Abstract
The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) and the expansion of platform work are changing how young people work, learn and participate in the economy. Artificial intelligence, automation, robotics, data-intensive systems and digital platforms are not only reshaping occupations, they are also changing how work is allocated, monitored, evaluated and remunerated. Platform work can create opportunities for flexible income, self-employment and digital entrepreneurship, but can also expose workers to uncertain earnings, opaque algorithmic management, extensive data collection, weak protection and limited representation. These tensions matter for higher education students, many of whom already encounter platforms as consumers, tutors, freelancers, marketers, sellers or temporary workers. Their participation often takes place without formal guidance on contracts, taxation, data privacy, algorithmic control, fair remuneration or digital labour rights. This study therefore asks which digital, entrepreneurial and ethical core capabilities higher education students need for meaningful and fair participation in platform work in the 4IR era.
The study treats platform readiness as more than a collection of isolated technical skills. A capability is the broader capacity to combine knowledge, judgement, technique and responsibility in changing situations. Students must therefore be able to use technology, identify and create value, manage themselves and client relationships, assess risks, interpret platform rules and judge whether digital labour arrangements are fair and accountable. Three complementary conceptual lenses are used. Education 4.0 provides a pedagogical lens that emphasises technology-supported, flexible, interdisciplinary, self-directed and practice-oriented learning. The Fairwork framework supplies an ethical lens through five principles: fair pay, fair conditions, fair contracts, fair management and fair representation. Dynamic capabilities theory shifts attention from individual students to higher education institutions by asking how institutions sense technological and labour-market change, seize opportunities through curriculum and partnership decisions, and reconfigure programmes, assessment practices and support structures. Together these lenses prevent 4IR readiness from being reduced to technical training.
The study followed an interpretivist research philosophy because it sought to understand the meanings students attach to their own preparedness for platform-mediated work. An abductive approach was used: The three conceptual lenses sensitised the inquiry, while the analysis remained open to patterns emerging from the participants’ accounts. A generic qualitative design was adopted. Twelve full-time students participated, six in South Africa and six in Norway. Participants were enrolled in business- or technology-related programmes, had at least six months of exposure to 4IR-related learning or platform work as a worker or consumer, and were willing to take part in a 45- to 60-minute interview. Convenience sampling with snowball referrals was used to reach information-rich participants. A pilot interview with one South African participant was conducted to refine the wording and sequence of the questions. Interviews were conducted in English, recorded with permission and transcribed verbatim.
The interview guide explored three broad areas: the digital and technical capabilities students had developed; their exposure to gig or platform work; and their knowledge of ethics, digital labour rights and the Fairwork principles. The data were analysed through reflective thematic analysis. The transcripts were repeatedly read, initially coded, and used to develop and review themes across the complete data set. Comparative matrices were used to identify similarities and differences between the South African and Norwegian accounts without treating the small sample as a basis for statistical country comparisons. Trustworthiness was supported through member checking, an audit trail, reflexive journalling and rich contextual description. Ethical clearance was granted by the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences Research Ethics Committee at the University of Pretoria on 8 August 2025 under reference number u25360109/2025. Participation was voluntary, written consent was obtained, and the transcripts were anonymised and stored securely.
Four interrelated themes were identified. First, students possessed basic digital and cognitive capabilities, but advanced 4IR capabilities were unevenly developed. Most participants were comfortable using everyday tools such as office software, collaborative platforms, design applications and learning management systems. They also valued the analytical thinking and conceptual understanding developed through formal study. However, structured exposure to artificial intelligence, coding, data analysis, cybersecurity, automation and platform technologies was inconsistent. Several participants relied on YouTube, online courses and self-directed experimentation to fill these gaps. This demonstrated adaptability, but also revealed an equity problem: Self-directed learning depends on devices, connectivity, time, money and support. South African participants referred more frequently to resource constraints and the need to acquire advanced digital capabilities outside the formal curriculum, whereas Norwegian participants generally described more structured digital support. The comparison shows that readiness is shaped not only by personal motivation, but also by the institutional and infrastructural environment.
Second, platform work already functions as an informal learning environment outside the formal curriculum. Participants described online tutoring, freelance projects, digital marketing, online selling and the use of delivery or ride-hailing platforms. Through these experiences, students developed client communication, time management, problem-solving, self-management, digital marketing and opportunity-recognition capabilities. For some, platform participation generated income; for others, it gave practical meaning to knowledge acquired in class. Yet this learning was mostly accidental, self-initiated and seldom formally recognised, assessed or supported. Platform work should therefore be treated as a context for experiential and work-integrated learning. Reflective journals, digital portfolios, platform audits, contract analyses and ethically informed case studies could help students connect their real-world experiences to business models, customer value, risk management, taxation, data practices and fair work.
Third, ethical labour literacy was the weakest component of students’ readiness. Participants could recognise that platform work involved hidden costs, data collection, monitoring and possible unfairness, but they had limited formal knowledge of digital labour rights, algorithmic management, data privacy, deactivation, fair remuneration, contractual accountability and worker representation. A participant who provided online tutoring noted that short sessions did not always cover the cost of data. Another observed that a platform could collect location, banking and availability information. Students thus perceive ethical problems, but often lack the vocabulary to interpret them as structural labour issues. None of the participants reported systematic exposure to the Fairwork principles. Fairwork is therefore valuable as a pedagogical framework, because it translates abstract ethics into concrete questions about pay after costs, safety and working conditions, understandable contracts, contestable management decisions and collective voice.
Fourth, participants identified a gap between institutional 4IR rhetoric and their actual learning experience. Universities frequently speak about innovation, digital transformation and the future of work, but students did not always experience sufficient practice-based, interdisciplinary and technology-supported learning to feel prepared for real digital work. Internships, applied projects and industry exposure were valued, yet access was often uneven and dependent on individual lecturers, personal networks or chance. This gap indicates limited institutional reconfiguration. From a dynamic capabilities perspective, institutions may recognise technological change without consistently converting that recognition into redesigned curricula, assessment practices, partnerships and support systems. Participants also expected universities to model fairness through equitable access to technology, transparent learning practices and fair opportunities for internships and applied experience.
The study contributes in three ways. First, it broadens 4IR readiness from a narrow technical-skills perspective to an integrated configuration of digital, entrepreneurial and ethical capabilities. Second, it positions platform work not only as a labour-market phenomenon, but also as an informal learning environment in which students develop capabilities and encounter risks. Third, it shows how Fairwork can function as a practical pedagogical framework for digital labour literacy, while dynamic capabilities theory explains why meaningful institutional adaptation requires more than adding isolated digital modules. Education 4.0 explains the need for digitally enriched and practice-oriented learning; Fairwork explains why such learning must be ethically grounded; and dynamic capabilities explain how institutions can redesign their structures and practices in response.
The article recommends that higher education institutions embed artificial-intelligence literacy, data analysis, cybersecurity awareness, platform literacy and digital entrepreneurship as core programme outcomes rather than optional additions. Platform-related experiences should be incorporated through work-integrated learning, simulations, audits, reflective portfolios and applied projects. Fairwork principles should be integrated across business management, entrepreneurship, labour law, digital marketing, information systems and ethics curricula. Policy makers and industry partners can support this process by recognising digital-ethical capabilities in programme standards, accreditation criteria, funding priorities and partnership agreements. Existing modules can be redesigned so that technical capability, value creation and ethical judgement are assessed together in realistic platform contexts.
The small, two-country sample does not permit statistical generalisation to all students or institutions. The comparative element is used analytically to illuminate the importance of infrastructure, labour protection and institutional support. Further research should include larger and more diverse samples across institutions, disciplines and South African provinces, and should evaluate Fairwork-based curriculum interventions through action research. The central conclusion is that digital readiness should be designed as fair participation rather than technical adaptation alone. Higher education institutions must create learning environments in which digital capability, entrepreneurial agency, practical experience and ethical platform participation develop together.
Keywords: digital labour literacy; Education 4.0; Fairwork; Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR); higher education; platform work