalisation but also evolve into more just and equitable entities.

Future research should continue to explore how SSE organisations can integrate feminist and anti-racist perspectives into their digital practices – key to advancing towards non-extractive forms of digital solidarity. It will also be essential to investigate how, within the framework of SSE digitalisation, organisations can contribute to the structural transformation of economic and power relations and continue generating digital alternatives that challenge capitalist platform hegemony and place fair and equitable work at the centre (ILO, 2022).

In conclusion, this article shows that despite its transformative potential, the SSE is not immune to the sexual division of labour and gender-stereotyped roles of digital capitalism. The practical implications of digital solidarity economies (Rubim & Milanez, 2024) require not only understanding the SSE as an actor operating in spaces of political contestation – where structural power relations may be reproduced or dismantled – but also as a pathway towards a model of social and technological justice that centres the sustainability (Agenjo-Calderón, 2023; Ahmed, 2017; Carrasco Bengoa & Diaz Corral, 2017; Pérez Orozco, 2019) and the reproduction of life (Carranza-Barona & Villavicencio Salazar 2024; Coraggio 2013).