FUTURE WORKING

:

THE RISE OF EUROPES INDEPENDENT PROFESSIONALS (iPROS)
Patricia Leighton
Professor of European Social Law
at the IPAG Business School, France.
with
Duncan Brown


iPros are virtually
invisible in academic
literature

Professor Patricia Leighton is Professor Emeritus at the University
of South Wales, UK former Jean Monnet Professor of European Law
- and a Professor at the College of Europe, Bruges. She is currently
Professor of European Law at the IPAG Business School, France
and a member of their research group. Her research and publishing
interests are employment relationships, atypical contracts and self
employment. She has undertaken a wide range of projects funded
by governmental and public bodies such as the European
Commission, ILO, UK and other EU governments and private bodies.
She has written several books on employment contracts and their
management.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank PCG, the voice of freelancing, and EFIP for commissioning
and contributing to the research. She is also grateful for very useful comments provided by
Simon McVicker, Andrew Chamberlain, Suneeta Johal and Georgios Nikolaidis. The author is
responsible for any remaining errors and omissions. The study would not have been possible
without the generosity of the time provided by all those who agreed to be interviewed for the
research, therefore a big thank you is extended to all those who took part.
CONTENTS
001SUMMARY
Who are the iPros?
049CHAPTER 4
How iPros work
007INTRODUCTION
iPros: neglected by employment
and business policy?
070CHAPTER 5
iPros and their wider context
015CHAPTER 2
Understanding the iPros:
what do we know about them?
087CHAPTER 6
Conclusions and
recommendations
027CHAPTER 3
Te iPro environment:
regulation and support
093ANNEXE
127BIBLIOGRAPHY
1

Traditional hierarchical
organisations are struggling.
People are increasingly rejecting
traditional employment with
its lack of personal control and
repression of creativity. New
ways of working are emerging,
new forms of collaboration,
new structures, new alliances
and new opportunities.
iPros are at the heart of this.

1

SUMMARY
Who are the iPros?
iPros are highly skilled self-employed
individuals who work for themselves but
do not employ others. They range from
journalists and designers to ICT specialists
and consultants. iPros represent a signifcant
segment of professional working generally,
making up 25% of all those working in
professional, scientifc and technical work and
22% of all those in arts and entertainment.
The growth in iPros in the EU since 2004 has
been remarkable. Numbers have increased by
45% from just under 6.2 million to 8.9 million
in 2013, making them the fastest growing
group in the EU labour market.

The growth in iPros has not been consistent
across EU states, but in the Netherlands,
Poland and France it has been especially
marked. The EU still faces unprecedented
levels of unemployment and without this
growth in iPro working, the picture would be
much gloomier.
By the beginning of 2013, fve years since the
onset of the recession, there had been a loss of
around seven million jobs across the European
Union. On average, one in ten people were left
without work, with countries such as Spain and
Greece facing much higher unemployment rates.
Yet one part of the labour market bucked this
trend.
The EU has seen a new phenomenon - the rise
of the independent professional, or iPro, often
referred to as freelancers. Their rise represents
a major shift in the nature of work and ways
of working. No longer can work be defned
simply in terms of working for a big corporation,
public sector employer or an SME. iPros, with
their different approaches to work and distinct
philosophy, have the ability to be fexible
and innovative, and provide value-added to
businesses and economies.
2
What do we know about iPros?
In spite of this growth little is known about iPros, the way they work and the barriers they face.
Who are they? Why do they choose to work this way and how do they cope with uncertainty
and risk?
Percentage growth in iPros 2004-2013
iPros are virtually invisible in academic literature, and in offcial statistics they are subsumed
in either self-employment or SME data. Yet they provide a responsive, competitive supply of
expertise to cater for constantly changing client needs and contribute to economic growth.
At a time of rapid change and increased competition, it is critical that European policy makers
and the business community understand iPros, the skills and innovation they provide, and ways in
which their contribution to the economy can be nurtured.

Finding out more about iPros
This research aimed to fnd out more about iPros and understand the reality of their working lives,
the regulatory framework they work within, and the wider context of their work. The research was
carried out in two phases between June 2012 and May 2013. The frst phase involved the analysis
of existing data and trends in iPro working across the EU with a focus on nine states
2
. Phase two
consisted of 87 face-to-face or telephone interviews with three groups: iPros drawn from three
representative professions
3
, leading academics, and leaders of professional bodies and trade
unions, administrators and politicians familiar with the issues around iPro working.
3
of relevant and affordable information and
advice has resulted in iPros being concerned
with their lack of business skills.
iPro working
The rise of iPro working marks a distinctive
shift to a more collaborative way of working.
iPros value autonomy and freedom, yet to be
effective they need the appropriate support.
As their specifc needs are not recognised,
iPros have developed their own supportive
environments in the form of co-working
spaces and professional hubs. The current
regulatory and support frameworks within
which iPros work require adjustment.
Professional
bodies & training
iPros in regulated professions regard
professional bodies highly, including for
training purposes. However, others generally
reject the need for such organisations and
look to less formal and contemporary forms of
professional support such as online training,
social clubs/networks, and interdisciplinary
facilities. iPros operate in fast moving
knowledge areas and the lack of continuing
professional development amongst them
emerges as a critical issue.
What did the
research fnd?
The research confrmed there is a major change
in the way work is performed - a shift from
having a job to working for clients. A new and
exciting radical agenda based on collaboration
rather than competition has emerged as a
response to perceived failures in existing
business and management strategies. However,
there are also many barriers to being an iPro
and working in this way is complex. It demands
policy makers and client organisations to devise
customised initiatives to support iPro working.

Attitudes towards iPros
The importance of iPro working is increasingly
being recognised as having legitimacy. However,
iPros do face constant accusations of sham
self-employment, where employees are forced
or voluntarily become self-employed to minimise
tax and other liabilities. They feel they are treated
with suspicion and hostility by fscal authorities,
ignored by politicians developing initiatives to
support new enterprises, and marginalised by
the wider business community.
Becoming an iPro
iPros fnd this way of working fulflling. Many
choosing to work in this way have rejected
standard employment, which they feel requires
conformity and represses creativity. Survey data
indicates that many EU citizens (37%) share
these views and wish to work independently but
are deterred by fear of failure, a lack of fnance
and skills, and red tape.

There is a scarcity of support for those starting
out as an iPro. The perceived unavailability
Tere is a major change in the
way work is performed - a shift
from having a job to working
for clients.
4
Policy makers and public offcials should:
Ensure that iPros are properly researched
and indentifed in national and EU data.
Recognise that iPros are a distinct group:
they are neither SMEs or entrepreneurs and
are not sham self-employed either.
Recognise the contribution of iPros
to economies and ensure that iPros
characteristics and needs are specifcally
recognised in policy development.
Ensure that iPros are expressly considered
where policy issues with particular
relevance (e.g. late payment, access to
public procurement contracts, enhancing
employability) are being addressed for SMEs.
Ensure that policy and legal developments
Policy implications
Placing iPros in SME or entrepreneur
categories is considered misconceived. This
emphasises the defnitional and categorisation
problems relating to iPros. Government policy
favours traditional employment patterns and
iPros feel this is because they are diffcult for
policy makers. Policy makers tend to focus on
job creation rather than work creation, an area
where iPros actively contribute. They neglect
the indirect job creating potential of iPros who
help businesses to cut costs and become
more effcient.
Recommendations
The fndings of the research has led to a
series of recommendations targeted at
policy makers, professional bodies, clients of
iPros and iPros themselves. If implemented,
these recommendations will enable iPros
contribution to businesses and economies to
be nurtured, and iPro workers in the EU will
grow at an even faster rate.
The recommendations relate to:
Awareness, recognition and the
contribution of iPro working.
Finding a voice for iPros.
Training and development.
Providing support for iPros.

5
Professional bodies should:
Clearly identify and take into account
the distinctive needs of iPros as well as
employee members.
Recognise that the growth in iPro working
presents new opportunities and take an
innovative approach to recruiting iPros.
Consider how best to provide iPros with
support, particularly in terms of useful
training and offering a wider range of
relevant services.
Ensure the delivery of training is practical
and attractive to iPros through increased
use of online and other fexible forms of
training.
Ensure that iPros are represented on
relevant committees so they have a voice.
Collaborate more effectively with other
bodies and associations, and form
alliances to strengthen the support
for iPros.
do not negatively impact iPros and that iPros
are not disproportionately penalised through
fscal and other regimes.
Ensure that there is an emphasis on work
creation in publicly funded schemes to
support the creation of jobs so that iPros are
not excluded or disadvantaged.
Recognise that iPro working is a legitimate
and realistic career option, and encourage
this way of working by funding those
transitioning from traditional forms of
employment into iPro working.
Facilitate iPros in gaining a voice to express
views and concerns, and ensure they
have adequate representation at EU level
through committee and consultative body
membership, and seats on advisory boards
so they can be consulted when change is
proposed.
Develop new models of work support with
greater fexibility and creativity in order to
explore different ways of responding to iPros
needs.
Encourage iPros to engage in continued
professional development by considering
their specifc training needs and providing
funding through the form of tax concessions,
subsidies or vouchers.
If implemented, these
recommendations will enable
iPros contribution to
businesses and economies to
be nurtured, and iPro workers
in the EU will grow at an even
faster rate.
iPros should:
Consider the most effective ways of
achieving a voice and identify avenues to
express unifying views and promote iPro
working.
Identify specifc issues and concerns
relating to iPro working and develop a
policy agenda to highlight these.
Continue to develop and gain support for
innovative support structures.
Take responsibility for career development
in a more active and coherent way.
Recognise that collaboration does not
undermine independence and fnd the
right balance between working in isolation
and with others.
Clients of iPros should:
Clearly identify and take into account the
distinctive needs of iPros.
Recognise that the growth in iPro
working presents challenges to traditional
management practices and develop new
models of working in response to this.
Review existing contractual and other
issues that may inhibit the way in which
iPros work.
Recognise the implications of late
payment and other practical concerns that
iPros often encounter.
1. Professor Leo Witvliet, Business University, Nyenrode,
Netherlands.
2. Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland,
Spain and the UK
3. Lawyers, writers of various sorts and IT professionals
6
7
iPros: neglected
by employment
and business policy?
By 2013, around fve years since the fnancial
crisis and the onset of recession, the European
Unions 27 member states had between them
lost around seven million jobs. On average over
one in ten people were left without work.
1
In
some states there were huge levels of youth
and graduate unemployment, sometimes over
40%. Yet one part of the labour market certainly
bucked the trend, offering new work for well over
a million people. These were not people fnding
unskilled, casual work to survive they had roles
in highly skilled, high value-adding industries
ranging from fnancial services, creative
occupations and specialist consultancies
through to information and other technologies.
These werent people fnding new salaried
roles but striking out on their own, to offer their
skills, know-how and hard work to a range of
different organisations. They were becoming
independent professionals or, as we call them,
iPros. iPros include some of the established
liberal and regulated professions law,
accounting, medicine but also the so-called
new professions such as journalists, IT
consultants, designers and translators. They
provide expert services on a freelance basis,
often working in collaboration with others but
not taking on employees to share their work.
Its to tell the iPro story and the help and
hindrance they experience along the way -
that weve researched and written this report.
As we shall see, that story is too often passed
over in media discussion, academic debate
and policy initiatives, and yet culture and
INTRODUCTION
By 2013, around fve years
since the onset of recession, the
European Unions 27 member
states had between them lost
around seven million jobs. Yet
one part of the labour market
certainly bucked the trend...
these were the independent
professionals, or as we call
them, iPros.
1. Eurostat data, Employment by sex, age and nationality (1000) for Q2 2008 and Q1 2012.
8
2. Rapelli, S (2012) European I-Pros: a study, Professional Contractors Group (PCG), UK.
Information and communication
(NACE key J, code 58 to 63)
Financial and insurance activities
(NACE key K, code 64 to 66)
Real estate activities (NACE key L, code 68)
Professional, scientifc and technical
activities (NACE key M, code 69 to 75)
Administrative and support services
(NACE key N, code 77 to 83)
Education (NACE key P, code 85)
Human health and social work
(NACE key Q, code 86 to 88)
Arts, entertainment and recreation
(NACE key R, code 90 to 93)
Other service activities
(NACE key S, code 94 to 96)
Using these sector classifcations to identify a
professional workforce, we then compare that
group with those identifed as self-employed,
and then narrow it further to consider only those
self-employed and not employing others.

A hidden resource
By their nature, iPros arent the easiest to
observe. For many, their work is wrapped in
a wider context set by the client organisation
hiring them for their expertise. Think of an IT
consultant hired to implement a manufacturers
new supply chain management system; or a
freelance journalist contributing an article to
a magazine; or a translator helping to secure
an export deal. In all cases, their work as an
independent is barely visible from the outside.
So why does it matter? It matters because their
independence allows their specialist skills to be
available more fexibly and adaptively across the
economy. Perhaps that manufacturer couldnt
afford to employ that IT consultant; perhaps
that magazine has commissioned a single piece
government has a decisive impact on the
opportunity to become and succeed as an
iPro. Too often, iPros are taken for granted
and assumed able to take care of themselves:
decisions over taxation, regulation and the
wider business and employment environment
are made without regard to their effect on the
iPro workforce. This report is about changing
that by helping commentators and policy-
makers to see more clearly what iPro working
really is, and the contribution iPros make and
could make to a dynamic economy, especially
amidst rapid technological change and ferce
global competition.
Defning iPros
While iPros have always existed within the
labour market, they can be diffcult to identify.
For this report, we follow the pragmatic and
functional approach taken by Rapelli
2
; relying
on two key criteria for classifcation as an
iPro:
Independent means that an iPro is self
employed in the strictest sense, working for
themselves with no employees.
Professional means that an iPro engages in
service activities not in the farming, craft or
retail sectors and are generally highly skilled
and well qualifed.
Both criteria are important, and together
they allow us to draw upon established data
sources to identify the numbers involved.
Again, following Rapelli, and refecting the
insistence upon a professional pathway for a
person to be classifed as an iPro, we limit the
population to those working in the following
sectors laid down in Eurostats NACE 2
classifcations:
9
3. See for example, Espirito Santo (2011) The Legal Services Market: The Race is On: Externalisation and Consolidation in 2012. Espirito Santo
Investment Bank; Susskind, R (2010) The End of Lawyers: Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services. Oxford, OUP.
typically played a substantial role in the liberal
professions in many member states. But in
some ways, through the twentieth century,
the idea of independence often seemed
in decline, especially in an age of mass
production.
Growing prosperity and the arrival of the
information age have reversed that trend.
Innovation and mastering complexity now
matter more for business success, and they
require an increasing variety of expertise.
The liberal professions offer a good example
of the change; they often face an increased
need to specialise because of the growing
depth of expertise necessary in any one feld
within their profession. Take lawyers - they
face new competitors, new ways of delivering
legal services, the rise of new areas of law
and increased demands from consumers
3
.
At the same time, the growing service
sector economy creates new opportunities
for professional expertise - in advising
people on their plans, in creating content for
proliferating media channels, in implementing
new technologies. In manufacturing too,
the pace of product development demands
greater and greater specialism. In all cases,
the opportunities for professionals to gain
expertise and be in great demand have only
grown.
Why be an iPro?
Across Europe, iPros work in different
felds in different ways; theres no hard and
fast rule on how they offer their services
or organise their business affairs, beyond
their independence and professionalism.
Professionals become independent for a
range of reasons, but perhaps most of all
for the freedom it offers, the potential for a
from a leading journalist to increase its profle;
perhaps the exporter doesnt have the language
skills available. As a result, the necessary
expertise isnt available at a critical point, and
opportunities and innovations are lost as a
result.
Working on different projects with different
clients over time, iPros can earn a living
commensurate with their expertise while making
their skills more affordable to potential clients.
As technology progresses and the division of
labour deepens, the ability to deploy expert
skills fexibly seems likely to be a key success
factor for innovative organisations and advanced
economies.
Thats a key reason for the sustained growth
in iPros - the responsive, competitive supply
of expertise emerging to cater for a constantly
shifting demand as organisations seek out
new ideas and opportunities. That growth has
continued throughout the last decade, and has
powered through the tough times of the labour
market following the fnancial crisis. Across the
EU27, while employment has contracted by 3%
since 2008, the number of iPros has grown by
17%. In some member states, iPro numbers
have risen dramatically - by 30% or 40% -
during that time.
A changed demand
Weve long had independent professionals
in European economies; independence has
Teir independence allows their
specialist skills to be available
more fexibly and adaptively
across the economy.
10
more varied work experience, and in some
cases the fnancial benefts of being able to
offer more specialised services to clients who
have pressing needs. Whether iPros work in
France, Poland, Turkey, Australia, Canada
or the USA, research indicates a remarkable
consistency of data on why people want to
work independently and what they get
out of it.
4
There are, of course, wide variations within
the iPro population dependent on profession
and personal factors, but in general, it seems
to represent a big cultural transition from
our recent economic past. Where some
decades ago working aspirations may have
been driven by job security and climbing the
corporate ladder, now well over a third of
the European workforce would prefer self-
employed independence over employment;
and a growing number (around 30%) consider
it feasible for them to do so.
5

For many, the charm of independence is
in self-fulflment - from being independent
but also the opportunity to focus on the
interesting work.
6
Perhaps more practically,
the prospect of greater control over the time,
place and pace of working is the second factor.
While iPros typically work just as many hours
as others, being able to more easily balance
work with other priorities does seem to be an
important element in job quality.
7

Context matters
Clearly, the combined role of economic change
and culture are both important factors shaping
choices over becoming an iPro. The greater the
professional sector in the economy, the greater
the opportunity to practice independently. The
higher the prevalence of self-employment across
the board, the more feasible independence will
seem to more employees.
The evidence certainly supports that view, with
both wider professional employment and self-
employment take-up linking positively with
iPro take-up. But there are some important
variations; for example Italy, which has the
highest number of iPros, does not have a
particularly large professional workforce.
Meanwhile, although Poland has a smaller
professional workforce, there is still a relatively
large number of self-employed.

There are then signs that additional factors come
into play - that although the growth of the iPro
workforce is driven by wider economic forces,
different national institutions do affect that
growth. On the face of it, it seems reasonable
to think that the panoply of regulation, tax
collection and social security arrangements will
all have an impact - but so too will more positive
measures such as helping iPros to set up, to
4. See Phillips, K (2008) Independence and the Death of Employment Ballan, VIC Australia, Connorcourt Publishing;
McKeown, T (2000) Why do professionals become contractors? Business School, Monash University
5. The Gallup Organization (2010) Entrepreneurship in the EU and beyond: A survey in the EU, EFTA countries, Croatia,
Turkey, the US, Japan, South Korea and China, Flash Eurobarometer 283, European Commission.And The Gallup
Organisation (2012) Entrepreneuriship in the EU and beyond,Flash Barometer 354, European Commission.
6. The Gallup Organization (2010) ibid.
7. Eurofound (2012) Trends in job quality in Europe: a report based on the ffth European Working Conditions Survey,
Publications Offce of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Where some decades ago
working aspirations may have
been driven by job security
and climbing the corporate
ladder, now well over a third
of the European workforce
would prefer self employed
independence over employment.
11
additional employees. In either case, iPros, if
not totally discounted, are quickly placed in
a box marked either labour market policy or
enterprise policy and not taken on their own
terms.
For the avoidance of doubt: iPros represent
neither hidden unemployment nor failed small
businesses. iPros are defned by their work
in high-value, high-knowledge professional
sectors; in lower value roles, self-employment
has often been hit as harshly as the rest of
the economy. Those becoming iPros are
often in labour markets which have continued
to prosper during recession. Most of all, for
those becoming iPros, part of the attraction is
to be free of wider managerial responsibility to
focus on providing expertise, and not to seek
to build a larger enterprise.
Not ftting as an employment or enterprise
problem, iPros needs are easily
misunderstood or ignored. Regulations are
designed with wider workplaces in mind;
taxes for organisations with a central payroll;
training processes for those with an employer
to take the lead for them. Differences in
institutions can have a varying impact and
our aim is to understand these variations and
inform the current debate on how government
and other players are helping or hindering
iPros from integrating in todays economy.
Some controversies
Its misleading to claim that iPros are seen
universally as a good thing by governments,
fellow professionals and policy-makers.
They have generated some major debates
and controversies, which are explored in this
report. Our interviews with both iPros and
non-iPros highlighted these controversies,
improve their skills, to access technology. Many
of these institutions will be government-driven;
but many may also be in the private sector,
driven either by collaborative business and
professional bodies, or else by service providers
engaging with iPros. We sought to explore these
factors.
Helping or hindering?
Different institutional environments seem likely
to make for a very different experience as an
iPro, and so a very different set of incentives
and outcomes for those pursuing independence.
Thats the point of interest for this report, but it
also hints at an underlying concern for current
and prospective iPros across Europe; that
iPros arent fully understood, and are too easily
dismissed. That concern, if true, asserts that
weaknesses in the institutional environment may
continue far longer than necessary because of a
lack of appreciation of iPros needs, and a lack
of recognition of the contribution they make to
economic success.
Its not helped by the reliance of too many
commentators and policy-makers on hackneyed
assumptions about self-employment and the
iPro workforce. For some, choosing the iPro
path is seen as a defensive measure because of
a failure to fnd proper employment. For others,
iPros represent start-up businesses that failed
to fnd their market, to grow and begin to recruit
iPros represent neither hidden
unemployment nor failed small
businesses. iPros are defned by
their work in high-value, high-
knowledge professional sectors.
12
most of which stem from the fact that iPros
tend to stand outside traditional political,
social and professional frameworks.
These controversies include:
Whether iPros are a specialist aspect of
labour markets or whether they are
essentially commercially orientated and
part of the business community.
Suspicions in most member states that
the iPro status is not genuine and is a
sham designed to minimise fscal and
other liabilities.
The extent to which competition and
freedom of movement is prevented through
the rules of regulated professions to which
many iPros belong.
Whether current tax and other legal
frameworks, e.g. protective rights, treat
iPros fairly.
For too long, iPros have been seen as
a category that can look after itself, of
secondary importance compared to waged
and salaried employment. Such a view
misunderstands the nature of the professional
labour market in advanced economies subject
to rapid technological change and intense
global competition. Independent professionals
are a critical resource in honing expertise
and making it available responsively and
competitively. If were to achieve lasting
prosperity especially in recovering from the
economic downturn of the past few years - a
thriving iPro sector seems essential.
Seeking the success
factors: this report
We aim to shed light on the work of iPros
themselves and those who organise or support
them. We want to fnd their authentic voice: their
experiences. However, understanding the link
between institutions and iPro performance is a
tricky business; there are clearly many variables
at work. Every country has its idiosyncrasies,
and any robust analysis therefore has to
understand and refect them. For that reason,
our approach in this report is to look in depth at
the iPro experience in nine selected EU member
states, each of which offers a different economic
and cultural background: large and small, with
differences in productivity and governance. The
research team includes national experts from
each country, and we have worked together to
paint a picture rich with detail on the institutions
and working practices which make up iPro
performance, while drawing on authoritative
data to provide a comparison on perceptions,
attitudes and economic outcomes for iPros.
The report begins by exploring the links between
institutions and iPro performance, and probing
the way that legal and fscal frameworks shape
iPro working. It then explores how iPros own
institutions and working practices respond,
enhance and/or limit the outcomes they can
achieve. Next, we compare those institutional
frameworks with the available comparative data,
to explore contrasts and similarities between
iPros experiences in different member states.
The day-to-day work experiences of iPros
and the issues that are important to them are
analysed, followed by a look at the relevance of
macro-economic and social policy and the wider
environment in which iPros work.
13
Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain
and the UK.
Following this data analysis, a draft report
was developed and this was sent to our
national experts for comments and additions.
This process enabled clarifcation of the
issues to be pursued during Phase 2.
Phase 2 was the feldwork which was
undertaken between December 2012 and
June 2013. This consisted of interviews
focusing on understanding the reality of iPros
working lives, the regulatory framework they
work within, and the wider context of their
work.
For each state we interviewed up to 12
people, typically by telephone, although
around a third were conducted face-to-
face. We interviewed up to fve iPros, who
were taken from three occupational groups:
lawyers; writers and ITC professionals, all of
whom completed a pre-interview data sheet
(see Annexe 4) containing basic personal and
professional information prior to interviews. In
total, almost 40 iPros were interviewed.
In each state, up to fve other people who
were not iPros but were involved in iPro
working and so were familiar with issues
around working in this way were interviewed.
These included public servants, leaders of
professional bodies, politicians, policy-makers
and trade unionists, many of whom had also
worked as iPros themselves. In total, 41 non-
iPros were interviewed.

Finally, we interviewed up to two academics
from each state and a total of ten leading
academics contributed. The interview
schedules for all those interviewed can be
Finally the report sums up the research fndings
and makes recommendations to advance the
iPro agenda across employment and enterprise
policy.
How we did the research
The research was under the direction of the
European Forum for Independent Professionals
(EFIP) which contains representatives from
various associations and professional bodies
across the EU which iPros belong to. The
members of EFIP provided a valuable resource
for the research. Their regular briefngs on the
current economic and political climate in their
respective member states at EFIP meetings were
an important data source. Members commented
on drafts and ideas. But, most importantly, they
helped to identify people to interview for the
feldwork. Annexe 2 contains information about
the research team.
We also built a team of national experts from
each of the contributing member states. These
were people with in-depth knowledge of iPro
working in their own state. They all had a good
understanding of research data, contemporary
issues and debates, though they had different
backgrounds, some being economists or legal
academics and others working closely with
professional bodies. Their role was to verify and,
if necessary amend and expand on data for their
own state.

The research began in June 2012 and was
carried out in two phases.

Phase 1, which consisted of desk-based
research, aimed to explore relevant existing data
on iPro working from a range of offcial, private
and informal sources. There research focused on
nine states: Belgium, Finland, France, Germany,
found in Annexe 5.
Because the sample is not representative
of the wider iPro population, the ability to
generalise the fndings and conclusions of
the research will be limited. The sample does,
however, contain a wide range of views of
people with knowledge on iPro working.

A full list of the interviewees can be found
in Annexe 3. Each interviewee is identifable
in the text by their reference number which
combines their state with their interview
status. The iPros are numbered 1-5; non-iPros
are numbered 6-10 and the academics are
numbered 11-12. Hence a reference in the
text to FR 3, indicates a French iPro; NL 8
indicates a non-iPro from the Netherlands and
ES 12 indicates a Spanish academic.

The feldwork and main analysis of the
interview data was completed in June 2013.
Summary points
There has been signifcant growth in iPro
working, even during the recession
iPros bring distinctive skills and working
methods to client organisations
iPros are severely under-researched as
a group, yet their growth and importance
suggests an urgent need for further
research
The research aimed to explore data on
iPros, their day-to-day work experiences,
the diffculties they face and what might
ameliorate them so they can work
effectively.
14
15
Understanding the iPros:
what do we know about them?
Until we can describe Europes independent professional workforce, we cant make a case for
what they need. Yet iPros inhabit a bit of a statistical grey area, as theyre neither employees
nor entrepreneurs. For that reason, understanding the iPro population requires analysing labour
market data, as well as drawing on a range of more specialised research.
What we fnd is a dynamic labour market for independent professionals, growing quickly up to,
and through the recession starting in 2008. The professional workforce as a whole has seen
employment fare better than other sectors in the past few years and independent workers have
grown to contribute to one third of professional sector jobs created in the EU27 since the start of
2008.
In this chapter we explore:
Growth: tracking the growth in the iPro workforce
Sectors: the working pattern of the iPro workforce
Demographics: understanding the iPro gender and age balance
Profles: characterising iPros
Who are the iPros?
Because iPros dont ft into the framework of employers and employees, they are not a major
focus of ongoing statistics or survey research across the EU. Defning the iPro workforce is
diffcult in itself but this has recently been accomplished by Rapelli
8
. This is a defnition we can
use against established labour market data which tells us about the shape of the iPro workforce,
but much less about its subtleties and experiences. We add here some of the insights we gained
from talking to iPros about their background, and why and how they became iPros; how they
defne themselves; how they work across borders; their use of business structures; qualifcations;
training and working patterns and what types of work do they do. The simple answer to the latter
question is, just about anything. Long-established liberal professions have seen iPro working
grow strongly. The media and the arts have long been populated by iPros working as journalists,
CHAPTER 2
8. Rapelli, S (2012) European I-Pros: A Study, PCG.
16
technical writers, designers, interpreters and translators. More recently, professions in marketing,
business consultancy, public relations and a wide variety of health-care professionals have seen
an increase in iPro working.
Growth
The EUs iPro workforce has grown consistently for the past decade; across the years and across
the different member states. From 2004 to 2013
9
, the EU27 iPro population grew from fewer
than 6.2 million professionals to nearly 9 million, a 45% increase. In each of the nine countries
selected for this study, there has been growth over that period, ranging from 12% in Italy to a
near doubling in the Netherlands (93%) and France (85%). In each of the nine countries, the iPro
population has expanded as a percentage of the numbers employed (from 3% to 4% across the
EU27) and as a percentage of those employed in professional sectors (from 9% to 11% across
the EU27). Figure 2.1 provides growth data for our nine states.
Figure 2.1: The percentage growth in iPros in the nine EU states being researched
iPro growth 2004-2013, EU27 vs. selected member states (2004=100%), Eurostat LFS

Because iPros dont ft into the framework of employers and
employees, they are not a major focus of ongoing statistics or survey
research across the EU.

9. The data is from the Eurostat Labour Force Survey, using the Rapelli defnition. The year 2004 is chosen for the reasons explained in Rapelli;
there is a suspiciously large increase in iPros between 2003 and 2004. This increase seems to be entirely driven by a doubling (700,700 to
1,499,200) in the estimate for Italys iPro population in that year: this appears to be a change in counting of those self-employed without employees
(which increases by 1.7 million). Contra Rapellis general point about ffth wave enlargement, Polands iPro count actually declined between 2003
and 2004. Annual data for the Netherlands is not available for 2012, so 2012 Q3 quarterly data is used as an alternative. 2013 Q1 quarterly data is
used as a proxy for the 2013 annual fgure; for France and the EU fgure, 2012 Q4 is used as the nearest available alternative.
17
The great variations in each of our nine states in comparison to the EU27 total tells us that
national stories matter more than wider European economic trends. Some of those differences
may be due to very different economic experiences, but the variations suggest other factors such
as changes in businesses and working practices may contribute. For example, while Spain and
France both saw a sudden fall in iPros in 2008, the growth in Spain thereafter remained relatively
stagnant while in France it grew prodigiously. This suggests that the national environment
whether through public policy or business practice is a decisive factor in affecting the
opportunity for acting as an iPro.
Figure 2.2 shows the variations differently how a much higher percentage of the workforce
became iPros from 2000-2012. The most striking feature is that all member states show a positive
fgure even in Italy and Germany, the slowest growing, nearly 1% more of the workforce were
iPros at the end of the period than at the beginning. Just as interesting, is that because of their
high initial base, the moderate but sustained growth in the Netherlands and UK resulted in
substantial increases, accounting for over 2% more of the workforce in each case.
Figure 2.2: iPros as a percentage of the total employed, points change, 2000-2012

Sectors
Professional sectors have fared well since the recession. Between them, they have added 3.9
million to the total employed within the EU27. Yet even within this growth environment, the iPro
model has been expanding fast, contributing 1.2 million towards that, increasing its profle within
the professional sector workforce. While professional employment has grown by 5% from 2008 to
2012, iPro working in professional sectors has grown by 16%.
18
This is also the pattern within each of the major sectors of the professional workforce. In each
sector, iPros are an expanding segment, their numbers growing faster than the total number
employed. This applies in contracting sectors such as fnancial services (employment falls by
0.4%, but the number of iPros grows by 12%) just as it does in fast-growing sectors such as
health services (employment increases by 9%, iPros grow by 21%). In sectors such as ICT
and professional and scientifc services, the growth in iPros accounts for more than half of the
increase in employment. This is shown in Figures 2.3-2.5.
Figure 2.3:
Number of iPros as a percentage of sector employed, by defned iPro sector Q1 2013

In each sector, iPros are an expanding segment, their numbers
growing faster than the total number employed.

iPros can make up very diferent shares of sector workforces; ranging
from just 4% of the education workforce to 25% of those engaged in
professional and scientifc services.
19
Figure 2.4: Thousands of new iPros and new employees, by defned iPro sector Q1 2013

That said, iPros can make up very different shares of sector workforces; ranging from just 4%
(707,900) of the education workforce to 25% (2,682,000) of those engaged in professional and
scientifc services. For that reason, growth rates can actually have very different meanings for
sectors workforces professional and scientifc services added more than 300,000 new iPros
between 2008-2013 (a 14% increase); education meanwhile had by 2013 added more than
150,000 new iPros, an increase of 30% on four years earlier.
20
Figure 2.5:
% shares by defned iPro sector, new iPros and new professional employees 2008 - Q1 2013
Demographics
In terms of demographics, we have two main measures available by which to compare the
make-up of the iPro workforce. The frst is gender. In principle, there is no reason why gender
should affect the make-up of the iPro population. However, there are factors which may shape
independent working: if career progression and reputation were gender-biased that may make
iPro status relatively more attractive, or else if domestic obligations motivate independence, that
too may have an effect.
Within the iPro population across the EU27, there is a majority of men (54% in 2012). The
proportion varies between EU states, with some being greater (60% of Belgiums iPro population
was male in 2012) and in one case, the proportion being reversed (46% of Finlands iPro
population was male in 2012). This pattern has not changed greatly since 2008. The fnding for
21
the UK (53% of iPros were male in 2012) is much more balanced than that found in the Kingston
University study
10
.
Figure 2.6: iPros as a percentage of professional workforce, by gender Q4 2012

This is though far from the whole story. The professional workforce includes some sectors which
are female-dominated; particularly in education and health and social care services, there are
large numbers of female workers. Comparing male and female iPros to the male and female
professional workforces highlights a much sharper difference in iPro participation. Across the
EU27, 15% of male professionals work independently, but only 8% of female professionals do.
These proportions vary refecting the male-female split highlighted above, but even in Finlands
case, 6% of female professionals work independently compared with 12% of male professionals.
The higher rate of male independent workers has increased in Germany, France, Italy, the
Netherlands, Poland and Finland since 2008. The disparity in male and female independent
workers seems likely to be primarily driven by the very different levels of iPro status in different
sectors; female workers are represented in great numbers in sectors with comparatively few
iPros.
Te professional workforce includes some sectors which are
female-dominated; particularly in education and health and
social care services, there are large numbers of female workers.
10. Kitching, J, and Smallbone, D (2008) Defning and estimating the size of the freelance workforce, report for the Professional Contractors Group.
22
With age, we would expect a very different balance (see Figure 2.7). Becoming an iPro is an
option likely to be most open to those with established skills, networks and reputation, favouring
those with some degree of professional experience. In some cases it may also favour those with
a greater ability to absorb fnancial instability, which may discourage those in the middle of the
working age range. Across the EU27, we fnd that nearly two-thirds of iPros are aged between
25 and 49, with most of the remainder aged over 50. Very few iPros are aged below 25; the
Netherlands has only 3% and is the highest of those member states included here.
Figure 2.7: iPros as percentage of professional workforce, by age group Q4 2012

Looking at iPro numbers in terms of shares of the workforce, we fnd a much more even split
between those below and those above 50 years. Across the EU27, 11% of 25-49s are iPros, but
13% are over 50; the preponderance of 25-49s is a refection of their numbers in the professional
workforce. This average conceals some signifcant variations: for example, while Dutch and
British iPros are older (12% and 11% respectively in the 25-49 professional workforce, 18% and
17% respectively in the over-50 professional workforce), the age distribution amongst Italian iPros
is more evenly split across the age groups.
Our iPro interviewees - who were they?
We undertook interviews with 38 iPros, typically lasting an hour, though some were longer. We
had good responses from Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and the UK, with fewer
interviews for Finland, Poland and France.
The sample had the following characteristics;
23
Gender: There were a total of 22 males and 16 females. This is a slight under representation
of female iPros this is because we did not include professions in health care and did include
the typically male dominated ICT sector. There were more females than males in the writers
professions and an even split for lawyers.
Age: The youngest iPro was 24 and most were aged between 25 and 60, though we did have
several older iPros.
Experience: We had a very wide variety here, whereby some had spent most of their adult career
as iPros and had been working this way for more than 30 years; but a number were very new to
iPro working and had been iPros for less than a year.
Qualifcations: The iPros were generally well educated. A total of 11 iPros have a graduate
qualifcation or equivalent and 21 held postgraduate qualifcations, 4 held PhDs with only 2 having
sub-degree qualifcations.
Professions: A total of 17 iPros were writers, nine practiced Law and 12 worked in IT and related
professions.
Migration and cross border working: Many iPros were migrants - eight had moved within the
EU and one was an immigrant from beyond the EU. A total of fve iPros worked across EU state
borders.
Work history: Virtually all of our iPros (33) had encountered periods without work in the last fve
years. Virtually all stated they worked full-time as an iPro and worked typically 40-50 hours a
week. A few worked very long hours. Most worked from home, with few having offce premises
separate from their home.
Motivation and identity
Moving to the psychological and social realm, from our interviews with iPros we can shed some
light on what has led iPros to work in this way. The research literature typically emphasises the
importance of autonomy, choice, personal fexibility and wider issues of lifestyle and wellbeing
which correlate with high reported levels of satisfaction with working in this way.
For example, the Australian Index of iPro Working
11
shows high levels of agreement with
statements such as I look forward to Mondays or At work I feel bursting with energy. This
contrasts with fndings from research on workplace engagement such as the Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale (UWES) which surveys employees. It shows that poor work relationships
can lead to major health and well-being issues
12
. This helps to explain why so many of our iPros
rejected standard employment. McKeowns work explicitly aims to investigate the response of
11. McKeown, T (2008)The iPro Index, Entity Solutions/Monash University. This is now being replicated in the Netherlands, for 2013 onwards.
12. See, for example, Schaufeli, W and Bakker, A (2009) How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement and
sickness absenteeism vol. 30, Journal of Organisational Behaviour 893; Cooper, C (2013) The Theory and Research on Occupational Stress and
Well-being, Palgrave Macmillan.
24
the skilled self-employed, as opposed to employees, to their work. Her fndings are stark and
highlight the substantial rewards from iPro working, rewards which seem to be sustained or
perhaps even intensifed amidst wider economic and business uncertainty.
Our feedback from iPros strongly supported this general view; there was much greater variety in
discussion of their reasons for becoming independent. None reported any sense of having been
compelled to become independent and all reported independence as meaningful, rather than
being a conventional employment relationship disguised for other conveniences (tax or regulatory,
for example). At the same time, none described their move to independence in sentimental terms;
they viewed their choice pragmatically across fve main explanations:
Rejection of employee status
Many iPros mentioned this and it was salutary to note how a strong sense of alienation emerged
in regard to seeing the so-called employee benefts of reward and security as either illusory or
bought at far too high a price. One iPro said; I just got fed up with the burden and monotony
(UK 1); another; When I worked as an employee I felt like a robot and was undervalued (DE 7).
Priority of focussing on skills
A typical comment was; As an employee I had become a manager and ceased to be the
specialist medical writer that I am. I wanted to get back to it (UK 2).
Wanting autonomy
Nearly all interviewees mentioned this. An indicative comment was; As I lived in rural France the
choice was simple - agriculture or freelancing. I wanted to be my own boss, so(FR 2).
It was the natural thing to do
Sometimes this was because independent working was the required way to work - for example,
for lawyers in many states - or was in the family - I just followed in my fathers footsteps (IT 4).
Financial incentives
For a few, fnancial incentives in their particular feld encouraged the initial choice, although they
grew to then prefer working independently:
I really wanted to be a teacher. But we were offered so much more money to become specialist
translators and interpreters that we left (NL 2).
Although all of the iPros we spoke to expressed different reasons and different levels of
enthusiasm for iPro working when they set out, none had gone back to employee work or

I just got fed up with the burden and monotony.

25
otherwise given up. All but fve had experienced periods without income along the way, but
considered the benefts of remaining independent suffcient to persist.
How do iPros self-identify?
Just as diverse, but much more contentious, is the question of identity. Clearly this is a problem
for researchers; iPros are not employees but are not entrepreneurs, and even within the group
of self-employed without employees, they must be distinguished as professionals from those
working in less skilled occupations. But it isnt just a research problem: identifcation and self-
defnition creates the basis for associating with one another and also projecting a voice to the
wider commercial or public world.
Are independent professionals self-defning as freelancers, nano-businesses, iPros, contractors,
entrepreneurs, or something else? Do they see themselves as business people or as operating
within the labour market? For those in liberal professions, how important is independence as part
of that identity?

To explore this point, we asked iPros how they responded in a social setting when asked about
the way they worked. Most interviewees found this a diffcult question when prompted, by far
the largest group, said they would describe themselves as freelancers; this group was made
up primarily of writers of varying sorts, as well as a lawyer and several IT specialists. The second
largest group defned themselves as iPros this group included writers, lawyers, but strangely
no IT specialists; which is odd because the label is commonly associated with the IT profession
outside the EU.
The third most common identifcation was as a small business, with all but one from the
IT sector; two more IT specialists defned themselves as entrepreneurs. More generally,
entrepreneur was taken to have negative, big business connotations, potentially with a tie to
being exploitative. Others simply said they didnt know what was meant by entrepreneur.
One interviewee said; well you know I have to be entrepreneurial to do my work, but I am not
an entrepreneur. That was a sentiment shared by many, who emphasised the need to regularly
market themselves, negotiate contracts, solve and adapt to problems and work hard to sustain
their career as an iPro. For most though, such entrepreneurialism was less important to the
meaning of entrepreneur which they associated more with creating a business and employing
people. There was general agreement on the need to communicate this distinction to policy
makers and legislators.

You know I have to be entrepreneurial to do my work,

but I am not an entrepreneur.

Clearly, defning who iPros are is hugely complex. They see themselves as a distinct group-not
like employees but not small businesses either. We shall see this question of who precisely the
iPros are is a running theme in this report.
Summary points
iPro growth has been substantial and sustained; 45% across the EU27 since 2004, with all
nine member states under study growing.
There is a growth amongst all professional sectors, with iPros growing faster than total
employment.
iPros are more likely to be men, and are less common in female-intensive professions.
iPros are typically over 25, with some countries showing a bias to those aged over 50.
iPros report choosing working in this way consciously, owing to a sense of natural aptitude,
emphasis on certain lifestyle values, and the preference for not being an employee.
iPros prefer to defne themselves as freelancers or independent and not as
entrepreneurs even though they all consider entrepreneurship essential to their success.
26
27
Te iPro environment:
regulation and support
iPros are highly skilled workers. Most are
graduates (or equivalent) and consider
themselves as professionals with skills to offer.
Across our selected member states, many are
members of professional bodies, some of which
are subject to statutory regulation; these are the
liberal or regulated professions. Other iPros
in the newer professions may be members of a
body, but are not required to be so and in these
new professions there is little or no regulation
specifc to their work.
13

iPros also operate within fscal frameworks.
They pay taxes and make social contributions
- but which ones? In EU states, social benefts
are available - but can iPros access them? What
other laws apply to them and do these restrict
their way of working?
The picture is a highly complex one but
the regulatory framework applying to iPros
clearly impacts on their ability to access
work; the terms on which they can undertake
it; the administrative burden on operating
independently; the risks they have to plan for
not just in business, but in life; their freedom to
work; and their sense of distinctiveness from the
employed and salaried workforce.
In this chapter, we look at the very different
working arrangements in place in each of
our member states, covering the following
themes:
Taxation: including income and profts
taxation, and their associated procedures
for payment and assessment
Social security: including eligibility for
insurance or benefts for old age, sickness
and unemployment
Legislation: covering health and safety,
business and employment
Professions: regulation of professions and
its different forms; professional associations
and their role
Support: the response of iPros and
supportive non-government organisations
National reports which compare each of these
issues in each member state in detail can be
found in Annexe 1.
Te diferent dimensions
of the iPro environment
The iPro environment is formed from the
interactions between a range of policies,
practices and institutions: business,
commercial and employment laws, taxes,
social security contributions and benefts,
professional rules, associations and
support bodies. It is their interaction with
the professional environment we are most
concerned with.
CHAPTER 3
13. For a widely accepted classifcations of professions in Europe , see, Pedeserini, and Costello (2009) Self-employed Workers, Industrial
Relations and Working Conditions. EIRO European Foundation.
28
It is perhaps inevitable that the relationship
between iPros and the state, politicians and
state offcials is often an uneasy one. iPros have
distinctive characteristics and generally dont
want to be moulded or pigeonholed and so can
be seen as challenging state norms. For their
part (and this came out strongly in interviews)
iPros were acutely conscious of their lack of
recognition, and in some cases sensed wariness
or even hostility from policy makers. Here are a
few comments;
The government is suspicious of you and
considers you a fair target (BE 6).
Politicians give us nothing. The problem is that
[they] want it all to be neat and tidy (FI 3).
Not all of the interviewees were so critical,
though all agreed that iPros were neglected or
dismissed by most politicians in their country.
However, they recognised the importance of
politicians;
It is vital we have a voice with politicians (IT 1).
Another, drawing on her own experience said;
We get good support from local as opposed to
national or EU politicians. I feel we are respected
by them (FR 1).
What is the
role of the state?
iPros are subject to the same laws and
regulations - and the agencies enforcing
them - as any other citizen. Yet whereas other
roles with which they overlap (entrepreneurs
or employees) are recognised in policy
and law in all member states, independent
professionals generally are not. Some
countries have in recent years made efforts to
treat the self-employed as a distinct category,
but sometimes independents are dealt with on
an ad hoc basis across the commercial and
employment domains.
Some tensions
As a senior member of a leading UK iPro
association put it; Legislation forces them
(iPros) to work in a business way when most
do not feel they are businesses and yet policy
makers do not really see them as businesses
(UK 9). Indeed, efforts to treat independents
on their own terms can meet stiff resistance.
In some member states, there are suspicions
that independence is little more than a means
to avoid fulflling obligations and that in effect,
it is a sham. This is deeply unfair to iPros,
and misses the fact that their hybrid status
means they often face much greater and more
complex obligations than others, especially in
comparison to salaried employees.
iPros were acutely conscious of
their lack of recognition, and
in some cases sensed wariness
or even hostility from policy
makers.

29
The same tendencies can apply even more
clearly in tax and social security law. Its
here, with money at stake, that suspicions
over iPros motivations and conduct become
most pronounced. The consequence is that
tax laws originally amended to allow for self-
employment are often supplemented by a
series of changes to ensure that fexibilities
are not abused. Not being entrepreneurs or
employees, iPros have often ended up with a
unique status, but one designed, many think,
to limit their activity rather than enable it.
Across member states, the result of this
unintended process by which iPros status
develops, varies greatly. The variation is
perhaps greatest when considering social
security systems in some countries, the
self-employed are wholly integrated as long
as they pay equivalent contributions; in other
countries, they have only a subset of benefts,
often on the basis that they pay most of the
same contributions as employees. In a few
countries iPros are excluded from virtually all
social rights.
Taxation and
social security systems
Tax and social security administration refects
the most regular and signifcant form of
contact between the iPro and the state. It
should be noted that the EU has a very limited
role in fscal matters, so for regulation one
has to look to state, regional and even local
authorities. Few member states have created
a specifc tax regime for the self-employed,
but all have created rules to deal with their
specifc circumstances. Sometimes these
rules may be designed to make the system
simpler or more helpful to iPros; sometimes it
Why the
hostility or neglect?
Why do politicians often react as they do? One
academic said; Well it is obvious. 90% of voters
in Germany are employees. Anyway, it is tough
for politicians. They are lobbied by employers
and then by unions and then this middle group
pops up (DE 11). Some sensed less hostility but
still felt neglected.
How do
governments respond?
iPros fall in the gap as they are neither
employers or employees and this has substantial
cultural and administrative consequences.
Traditionally, employment law has been
concerned with defning the relationship
between employees and their employers,
and especially with specifying the employers
responsibilities. These provisions are irrelevant
for iPros, as they are their own employer.
Equally, commercial law accommodates a
wide variety of businesses; and in policy
terms, business policy is concerned with job
creation and technological innovation. In some
countries, the best that can be said for the legal
status of iPros is that it is a product of benign
neglect: policy makers are not opposed to their
existence, but are not animated to support them.
Not being entrepreneurs or
employees, iPros have often ended
up with a unique status, but one
designed, many think, to limit
their activity rather than enable it.
30
which have put concessionary schemes in place,
is that the compliance cost while fne for a
business is too large for a single self-employed
person, and can deter them.
Social security
contributions
Far more varied and sometimes seemingly
onerous are social security contributions.
Contributions in most member states again
refect the more general employee/employer
system. The difference, with some variations
dependent on differences in insurance and
beneft eligibility, is that the full contribution is
paid by the self-employed person, rather than
being split between employee and employer. In
some member states, this makes a moderate
difference in Germany and the UK, for
example, employer and employee contributions
are not vastly different. In other member
states such as Spain and France, employer
contributions can be several times those for
employees.
Such differences can result in misinformed
perceptions of the relative incomes earned from
being self-employed. For those new to self-
employment, the difference can be a shock
what seems large in gross terms can become
small in net terms but on the whole we would
expect that the size of the wedge (between
employers labour costs including contributions,
and the employees fnal wage) should
translate into higher gross income for the self-
employed. For this reason, large social security
contributions often do not seem to shock iPros
in practice as much as it might be expected.
Where contributions are payable by the self-
employed, they are usually at a higher rate
than for other insured persons (for example in
refects a suspicion of independent status as
a means to avoid fulflling social obligations.
Tax status
and tax collection
In all of our selected member states, the tax
position of iPros sits somewhere between
individual and business taxation; in most
cases, their position is decided upon by
whether or not they have taken on a formal
company structure. If so, then they are treated
primarily as a business.
In most cases, refecting the fact that iPros
are rarely treated as a fully distinctive group,
their tax treatment relies on existing personal
and business taxation systems, adapted
to the special case of a self-employed
individual. So, for example, normal income
and profts taxation rates apply. If anything,
rather than iPros being punished there are
some concessions in place for lower rates
and record - keeping obligations for very
small businesses in several member states.
Examples of this include the UKs Flat Rate
Scheme for VAT or the micro-enterprise
scheme for assessing income as a fat 66% of
turnover in France.
Those concessions on record-keeping
suggest the key issue in most tax systems
-that iPros as self-employed people have
to collect and report extensive fnancial
information and make their way through
tax codes. In most countries, for individual
employees this is a much, much simpler task;
for large businesses such complexity refects
the size of their operations and is understood
as one of the normal compliance obligations.
The danger, recognised in those countries
31
of activity was introduced in the wake of the
2008 recession to allow for the self-employed
to gain unemployment support.
The same applies in a number of member
states for benefts related to sickness
and disability. In terms of sickness, the
argument may again relate to the problems
of monitoring and enforcement. For disability,
which isnt covered for self-employed
people through the social security system in
a number of member states, the argument
seems to be that there is no employer to
regulate separately for health and safety
issues, and so private insurance may provide
a better discipline.
iPro responses
The pattern overall for fscal matters is very
varied, clearly underpinned by national policy
differences. It might be noted that during
the iPro interviews, the complaints about the
system were either that they paid as much as
employees but didnt get access to the same
benefts, or that some of the fexibility and
incentives offered to new businesses were
not available to them. There was no easing
into iPro working as there was easing into
a business start-up. Of course, those with
limited companies and the like could take
advantage of some fscal measures, but in our
sample, they were a minority.

Belgium, the self-employed pay the sum of both
the employer and employee contributions for
employees). The Netherlands and Poland are
exceptions. Thus, there are additional costs
in seven out of the nine member states under
review for self-employed persons to access
the social security benefts system. Overall, the
benefts systems in the Netherlands and Finland
are relatively generous among the nine states
under consideration.
Social security benefts
Far more of an issue are the large differences
in some member states in the insurance
and benefts eligibility for self-employed
professionals compared to their employee
counterparts. In some countries there are
mechanisms in place to ensure that the self-
employed retain most of their entitlements,
although through different routes. Some
countries, such as Germany, seek to allow the
self-employed to remain members of the general
system although with some concessions to
allow opting out. Others, such as France, insist
on the self-employed contributing to social
security cover, but do so through specifc
arrangements (in terms of family allowances and
pensions).
Some areas of beneft eligibility are more
contentious than others, for fairly predictable
reasons. For example, in many countries there
are restrictions on the entitlement of the self-
employed for unemployment insurance; in Italy
and the Netherlands, for example, the self-
employed are excluded. The motivation for
this seems to be the problem with monitoring
and enforcement: how do you know if a self-
employed person has become involuntarily
unemployed? Spain represents an interesting
case here, as provision for involuntary cessation
32
take those responsibilities on themselves; the
law regards the self-employed as capable of
protecting themselves against the risks of life
and work. This is the trade off many make in
becoming self-employed: they are free from the
instructions of an employer, to manage their
time and work as they please, but they are also
responsible for themselves under the law.
How do you diferentiate
iPros from employees?
This distinction is therefore an important
part of the law. Self-employed status gives a
sense of lower risk for contracting partners
(when compared with taking on an employee),
increasing their market value. Self-employed
status can also be more attractive for those
looking for additional fexibility in other areas
of their life; indeed, the self-provision of social
security expected in some member states
may seem attractive to some. For that reason,
the distinction is carefully evaluated; in most
member states, it depends upon some form of
subordination test the extent of a contracting
partners authority over the self-employed
person.
However as with most things legal, the situation
is far more complex than simply asking the
question is an individual subordinate to an
employing organisation. All states have legal
tests to differentiate the employee from the
self-employed. And, as stated above, most
rely on notions of subordination but pose
slightly different questions. Subordination
assumes the ability of an employer to control
an employee. This is a curiously inappropriate
approach for highly skilled individuals and
seems more resonant of Taylorism and labour
commodifcation than modern EU markets.
Other areas of law:
health and safety,
business structure
and employment
The law creates the general framework for
iPros practice, but also for their interaction
with other employees and employers. As with
taxation, in many (although not all) member
states, much of the law is more an adaptation
of existing provisions designed around the
employer/employee model than an explicit
design for self-employed workers. Some
states have more recently developed laws
to specifcally provide for the self-employed,
such as LETA, Spains autonomous workers
law and the Social Akkord, 2013 in the
Netherlands.
A contentious issue:
the status of
the self-employed
In most member states, the distinction
between the employed and self-employed
has important implications, especially in
fscal law, but also to an extent in health and
safety law and for accessing employment
protection rights. In most member states,
some expectation of responsibility is placed
upon the employer for the employee; the
self-employed are therefore expected to
Much of the law is more
an adaptation of existing
provisions designed around
the employer/employee model
than an explicit design for self-
employed workers.
33
contract law in member states.
Health and safety law, though of importance
to some iPros did not feature in our feldwork,
however we are aware that issues of stress,
well-being etc. are just as important to
iPros as employees. Most health and safety
law is now EU based, which entails a risk
management approach. It is an especially
coherent and consistent area of EU law.
However, it is complex, though the EUs
agency, the Occupational Safety and Health
Agency (OSHA), based in Bilbao, has helpful
data and practical advice, including regarding
the self-employed.
15

Commercial law
and business structure
Business structure and registration
requirements vary across member states,
but with common features. In all cases,
iPros are able to trade as sole proprietors
(private entrepreneurs), working on their
own account with unlimited liability, typically
with no capital requirement. Instead, they
are able to incorporate in one or more
different forms to protect their personal
assets from their business affairs. However,
our interviews showed this to be a minority
response. In some member states, there are
several options for incorporation, allowing for
different arrangements of capital and liability
France being an obvious case here, with three
different structure options for incorporation:
EURL, EIRL and SASU.
Many member states require up-front
capital contributions from iPros if they are
to incorporate, being quite high for some
There have been calls in most states to develop
better tests
14
and even for the EU to promote an
EU-wide defnition.
But what should it be based on? One academic
interviewee said that iPros are between
commerce and the labour market. He thought
the key issue was that of risk, and who bears it.
If risk is with the individual, then the employer
should not be able to control them and the
individual should be seen as self-employed!
(DE 11).

Another interviewee took a more direct and
pragmatic approach saying;
Its all about having several clients and not
being dependent on one. If you have long
contracts with one organisation, then you are at
risk of being seen as an employee (NL 8).

What about workers?
A complicating factor is that many employment
rights derived from EU legislation extend
protections to workers. That is a wider category
than employees and covers many iPros who
work closely with organisations. Member states
have implemented these laws differently, so it
depends on which state you work in whether,
as an iPro you can access rights. The rights are
important ones, e.g. under health and safety
laws, including working time, equality, maternity
protections and freedom of movement. These
areas of law go some way to establishing a foor
of employment rights. Job security protections
are unlikely to be seen as in any way appropriate
for iPros, though they will have key rights under
14. Leighton, P and Wynn, M (2011) Classifying Employment Relationships - More Sliding Doors or a Better Regulatory Framework? vol 40(1),
Industrial Law Journal 5; Razzolini, O (2010) The Need to Go Beyond the Contract: Economic and Bureaucratic Dependence in Personal Work
Relations vol 31, Comparative Labour Law and Policy Journal: 267.
15. See for example, OSHA (2010) A Review of Methods Used across the EU to Estimate Work-Related Accidents and Illness Among The Self-
Employed, European Agency for Safety and Health at Work; OSHA (2013) European Opinion Poll on Occupational Safety and Health, European
Agency for Safety and Health at Work. See also the European Foundations European Quality of Life Surveys, and the European Commissions
Employment and Social Development Reports.
34
What does being a
professional mean?
How professionalism combines membership
with skills independence is a critical factor in
shaping the iPro environment, affecting the
experience and perception of policymakers,
legislators and citizens. For example, in some
states such as Poland, membership of a liberal
profession is required for practice and carries
great benefts as a monopoly status. In Finland,
lawyers have no such monopoly. In the UK,
there has been a decline in the number of
unchallenged professional monopolies. But the
system is complex. For example, UK architects
are recognised as a profession, with prestigious
professional bodies. However, they have to
register with a state agency if they describe
themselves as an architect, and comply with a
set of professional rules, which if broken, can
lead to the imposition of large fnes. Despite this,
building design isnt reserved for architects; they
may have to compete with a number of other
professional types.
The treatment of professions within the wider
legal framework differs greatly. Some countries
such as Belgium have overarching regulatory
institutions, while others provide legal support
to each profession individually. Inevitably, the
greater the privileges reserved for a profession
and to some extent, all member states still
do reserve privileges the closer the scrutiny
they fall under. Such scrutiny not only includes
enforcement of ethical standards related to
professionals duties of confdentiality and client
care, but can also carry further provisions for
example, the CCBE (Bars and Law Societies of
Europe) reminded us (BE 6) that their members
have to comply with safeguards on money-
laundering, have to meet stiff insurance and
member states (e.g. 25,000 capital deposit
in the one-man GmbH form in Germany).
Registration requirements also vary. In the
UK or Germany, a sole proprietor needs
only to register with the tax authorities;
only incorporated businesses need further
paperwork. In Belgium or France, although
registration is simplifed, more paperwork
does seem to be required.
It should be noted that iPros may also
be affected by other regulations, such as
planning which is especially important in our
northern EU states.
Many of these business issues were
explored during interviews and reported on in
Chapter 4, as part of the start-up process for
iPros.
Te role of the
profession in
the environment
We now turn to the other key framework
for many iPros - professional regulation.
Professional is a hotly debated concept, but
with lots of force in discussions of commerce
and employment.

How professionalism
combines membership
with skills independence is a
critical factor in shaping the
iPro environment, afecting
the experience and perception
of policymakers, legislators
and citizens.
35
about professional services markets, the
partitions between markets arent always
clearly defned. Every state has its regulated
professions Poland has 368, but the EU
average is around 140 but what also matters
is the extent to which that regulation comes
along with enforcement and also grants
privileges in the form of an exclusive franchise
over certain transactions.
What is a
liberal profession?
There is a long established argument that
in many member states self-regulation is a
defning feature of a professional; and that
in turn, self-regulation means limiting the
provision of advice and work to licensed
members of the profession, along with the
use of specifc titles, and the ability to control
the number of entrants to a profession. This
inhibits both entry itself but also the evolution
of more fexible models of professional
practice. In the words of one commentator;
The power to control markets for their
services is what distinguishes professions
from other occupations
17
.

The way this is done is by restricting the
types of business models that members of
liberal professions can use; limiting their links
and collaboration with other professions;
restricting advertising and generally limiting
competition through means such as offering
lower fees to clients. Across the EU, there is
a long history of liberal professions effectively
suppressing innovation in the delivery of
services and some forms of competition,
such as key tasks being performed by para-
professionals working in more open markets.
indemnity costs, as well as maintain their
professional knowledge, keep full records, and
so on.
In keeping with the general pattern of economic
reform over the past two decades, in many
member states markets for professional services
are being liberalised. While some tasks are
reserved to specifc professions, many member
states have sought to allow for a much greater
freedom to practice professional services.
While professional memberships remain and
in many cases are used as a legally-sanctioned
regulatory vehicle new routes for service
provision are being created, and legal barriers
removed.
We can ask questions about market access,
but the answers are often far from simple. At
the start of this year in the UK, for example,
a Supreme Court judgement carried great
consequences for the relationship between
regulated professions and the work of
independent professionals. In this case, a
large fnancial frms schemes to aid clients to
minimise their tax liabilities were questioned
by the tax authorities. The schemes were
devised by accountants advising the frm,
and they sought legal privilege to protect
their clients confdentiality. The accountants
and the frms position was that, although not
lawyers, the accountants were offering advice
in a legal services market which has now been
substantially deregulated. If, they argued, they
were free to enter the legal services market, they
must have the privileges previously reserved to
legal professionals. Yet the UK Supreme Court
held that, without explicit statutory provision,
legal privilege continued to be reserved for legal
professionals.
16

Such an example highlights that when we talk
16. R (on the Application of Prudential plc) v. Special Commission for Income Tax (2013), UKSC 1
17. Lasok, D (1986) The Professions and Services in the European Economic Community, Kluwer Law.
36
wary of change, and this can not only be seen
as a concern for their privilege; many raise
questions over the maintenance of quality, trust
and the ethical core of liberal professions.
Within the European Commission in 2012 there
were calls to amend Directive 2005/36/EC on
the recognition of professional qualifcations to
increase fexibility and mobility across European
professional services markets and to change
the way rules are applied. This would include
changing the Services Directive (D 2006/123/EC)
so that in the future, member states would have
to furnish a list of the regulated professions,
providing justifcation for the need for such
regulation. If implemented, this change in the
presumption in favour of market access would
greatly expand the opportunities available to
current and prospective iPros, especially those
wanting to work outside their home state.
Beyond such possible changes, the EU is
more generally committed to increasing
competitiveness and opening up markets for
services, and so regardless of justifcations
there are questions over the extent to which
professional bodies should be allowed to impede
competition. Of course, theres a balance to be
struck: some professions are regulated because
of their attendant risks, and there is always a
need to ensure any increase in competition
Are things changing?
A necessary context for the professional
environment is the increasingly acute debates
and policy developments over professionalism
itself. This has moved the focus away from
the competitiveness agenda. It has happened
because of increasing concerns about
professional standards and integrity, fuelled
by the notoriety following a series of health,
police and fnancial services scandals. This
has led to legislation affecting many so-called
para-professionals, often who work on an
iPro basis as, say, therapists, social workers,
paralegals and consultants. State registration
and control are the key elements of state
intervention, coupled with supervisory bodies
that could be seen to supplant professional
bodies. The law intervenes whether or not
the professional self-defnes as liberal and
whether or not it has monopoly powers. In
effect, it is arguable that there is a new or
re-regulatory framework being developed in
some states based on enforcing competence
and consumer/client protection, not open
markets.
Developments
in the professional
environments
Liberal professions remain powerful, and are
still able to resist change and innovation.
Such resistance occurs because the
privileges accorded to professions carry
with them substantial political and economic
power. Many professionals are enthusiastic
for change, welcoming increased fexibility on
the achievement of professional status and
the review of the balance between academic
studies and practical work. But others remain
If the EU wants to exploit fully
iPros potential contribution
to growth, then it should bear
in mind that recent research
indicates that the fastest growth
in iPro numbers has been in
occupations with minimal
regulation.
37
reinforces quality rather than simply minimising cost. But, if the EU wants to exploit fully iPros
potential contribution to growth, then it should bear in mind that recent research indicates
18
that
the fastest growth in iPro numbers has been in occupations with minimal regulation. And as we
shall see, this greater fexibility has enabled interesting and innovative models of ways of working,
though innovation in iPro working is not confned to the new professions.
Practical matters
The professional environment in which iPros work consists of complex overlapping and
interacting institutions and processes. To understand them requires working through a series of
key issues:

1. Whether or not the framework not only requires academic and professional standards to be
tested and met and practical work to be undertaken, but also whether holding the qualifcation
provides a monopoly for specifed areas of work, or at least parts of it
2. Whether or not the regulator/professional body sets the key terms on which professional
services are provided
3. Whether or not the regulator/professional body controls professional conduct, including the
removal of an individual from professional practice
4. The extent to which the regulatory framework is fexible and responsive to market changes.
5. The nature and extent of support provided for individuals, in particular, continuing professional
development and business support
6. Where professional work is not subject to tight formal regulation, whether there are active
organisations in the area and the nature and extent of the support and other measures they
provide
Figure 3.1 sets this out in visual form. Professional work is defned in terms of services with a
high level of individual skill required. The traditional core of professional work is taken up by the
liberal professions, with an expanding outer region defned by the new professions, ranging from
commercial writing through to information systems consultancy. Regulation comprises hard law,
which means capable of formal enforcement and sanctions.

Soft law builds on the structures created by hard law, and includes a range of less formal
sources, including Codes of Conduct, guidance, and other information indicating best practices
and often backed by professional institutions. Soft law affects both liberal professions and
new professions, but with an important difference: liberal professional bodies typically have an
enforcement abilty, for example, to strike off an offender, and other sanctions that can affect the
ability to practice; new professional bodies may enforce their soft law but their sanctions are
always limited by their ability to make membership valuable in a voluntary setting.
Outside of hard and soft law is the rule of market choice the power of reputation, which varies
by sector in its impact on professional practice. Perhaps most interesting, however, is the border
18. Rapelli, S (2012) European I-pros: A Study, PCG.
38
between liberal and new professions, where soft law becomes of much more limited power. This
is the territory into which many liberal professionals will move as their work is liberalised still
bound by the sanction of their professional body, but with an increasing ability to act outside of it
if they see ft.
Fig 3.1 Options for regulation

Te professional framework
Here, we look at the regulations at the professional level. It is not always easy or appropriate
to differentiate the professions for all regulatory purposes. Some rules are taken from sources
that apply to the self-employed and some to all at work. Rules here are taken from EU, national/
federal and subnational/regional sources. For example, the regulation of the legal profession in
the UK is different for Scotland and Northern Ireland compared with England and Wales. In some
states, professional regulation is regional or based on an individual city.
Sources of information
In all nine of our selected member states, liberal and regulated professions are embedded in
long-established institutions, applying especially to medical, legal, scientifc and engineering
professions. While, as we have seen, many of these bodies have faced a reduction in their
statutory privileges, some professions are increasingly working together at European level, with
powerful bodies such as the CCBE and the infuential European Council of Liberal Professions
(CEPLIS).
39
Regulated professions
Even allowing for diversity in population size and education and training traditions, this data
on numbers of regulated professions reveals some interesting contrasts. The list for our nine
member states is as set out in Figure 3.2, though it must not be assumed that regulation is
either all-embracing or long standing. For example, the UK includes members of the Royal
Academy of Dancing, and Close Protection Operatives (bodyguards) where, for the latter, the
regulation is more in the nature of careful screening rather than on specifc qualifcations or,
say, CPD requirements . There is also no strict correlation between a regulated profession and
what many would consider a liberal profession, as generally instanced by long training periods,
strict professional rules and a strong role for professional ethics. So there are many regulated
professions that do not have the key defning features of the liberal professions. Regulation may
also be limited and cover only one or two areas of a professionals work.
Figure 3.2 Numbers of regulated professions in the selected states
EU regulation of professions
This is an extensive area of law. Relevant EU legislation includes:
The Treaty of the European Union which provides: free movement for the self employed and
their families to another EU state; the freedom to provide services; and the right of
establishment the freedom to set up a business in another EU state
The professions directives aimed to ensure recognition of professional qualifcations etc.
for named professions
Provisions that provide for other regulated professions with rules regarding qualifcations and
training, such as paramedics and social workers requiring an aptitude test or period of
adaptation
40
Competition law focuses on practices as
they impede competition, and apply to sole
practitioners as well as major frms.
On the whole, Court decisions have found
practices inhibiting or preventing access to
professional work to be unlawful. The Court
has emphasised the importance of professional
standards and the need to protect client
interests, but has insisted on careful scrutiny
of all rules to ensure that they arent simply
protective measures.
19
Te organisation
of professions
There are national bodies in our nine states
that develop policy and advice for different
types of professions, especially the liberal,
regulated ones. For example, in France there
is the Chambres Nationale des Professions
Liberale (CNPL) as well as the Union Nationale
des Professions Liberales (UNAPL). By contrast,
the UK and Finland appear to have few multi-
professional bodies, though insofar as UK iPros
work through limited companies, they may
belong to the Institute of Directors.

Te new professions
As we saw in Chapter 2, the major growth in
independent professional working has taken
place outside the traditional liberal professions.
Growth has occurred in two ways. First, in
knowledge occupations, especially ICT, the
media, design and consultancy and similar
service work. The reasons for growth in these
areas is well documented
20
, a refection of
wider economic trends already touched on
in the introduction to this report. Secondly, in
Provisions taken from both EU competition
and consumer law that require free
competition and the removal of barriers to
it, and also the outlawing of unfair business
practices that harm the consumer
The so-called professions directives applying
to doctors, midwives, pharmacists, architects,
vets and lawyers are currently being reformed,
but there is much controversy around the
process.
Te role of
the European Court
Just as important in creating the legal
basis for professional practice are the
decisions of the Court of Justice of the
European Communities (CJEC). The Court
is the guardian of EU law and considers
issues relating to professional practice
not only through the application of the
professions directives, but also through the
Treaty Provisions that deal with freedom of
movement and the right of establishment (i.e.
to set up a business). These provisions apply
to all professionals aiming to practice their
skills, especially outside their home state.
Over the years, there have been many CJEC
decided cases about professionals right to
practice in another state. They have covered
a wide range of regulated and unregulated
professions from engineers, through to
ski and snowboard instructors, English
teachers, estate agents, lawyers and health
professionals.

Most relevant to the work of the Court in
this arena are the EU competition laws.
19. See for example, OTOC (C-1/12) concerning the Portuguese regulatory body for chartered accountants. The body has the usual professional
powers, including promoting its members continued training and professional training. 32 hours per year were required of members, 16 of which
were provided by OTOC and the rest by approved providers. Two external training organisations complained about delays and being excluded
from providing training and relied on Article 101 (competition) rules. OTOC was held to be in breach of the law as what they were doing eliminated
competition on a substantial part of a relevant professional activity.
20. Gratton, L (2012) The Shift: The Future of Work is Already Here, Collins.
41
professionals, for example, in providing
insurance protections. Some of the new
professions appear better covered by
associations than others but it is not possible
to determine the extent to which iPros, as
opposed to employees, are members.
However, iPros are represented in many
other ways as other forms of association
have emerged. Specialist pan-European
associations bring together national
associations, often having as a priority
the setting up of international standards
of professional practice. One such is the
European Network of Safety and Health
Professional Organisations (ENSHPRO) with
membership from associations in Belgium,
Finland, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain
and the UK.

A few pan-European associations have been
set up to represent iPros across professions,
refecting their working status alongside their
occupations, or sometimes without regard
to their particular area of work. However,
there appear few cross-occupation bodies
for new professionals. This is unsurprising;
there remain defnitional and boundary issues
and greater diffculty in establishing common
interests across occupations. Many of the
associations appearing at frst sight as cross-
occupational are, on closer inspection, trade,
business and marketing organisations.
iPros and
professional membership
Our interviews explored the extent to which
respondents see value in membership of
these organisations. Intuitively, one would
expect iPros to see the advantage in formal
independent health, social work and education
professions through structural changes in
the public sector, though the traditional iPro
occupations of arts/creative occupations and
professional/scientifc occupations where
independent working has long been a feature,
remain dominant.
Do they have
professional bodies?
It appears that within the nine states, most of the
new professions have their own professional or
trade associations, and often several of them.
Membership between bodies is a matter of
professional choice. These bodies activities and
status vary considerably but often include:
Providing training, assessment and
accreditation - though accreditation
mainly provides market advantage rather
than an exclusive right to practice
Research and analysis where the
association is more in the nature
of a learned society
Policy development and lobbying
Providing advice and support, including for
obtaining employment but also with regards to
setting up a business and dealing with fscal
and other matters
Networking and enhancing business
opportunities; social functions
Journals, websites and provision of
information of interest to members
of an occupation
Bargaining on behalf of members, relating to
pay and working conditions for their members
As these associations are not bound by history
or tradition, they have been able to develop
facilities and processes attractive to new
42
Others belong to specialist organisations
relevant for their professional work. There were
quite dramatically different views on this on
whether and what to join.
Do iPros want these
associations to take
on a regulatory role?
I prefer informal regulation and informal
associations; membership can give you
credibility and can reassure clients (FR 1).
What did they want the associations to do for
them? Several interviewees referred to specifc
goals e.g. to ensure representation and
advocacy;
It would be nice to have a body/group that
really fought for our interests (BE 2).
There are evident tensions here forming a
collective identity may on the one hand help
to impede statutory regulation, but on the
other, increase an expectation of soft law
regulation of the membership. A good example
is in the UK, where bodies representing the
new professions have sought Chartered
status, to allow for recognition of professional
skills recent examples include the Chartered
Institute of Legal Executives and the Chartered
Institute of Personnel and Development.
Although aiming to create a bulwark against
state regulation, such moves are only possible
with the acceptance of a much greater level of
professional self-regulation. The moves, again
networking and participation in professional
and other memberships.

Their responses suggest a more detached,
even utilitarian attitude to professional
bodies. Where required to be members of a
professional body, they often made limited
reference to it. Three iPros belonged to
associations that had some form of limited
or soft law role. Here, (in Poland, France
and the Netherlands), translators had to be
accredited because they were working for the
justice system in their countries or had access
to highly confdential material.
Of the 38 iPros interviewed, 11 had never
belonged to any sort of professional
organisation. Reasons given included;
I have never found associations of much
use...I used to belongbut the freelancer
meetings were a complete waste of time (UK
3) and they want to become closed shops -
all about recognition and control; I want to be
free (IT 1).
Of those who had taken up membership,
some belonged to generalist self-employed
organisations such as the Young Catalan
Entrepreneurs (GE 5), the German Association
of Freelancers and Founders, in the
Netherlands to PZO, and in the UK to PCG.

I have never found

associations of much use...
I used to belongbut the
freelancer meetings were a

complete waste of time.

It would be nice to have a

body/group that really fought

for our interests.

43
Agencies and
umbrella bodies
For freelance workers, using an agency to
obtain contracts is a well-established route,
particularly in the new professions. Following
liberalisation in many member states, agency
working is growing across the EU and there
are many specialised agencies for specifc
professions, such as IT, translating, fnancial
services, HRM, interim management and
design work. Although agency use can
reduce likely earnings, several interviewees
valued them for sure client payment - as
will be seen, late payment emerges as a key
issue for many iPros if they have to obtain the
money themselves. Some agencies provide
help with visas, accreditation and provide
training, but none of our interviewees saw
agencies as their representatives. They were
used in a pragmatic way to widen commercial
opportunities, but seen valuable only in that
role.
Umbrella companies operate in several EU
states, especially in France. France has
its own national body - the National Union
of Companies of Portage (SNEPS). They
are widely used in Italy, have some role in
Germany and are well-established in the
UK. Umbrella companies provide fxed term
employee contracts for iPros, deal with
administrative matters and fscal requirements
on behalf of the iPro and can provide support
for cross border assignments. Many iPros
use an umbrella after fnding an assignment
through an agency. They often have a long-
standing relationship with both the agency
and the umbrella.
Umbrellas have not developed across the
in the UK, to set up state bodies that require
registration and set standards would suggest
this strategy is not proving effective. It is then
the individuals who are affected. For that
reason, its not surprising some professionals
are sceptical of collective identity and are more
focused on meeting needs arising from their
professional practice;
I like the small group that I belong to where we
rent a space for discussions. I like the informality
and building of confdence directly relevant for
my work. (FI 4)
Overall, iPros are as independent in their views
as they are in their professional practice. Many
value their professional identities, and many also
value the potential for networking and service-
sharing that professional bodies can offer.
For many, there are arguments for identifying
as part of a group not least in advancing
common interests but for others, a wariness
of creating the kind of authorities that they
want independents to avoid. This question of
the emerging role of professional bodies and
associations has become an important one.
It is likely that the traditional role of many as
providing the services and support of a learned
society are in serious need of review.
Supporting iPros: other
sources and innovation
Weve already touched upon the role of
independent professionals associations in the
new professions which take on a supportive
and representative function for their members.
Here we look at the support that they offer, along
with that offered in some member states by
trade unions and public bodies.
44
prevent effective social partnership models
emerging and promoting and protecting the
distinctive needs of iPros. However, we know
from other parts of the world, for example, USA
and Australia, that attempts are being made
to organise iPros into some form of social
dialogue and it may well be a growing, albeit
controversial, feature of European independent
working.
We interviewed a number of people working for
trade unions and sought their views on iPros. All
were from northern EU states. A senior policy
advisor from the TUC in the UK, when asked
about the attitude of unions to iPro working
said; so long as self-employment is a genuine
choice, trade unions would like them to join.
After so much labour market fragmentation,
trade unions have changed to provide a voice for
all (UK 7).
Evidence of
innovation
and cooperative
working practices
Many iPros, by defnition, are content to work
alone, develop their own networks and contacts
and obtain employment in an informal way. They
reject the idea of needing an association or
the like to represent them, just as many have
previously rejected the idea of working for a
large, hierarchical corporation or public body.
However, this is not true for all iPros.

There is emerging evidence of new collaborative
approaches to working independently, with some
enthusiasts claiming that through collaboration
iPros can challenge the pre-eminence of multi-
nationals in much service provision. Clearly,
setting up an informal co-operative, a modern
EU. Only some iPros fnd an umbrella right
for them, and none of those interviewed here
used them, so we were unable to gauge
whether they see umbrellas performing a
representational role. However, they are
well resourced and effective in promoting
policy issues but it is possible that to date
their agendas have been too economic and
not social enough for many of the iPros we
interviewed.
Te role of trade unions
Another dimension of some of the intrinsic
defnitional tensions of iPro working is the
role of trade unions. In some occupations
where iPros work in signifcant numbers,
trade unions have played important roles.
An obvious example is that of journalism.
In the UK the National Union of Journalists
continues to act on behalf of iPros and
negotiate with employers for them regarding
terms and conditions of employment. There is
evidence of collective bargaining, especially
within the newspaper industry. It is not
thought that agreements are strongly adhered
to, but they set a benchmark. The main
subject of negotiation is royalty payments, an
important issue for iPros. In the UK matters
of royalty payments are dealt with differently
through an independent association (ALCIS)
that collects revenues on a commercial basis
for iPros that are in its membership. These
differences illustrate well how complex and
variable the landscape for iPro associations
and supporters is.
The role of trade unions and collective
bargaining remains contentious. Some iPros
reject membership, as they argue they work
is an individualistic rather than collectivist
way. Others argue that there is nothing to
45
guild or some other form of association and by
using the most advanced technology, groups
of iPros can work together to provide a more
comprehensive service, yet retain independence.
Across the EU, organisations, generally
operating through websites, put clients in touch
with iPros. Examples are i-Freelance and the US
based website, Elance, which reports that it has
17,000 legal specialists, 148,000 translators and
35,000 fnance iPros available. It must be noted,
however, that there is no central database for
such organisations and no research project data
to draw on.
Some examples
of innovation
Here we look at three examples of what is
happening as a consequence in the rise of iPro
working. We have three very different examples.
The frst deals with major changes in the ways
that legal services are being delivered in the UK;
the second is about the rise of the co-working
movement across the EU and wider, and the
third is about local initiative for collaboration with
potential SMEs from Italy.
1. The high fying law frm
This concerns the experience of one new radical
structure for delivering legal services. This is
a frm called Scott-Moncrieff and Associates
Ltd (SCOMO), a top 500 listed UK law frm. It
specialises in mental health, child protection,
prison law, immigration and similar areas of
law broadly dealing with vulnerable people. It
is a limited company with just two directors,
supported by over 50 affliate (self-employed)
lawyers, spread throughout England and
Wales. It has recently become an Alternative
Business Structure, i.e. can have other non-law
professionals as members, and has trebled in
size in recent years. The company employs
an ICT specialist, compliance and fnance
personnel. It is clear that the success of this
business model has depended greatly on use
of appropriate technology to link the affliates,
clients and others. They use K-Cloud
powered by 2e2 that supports all their
management and complex communications
systems, along with a specialist help desk.
What is of particular interest is that SCOMO
not only represents a new type of working
for legal services provision, but has a
clear philosophy that goes well beyond
the channelling of work from a hub to
independent lawyers. It appeals to lawyers
whose needs are not met in conventional
frms
21
.
These lawyers are free to work as many hours
as they wish. They are also free to develop
their own client base, not burdened by tightly
drafted restraint clauses in their contracts.
As a dimension of the distinct philosophy, all
affliates have the same terms and conditions,
regardless of, say, age and experience.
SCOMO takes a percentage of earnings,
regardless of size of income. In terms of
career, the opportunities are the same for all.

Although most are qualifed lawyers, i.e.
members of a liberal profession, not all
are. This opens up the possibility of equal
treatment for an iPro not legally qualifed. The
key is skills and the ability to perform the legal
services role effectively.
There is no HR or recruitment structure and,
importantly, no strict hierarchy that traditional
law frms have. Importantly, SCOMO deals
with matters of professional compliance, e.g.
21. SCOMO website
46
The majority of such locations are run as
independent businesses, but some are operated
as chains or in alliance with other spaces. Most
are for-proft businesses, although a small
percentage are not-for-proft organisations or
operated by a government or public authority.
25

The average capacity of a co-working space is
40 members, but they vary in size from small
to very large, with some hosting hundreds of
individual workers.
26

Independent workers who are not provided with
a working location must fnd their own place to
undertake their contracted tasks. Many initially
work from home or within public locations with
wireless internet connections, such as coffee
shops or libraries. Co-working spaces are an
alternative to such public spaces, providing
a private and focused working environment
comparable to a traditional company offce.
Users of co-working spaces indicate that
they beneft from reduced isolation, improved
interaction with other individuals, wider
networking opportunities and knowledge
sharing.
27

In addition to basic work infrastructure, co-
working spaces are used as locations for events
such as professional development and training
courses, as well as networking events.
28
Apart
from networking between members, there are
also strong links between co-working spaces
both on national and international levels.
Co-working can also be effective in campaigning
for iPros. In Germany in 2012, co-working
spaces were used to quickly spread information
about a government policy to impose a monthly
mandatory retirement fee on all self-employed
renews the lawyers practising certifcates,
arranges insurance and provides support
for CPD etc. As the co-owner, Lucy Scott-
Moncrieff said; People want to join us and
often have lots of ideas. We put together
teams of specialists. Our job is to support our
lawyers, help them through the regulations
etc.
We know from research that many iPros
complain about the bureaucratic demands.
This model takes away from them much of
that burden. However, the frm also provides
support to the affliates through shared fle
reviews and team meetings at its London
offce. This model appears to meet many of
the aspirations of iPros - to focus on their skill,
to have a high degree of control, autonomy
and to have a good work/life balance. It
also ensures that the demands of liberal
professional regulation are met and there is
the possibility of collaborative work.
2. Co-working:
combining autonomy with collaboration
22

Co-working spaces are shared offces where
independent workers can rent a desk. They
provide the essential offce and working
equipment, as well as locations for meetings
and events. The frst co-working space
opened in San Francisco in 2006; as of March
2013 there were almost 2,500 such shared
working locations worldwide.
23
Surveys of
co-working space users show that 54% are
self-described freelancers; the remainder are
entrepreneurs with employees, employees of
entrepreneurs, and employees of small and
large companies.
24

22. This case study was contributed by Joel Dulroy, a member of EFIP.
23. http://blog.deskwanted.com/2013/02/press-release-new-study-reveals-coworking-boom-worldwide/
24. https://www.deskwanted.com/static/Deskmag-Global-Coworking-Survey-slides-lowres.pdf, page 14.
25. http://www.deskmag.com/en/the-birth-of-coworking-spaces-global-survey-176
26. https://www.deskwanted.com/static/Deskmag-Global-Coworking-Survey-slides-lowres.pdf, page 9.
27. https://www.deskwanted.com/static/Deskmag-Global-Coworking-Survey-slides-lowres.pdf, page 15.
28. http://www.deskmag.com/en/will-coworking-spaces-be-the-new-classrooms-university-school-686
47
maximum of 1,500 depending on the length
of the involvement.
In some ways this programme is similar to co-
working spaces. However, the fact that both
funding and some direction is brought by the
public offcial in charge of the programme
gives it a different focus. There is the
matching of iPros with SME potential start-
ups, the opportunity to explore ideas and
experiment as well as to develop collaborative
and professional and business skills.

Summary points
The iPro environment refects the
combination of general law, their place in
the tax and social security framework, the
regulatory treatment of their profession and
the support available
iPros are often in the gap between
individuals and businesses for tax
treatment; although rates and allowances
are typically similar, one key issue is that
iPros have to sometimes meet compliance
requirements designed with larger
businesses in mind
iPros have very varying relations to
the social security system. Contributions
vary around those paid by employees
and employers. Entitlement and eligibility
for benefts varies greatly, especially for
unemployment and disability insurance
iPros legal status is a crucial distinction
in all member states, primarily relating to
their subordination to or dependency on
businesses with whom they contract.
iPros in all member states may trade as
sole proprietors or may incorporate; the
costs and benefts of incorporation vary
signifcantly between member states
iPros professional regulations vary greatly
workers. The opponents of this policy contacted
co-working spaces to share the information with
their members and sign a petition. This resulted
in over 80,000 individuals signing up, creating
pressure on the government to reconsider the
policy.
29

Co-working spaces provide an interesting
platform for the development of both iPros
individually through professional development
events, and collectively in developing a voice.
3 Local collaboration and support in Italy.
R
30
, who was interviewed for the research
as a non-iPro, has worked for many years in
economic development. He has experience
of working in many parts of Italy, in particular
in supporting business start-ups through
local incubator programmes. There is a high
level of unemployment, including graduate
unemployment in the area he currently works in.
He also thinks that the liberal professions, that
remain very powerful, can still thwart innovation
and development but the situation is unlikely to
change without national intervention and strong
measures.
Now working in a local district in northern Italy,
he has become involved with iPros as well as
potential SMEs. He appreciates the differences
between the two groups, with SMEs keen to
build and grow, whereas iPros like freedom, to
be able to organise themselves, choice, variety
and being an expert. He also appreciates that
iPros can provide tailor-made solutions, be
fexible, provide services on a different basis. So
the idea is to bring the potential SMEs together
with potential iPros on an urban farm to work
collaboratively and use their differences to real
effect. The local authority provides some funding
to encourage participation, from 400 to a
29. http://www.deskmag.com/en/50-000-freelancers-strike-back-petition-against-retirement-tax-succeeds-384
30. R wished to remain anonymous. This case study was provided by a local government offcial, who was interviewed for the research
according to their status. Established,
liberal professions often have more
elaborate legal privileges, balanced with
more robust professional standards. In
many states there have been challenges to
their privileged status, though changes
have been limited. New professions rely on
more general iPro organisations to support
them; they vary greatly by member state
and also in terms of whether and how iPros
need professional representation
Legal changes within the EU to recognise
professional qualifcations, ease cross
border working and support competition
are helpful but need reinforcement
Within most member states there are
support structures, networks etc, provided
on both a public and private basis, though
public support including from the EU is
generally very limited
48
49
How iPros work:
the individual experience
To understand how we can shape an
enabling environment for iPros, we need to
understand how they win and deliver work,
and the obstacles, problems and supports they
encounter along the way. To succeed as an iPro
means continually evolving professional and
commercial skills, accessing and managing
fnance, structuring business affairs, developing
client relationships, obtaining payment, and
fnding expert advice and support when
necessary. This chapter is about iPro working
and refects on how the supportive framework
can be improved.
These micro factors, which make up the
everyday experiences of iPros, make a decisive
difference to the opportunities available for
those considering independent working and
understanding them allows us to understand
how policy can help as well as hinder iPro
development. Where in chapter 3 we looked
at the broader shape of the public framework,
such as tax or beneft levels and professional
regulation, here we look more closely at the day
to day working experiences of iPros. Inevitably,
this chapter is based very much on their stories
and their views.
We explore:
Starting out as an iPro: the pro and anti
factors
The ease of doing business: the
administrative framework
Finding your way around: information for
iPros
Getting expert advice: on fnance, business
structures and taxation
Accessing work: forging networks, winning
business and getting paid
Developing and maintaining skills:
professional and business skills
Assessing the positives and negatives:
what makes a difference?
Where do
iPros come from?
Becoming an iPro represents a signifcant life
choice. For that reason, its worth considering
in a little more depth why people choose
to become a self-employed or freelance
professional in the frst place. Chapter 2 noted
the reasons given by the iPros we interviewed
for becoming independent. Motivations and
expectations of independent working are
likely to be a refection of personal appetite,
but also the experiences and preconceptions
of friends and family.
Making the choice to work independently
is a refection of how those many factors
interact, painting a picture of risk, opportunity
and experience and making a judgement
as to whether it offers something for you.
Psychology has a big role to play here, but
CHAPTER 4
50
Where the reports deal with different issues, it
will be made clear.
What do people want?
Across the EU, 58% (49%) prefer employee
status and 37% (45%) prefer self-employment.
Attitudes differ markedly by nation: 30% (26%)
of Belgians prefer self-employment, compared
to 45% (64%) of Cypriots. However, there is a
constant decline through the period, no doubt
refecting the effect of prolonged economic
uncertainty: in all of our nine EU states, aside
from Poland and Belgium, the preference for
self-employment fell. In Finland only 24% (34%)
preferred self-employment and only 29% (36%)
in Germany.
The reasons given for EU citizens preferring
employment to self-employment emphasises
the benefts of a secure income and regular
working hours. The perceived insecurity of self-
employment deters EU citizens, but so too does
the fear of failure, bureaucracy, and especially
limited fnances or skills to succeed. This fear
of failure is most stark in relation to young
people (<25), with a paltry 17% wanting to be
entrepreneurs, compared with 60% in South
Africa and 30% in Middle East states.
32
Leaving
aside some substantial national differences,
within the EU there are clear demographic
variables at work in shaping the preference to
be employed or self-employed. Men, younger
people, the better educated, and those with an
entrepreneurial family background are all more
likely to prefer self-employment. Even though
fnance is a key reason for many EU respondents
to prefer employed status, its interesting that
present income doesnt seem to be a signifcant
factor in deciding for or against self-employment
as a preference.
so too do many practical considerations.
As well as having motivation, becoming an
iPro means assessing whether you have the
professional talent, the networks and the
business skill to manage as an independent.
There are big questions here, but relatively
little data with which to try and answer
them. The recent EU Eurobarometer studies
on attitudes and expectations of self-
employment are particularly useful because
they do at least explore self-employment as a
subset.
31

However, it must be borne in mind that the
scope of the Eurobarometers was much wider
than iPros. The responses to the surveys
could apply to contemplating opening a
shop or caf, becoming a window cleaner
or starting a car valeting service through
to setting up a childrens nursery, software
company or fnancial consultancy. iPro work is
a distinct minority of self-employment and its
likely that the factors infuencing a decision
to become self-employed will differ from
the generality of those contemplating iron
working.
The feldwork for Eurobarometer 283 took
place in 2009 and for Eurobarometer 354
was conducted in 2012. It is clear that
there have been major changes in attitudes
towards self-employment during this period.
The recession has taken hold, with a general
move towards preferring the perceived
security of employment. Attitudes towards
self-employment have become both more
cautious and realistic. In the following
sections the data is based on the 2012 survey.
In order that we can see the changes over
the three year period, the data for 2009 will
be presented in brackets after that for 2012.
31. Entrepreneurism in the EU and Beyond (2010) Flash Eurobarometer 283, European Commission; Entrepreneurism in the EU and Beyond
(2012) Flash Eurobarometer 354, European Commission
32. Youth Business International (2013) Generation Entrepreneur? The state of global youth entrepreneurship Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
51
Why are so
many attracted to
self-employment
deterred from
working this way?
For all the preferences expressed for self-
employment, reality remains some distance
behind aspiration. Despite the recession, 37%
of the European workforce wants to be self-
employed, but only 15% actually are. So why
is there such a gap between aspiration and
reality?
Eurobarometers 283 and 354 explore this
question in some detail. Looking at those
currently not self-employed, 37% (45%)
would prefer to strike out on their own but
only 30% (28%) thought it was feasible in
practice. This deterrence gap of 14% in
2009 has grown substantially from 5% since
2007, before the onset of the recession.
However, although fewer now prefer self-
employment, the deterrence gap has closed
in the last three years. Figure 4.1 highlights
the different deterrence gaps across the nine
member states in this study:
Why prefer
self-employment?
According to the 2009 data, the reasons for self-
employment being a preference are much as
we would expect - independence and fulflment
(68%), followed by fexibility over work (35%),
with income prospects (20%) and business
opportunities (9%) some distance behind. That
emphasis on fulflment and fexibility applies
across demographic segments, although it does
vary signifcantly with nationality.
Interestingly, and this chimes with many of
our interviewees, a key driver for becoming
independent was dissatisfaction with previous
work (56%) along with having a business idea
(85%). Importantly, becoming self-employed
was a positive choice: an opportunity (55%) far
more than a necessity (28%).
Regardless of their own preferences, most
respondents had a positive view of the value
of self-employed/entrepreneurs in general. A
total of 53% (49%) view the self-employed
favourably, compared with 25% (28%) for top
managers and 12% for politicians. Only the
liberal professions at 57% (58%) were rated
more highly than the self-employed. Again, there
are major national differences, with, for example,
the self-employed in Poland and Spain greatly
increasing their favourability rating in contrast
to the much lower ratings for Finland and
Germany.
For all the preferences
expressed for self-employment,
reality remains some distance
behind aspiration. 37% of the
European workforce wants to
be self-employed, but only 15%
actually are.

52
Figure 4.1: The deterrence gap across the nine states
This data confrms a decline in the preference for self-employment since 2009, but a signifcant
increase in those considering it feasible. However, in some states such as Finland, there has
been a decline in the feasibility rate. Why might this have happened? It is, as referred to earlier,
unsurprising that fewer people see self-employment as desirable in diffcult economic times.
As much as it offers a measure of general cultural willingness to work independently, the
deterrence gap seems to have little bearing on actual levels of self-employment. If anything, larger
gaps seem to correlate with higher rates of self-employment, and there is no obvious relationship
to self-employment growth generally either. Some of this may simply be a refection of subjective
differences in perception the measure picks up the cultural distinction in perception rather than
the underlying contrast in experience and certainly the continuing positive balance of feasibility
in Finland (9%), would support such a view.
It is possible that states that have invested in support programmes are reaping the beneft, with
Belgium and the Netherlands having policies to support self-employment showing strong interest
in self-employment and reduced deterrence. Compare this with Spain, as we shall see in later
chapters with few support polices, where the interest has stagnated.
Te impact of demographics and education
Although men are more likely to prefer self-employment, gender makes no difference in
deterrence terms. Indeed, men and women reveal quite similar views on whether reconciling
family life makes self employment feasible. In terms of age, the 2009 data reveals that in later
age groups there is a growing deterrence gap of those 55+ only 13% see it as feasible. This
53
Preparedness for
self-employment
Concerns over feasibility arise from the
barriers people perceive over starting up on
their own. Eurobarometer 354 found that 79%
(81%) of respondents see lack of fnancial
support as a barrier to self-employment; 72%
(71%) see complex administrative process
and 51% see a lack of information as barriers.
Part of the wider question of skills
development is whether aspirant iPros and
other entrepreneurs have the requisite skills
and know-how to make sense of regulations
and manage their own business affairs
accounts, credit control, ICT, commercial
negotiation. Even where they require expertise
(for example an accountant) do they know
what support they are buying and how to
obtain it? Do they know how to draw on
expertise to advance their own goals? There
are a lot of key choices to be made, and
a certain level of know how is essential to
survive regardless of how big those barriers
may become. These issues were explored in
our interviews.
Of those responding to the Eurobarometer
354 survey, 51% (50%) reported that
their schooling had helped to foster an
entrepreneurial attitude and 25% reported
that practical measures had been put in place
to help them. There were major differences
between member states and a real contrast
with USA and China where activity is much
greater. Worryingly, there appears to have
been a decline in the role of schools within the
EU in what might be called entrepreneurship
education. In 2012, 23% reported having
taken a course on entrepreneurism.
Respondents with lower levels of education or
is interesting, not least because the EU and
many member states have policies encouraging
active ageing. It may be that there is a bigger
deterrence for older people, say, starting a retail
business, buying a farm, or doing construction
work rather than becoming a consultant,
designer or writer. Nonetheless, there seems
much work to be done to translate those active
policies into practice.

Those that left school at 15 are very unlikely to
prefer self-employment or consider it feasible.
The picture changes dramatically for those
with graduate qualifcations. This last group is
most likely to consist of budding iPros. Whether
through greater savvy, greater skill or improved
fnancial position, the more educated see self-
employment as a greatly more viable option;
with feasibility nearly tripling. Our interviews
confrm this picture, as virtually all had graduate
level qualifcations at least. Amongst other
factors impacting on higher levels of preference
for self-employment is location, income and type
of work.
What drives feasibility? Although it doesnt seem
to make a difference to the preference for self-
employment, personal fnancial circumstances
and the wider economic climate are key
concerns; family obligations and lack of ideas
and skills also fgure highly. There are again
differences between member states, but also
among demographic segments: those aged
over 55 or with advanced education are less
concerned by fnancial constraints and those
between 25-39 are most concerned about the
wider economic climate.
54
inform the choice which determines who does
and who doesnt fall into the gaps between
aspiration, feasibility and actually setting up as
an independent worker. Some of the barriers are
internal fear of failure, a preference for a secure
income or regular working hours and are the
product of long-term psychosocial, cultural and
institutional factors.
But other barriers are highly practical: the
infrastructure, processes, skills, advice, and
something not covered by the Eurobarometer
surveys accessing markets to win work which
can provide a self-employed income. Another
matter not explored in the Eurobarometers
but were covered in our interviews was the
impact of what iPros had been doing prior
to iPro working. It is plausible that there are
major differences between starting as an iPro
having been an employee in the profession
and having built up confdence, networks and
skills, to moving directly to iPro working from
education. Our interviews broadly confrmed
that these were important factors. All of these
factors can together prevent a feasible aspiration
translating into successful iPro working. There
is a distinction between those deeper personal
factors and these more specifc, practical
barriers but both can impact success or failure.
We look now at those practical barriers in some
detail. We can and should change structures
and support networks to help people to more
easily become self-employed. We should
fnd the right type of support and not assume
peoples needs, but we should also remember
that the driving force for individuals is typically
a decision to seek a more fulflled, independent
and fexible life. This decision affects how those
who do work independently go about it: how
they deal with their business, how they obtain
support and from whom, and how they develop
current income were the least likely to report
that their schooling had helped prepare them
for an entrepreneurial life. There are major
differences between states on the question of
entrepreneurship education and while there
have been some dramatic improvements in
some EU states, this has been more moderate
or even in decline in some states.

The survey did not deal with higher education,
vocational education or other institutions,
but it must be concluded that entrepreneurial
education is not a strength for the EU, and if
anything, is in decline. Indeed, a recent study
of the role of universities concluded that
entrepreneurship education was initially of
some value, but was not sustained.
33


iPros and
the independent life
The evidence on self-employment highlights
some interesting tensions. Independent
working is an attractive, preferred option
for around four in ten people in the EU. For
nearly three of those four people, working
independently isnt just preferable: its
feasible, too. And yet, when it comes down
to it, only one or two of them are going
on to do it.
This tells us that when we talk about barriers,
theyre not seen as insurmountable. They
Worryingly, there appears
to have been a decline in the
role of schools within the
EU in what might be called
entrepreneurship education.
33. Greene, F and Saridakis, G (2008) The role of higher education skills and support in graduate self-employment, Studies in Higher Education,
vol. 33; 653-672
55
their career. While we focus on the more concrete side of those issues, we shouldnt forget the
role of psychological factors in shaping them. Eurobarometer 354 tells us much, in this context,
about how important people consider both role models (62%) and mentors (62%).
Te ease of working as an independent professional
Chapter 3 highlighted the wide variety of arrangements, processes and practices involved in
engaging with government: for paying taxes, accessing social security payments, structuring
business affairs, working across frontiers and keeping to the various rules and regulations. Some
iPros have further layers of compliance and contribution to maintain professional status and
ensure that they remain up to date with the evolving state of their profession.
Eurobarometer 354 (2012) asked respondents their view on the statement: it is diffcult to start
ones own business due to the complex administrative procedures. From the 27 EU member
states, some 72% (71%) strongly agreed or agreed with this statement (29% strongly agreed).
Less than 4% strongly disagreed, though the responses varied greatly as between our nine
states. The response is similar to that from the USA; interestingly, in China and South Korea only
57% strongly agreed or agreed. The data for our nine states shows considerable variations and is
shown in Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2 Respondents agreeing that starting ones own business is diffcult (%)
It can be seen that although there have been improvement in some states for example, Italy
and Belgium red tape, appears to be a major deterrent. The many calls within the EU for
reduced burdens on businesses have not resulted in meaningful actions for those becoming self-
employed. But is the perception worse than the reality? Are there some processes or rules which
are particularly hard to deal with? We offer some of the specifcs of administrative processes
in the national reports which can be found in Annexe 1. Our interviews revealed a somewhat
56
and so there continues a need for robust data on
this topic. Secondly, there is the more subtle yet
powerful anti-migration culture in some states,
intensifed by the recession.
Where do iPros get help?
iPros have highly variable fnancial
circumstances and many do not have access
to professional expertise, such as accountants.
Many struggle with a rather infexible, rather than
complex administrative or fscal structure.
Those who set up an SME can generally take
advantage of tax measures designed to support
initial start-up costs and diffculties by offsetting
losses for one year against another year. iPros
are generally faced with fxed payments for
social security and tax. In effect, obligations are
often front-loaded. They have few opportunities
for sliding scales and although, for example,
the auto-entrepreneur in France has had some
fscal advantages in their early iPro phase
of working, interviewees reported that many
advantages were declining or being phased out.
Hence, the question of sheer survival for many,
especially young iPros, emerged strongly from
our interviews.
What are the options
for business structures?
Another important consideration (and one for
which professional advice is very often required)
when dealing with fscal and other bodies is
selecting the legal form through which business
is conducted. In most countries it is possible
to be an independent worker. This status is
generally closely scrutinised by fscal and other
authorities to assess whether it is genuine or a
sham employment status set up to avoid social
different picture than Eurobarometer data
might suggest, but thats not to say that there
arent some major problems and barriers
encountered.
What did we
learn from our iPros?
Overall, and despite the data from the
Eurobarometers, few of our interviewees
complained about the administrative
processes themselves. A typical comment
was; It was easy to get going. I am a lawyer
and I know what is needed (PL 1).
Although most iPros coped with the
administrative rules both in terms of starting
up and then on an ongoing basis, many
commented that the system could be better:
for example, better use of on-line facilities,
more one stop shops, better training for
staff in the particular needs of iPros and
the avoidance of delays (for example at tax
offces).
Several of our iPros worked across borders.
Few reported diffculties and recognised
the need to comply with tax requirements
although it was clear that some iPros had
deliberately chosen to work in states where
the regime for iPro working was seen as
relatively benign, such as Netherlands, and
the UK. A typical comment was; I choose not
to work in some countries where you face lots
of problems (ES 1). It seems important that
barriers to cross-border working tend to come
from two sources. First, there are problems
in accessing regulated professions, despite
moves to weaken restrictive practices in many
states. Perhaps, understandably, people are
reluctant to discuss their problems in this area
57
much practical experience and comparable
qualifcations.
34

Business structures:
evidence from
our interviews
Most of the iPros we interviewed simply
worked as sole practitioners, in some cases
because their professional body required
them to, but sometimes out of choice.

Some set up limited companies due to there
being fnancial advantages of doing so. In
other states, people could not use a limited
company but had to remain self-employed.
Clearly, for some there were cost implications,
both regarding the advice and support
required but also the cost of setting up a
company. In some states, companies can be
set up very easily and there is no requirement
for a cash injection or, say, guarantors. In
many states, this is not the case, though the
cash injection requirements are becoming
more fexible in many states.

Some people offered explicitly non-fnancial
reasons for their choices such as separating
personal and professional lives. Clearly, there
were mixed views on this, with some reacting
negatively to using a separate legal entity;
I felt no need for protection of a limited
company. Anyway, there is too much red
tape (UK 4).
A number of our interviewees had experience
of working through co-operatives. This, of
course, is not truly independent working, but
those who had experience of it spoke well of
the support and direction they had received
security obligations. However, once accepted,
in most states it was reported to us that it is
relatively easy to start working.
There are other options in some states, for
example, the Portage Salarial in France and the
similar model in the UK, the umbrella company.
Both provide structure for iPros and relieve them
of many administrative tasks, including fscal
matters, but iPros are treated as employees and
national fscal rules are applied accordingly for
the length of the assignment. However, for many
iPros it may be more sensible to set up some
form of company which creates a separate legal
entity with some division of liabilities between
the business and the iPros domestic affairs.

Most countries provide a wide choice of
business models; but the selection can be
complex and implementation can sometimes
require the completion of signifcant
administrative paperwork. All such transactions
are separate from those required in terms of
licensing, qualifcation or other permission to
trade as a professional. Most member states
regulate the right to work as an iPro through
some, typically local, public institution; this may
be the local government or the Chamber of
Commerce.

This emphasis on local institutions can be
helpful in ensuring responsiveness, but there
are additional complications when seeking to
practice across member state borders. While
EU competition law and freedom of movement
rules provide formal guarantees, non-nationals
can experience signifcant barriers in being
recognised or being permitted to trade without
additional burdens being placed upon them.
With regulated professions, the problems often
lie with heavy training and other demands
being placed on a migrant, despite their having
34. See the European Commission communication Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan (2013) COM (2012) fnal, whose recommendations are
considered more fully in Chapter 5. This deals in some detail with red tape and administration.
58
Getting registered
Figure 4.3 shows the procedures which need to
be followed to work as an iPro in Poland.

Figure 4.3 An example of getting started
Poland
Under the Freedom of Business Activity Act
2004 (as amended), self- employment is
defned as a for proft production, construction,
commercial and service activity pursued on
an organised and continuous basis. Polish law
assumes that the self-employed arent managed
by their clients and that they bear the risk of the
economic activity. Polish law appears relatively
clear in aiming to differentiate the genuine self-
employed from others and it is to be anticipated
that iPros would not face major problems as a
result of the Labour Code; their activities are
clearly covered by the commercial law.
The following are the key stages in getting
started
Entry onto the Register of Business
Activities. This register is held locally and it
cost around 25 to register. Key documents
have to be provided for authenticity. This
process takes around two weeks
Obtain a REGON number, fled with the
national statistics offce; this gets the
individual on to a national data base
apparently a relatively quick process.
Obtain a company seal, which is needed for
banking and fnancial purposes. All
previously approved documents have to be
provided.
Set up a bank account
Register with the tax offce
Register with the social security institution
Notify the offce in the city or commune
where your business operates from
from working that way. Support for those
moving from education into freelance working
or from being an employee could be better
managed. A sharing structure such as a co-
operative is one option, but, of course, there
are others such as the new guilds and co-
working that are considered elsewhere in this
report.

Across the EU27 there is a marked hostility
to administrative complexity, and a real
sense that it inhibits the choice to become
self-employed and discourages iPros
from continuing to work in this way. Almost
three quarters of those thinking about self-
employment see administration as a barrier.
Very few in any member state feel able
to strongly disagree with the contention
that administrative complexity represents
a challenge to self-employment. Within the
EU, the Small Business Act 2008 has sought
to reduce administrative burden, but it has
no explicit plan for the self-employed; they
beneft only as they overlap with the micro
businesses the Act seeks to help.
Tere is a marked hostility to
administrative complexity, and
a real sense that it inhibits the
choice to become self-employed
and discourages iPros from
continuing to work in this way.
59
What information
is available?
Part of the problem can sometimes be
identifying the information that is available;
there often is useful information around
for those planning on working as iPros or
needing to update their knowledge. The
EUs employment agency, EURES, produces
factsheets in all the offcial languages about
working in each member state, which does
cover working independently. Only offering a
basic prospectus, the factsheets do provide
information about other useful national
sources, both offcial and wider.
Information about qualifcations is clearly
an important issue. Beyond the regulated
professions, there has been much recent
activity to internationalise qualifcations in
some professions. CEDEFOP has produced
a Guide Use of International Qualifcations
(2012) - which covers the provision of
privately validated as well as offcial
qualifcations

What did the iPros say?
From the interviews, we found some
interesting national differences. It was those
in states with a strong sense of a social model
and where many iPros allied themselves
more closely with the labour market than
the business market where the iPros felt
most frustrated by the lack of offcial/
public information. Interestingly, some of
our non-iPro interviewees commented very
critically on these attitudes, stating these
people starting up today as freelance want
to have the freedom and the ability to work
autonomously, but they also want a wrap
round security and want to be looked after
Although this list of requirements looks
extensive, none of the tasks are considered
especially time consuming, although Polish law
seems to assumes the registration will be done
in person.
Ofcial information
By nature and profession, most iPros consider
themselves able to track down information from
a range of sources, and able to contact people
via social media. They consider themselves able
to assess what information should be available
and who should provide it be it regarding
tax and social security, pensions, business
structures, liability and insurance issues, or
wider regulation. Too often, iPros fnd their
expectations are not met information is hard
to track down, and often simply not provided
by those bodies which should provide it, or in a
form or language which makes it more diffcult
than necessary.
Governments often create subsidised
information sources for SMEs, and also for
employees but with no sense of whether iPros
can draw upon them for advice. Sometimes,
a particular scheme is heralded as being a
breakthrough in encouraging entrepreneurs
or innovation, but when it is read by iPros,
the information talks about small business, or
employees and employers and iPros are invisible
in the scheme or even deliberately excluded
from it.
Governments often create
subsidised information sources
for SMEs, and also for
employees but with no sense
of whether iPros can draw upon
them for advice.
60
complying with specifc legislation, such as
health and safety and various provisions to
protect the public. Choices have to be made-
whether to set up a company and if so what
type? Whether to build a website? Whether to
use an agency? Whether to use an umbrella
company? Advice is especially required where
iPros plan to work outside their home state. If
professional advice is needed, from lawyers,
accountants or intellectual property specialists,
the costs can often be signifcant. There is
limited data on the scale of demand among
iPros for professional advice, or their experience
of it as consumers.

In some member states, and in certain
professions, trade unions have specifcally
accommodated the needs of iPros. In comments
by our interviewees, professional bodies
35
have a
much appreciated role of providing professional
support to iPros/freelancers. Many iPros have
also joined organisations designed specifcally
to cover a range of professions such as
those referred to above, as well as dedicated
professional bodies, especially in the liberal
professions. The EFIP membership refects both
types of organisations. We used these networks
to explore the experience of supplying advice to
iPros in our interviews with both iPros and those
working for these organisations.
It has to be noted that these private, as well as
public sources of advice are of variable. They
are a good starting point but little more. It was
necessary to fnd out from iPros themselves
what their experiences have been.
(DE 6). In those countries where freelance
working had become more distinctive and
established and had set up many structures
to support individuals, the lack of offcial
information was less keenly felt. Into the frst
group would go Germany, Finland, Italy, and,
to an extent, France, and into the second
Netherlands, Belgium and the UK.
Some of the iPros had advanced business
qualifcations or stated that they had a good
idea of what was required to start work
and they did not seek out government web
sites and the like. We also found through
the interviews a number who were involved
in organisations that, in part, themselves
provided information for iPros or budding
iPros. One interviewee in Belgium lectured
on the topic, wrote books and contributed
to television programmes and another
interviewee from Germany contributed to a
radio station and promoted innovative support
structures for the self-employed, such as the
co-working movement referred to in
Chapter 3.
Some iPros had obtained advice from
predictable sources such as their bank or
professional body, but a number simply
sought information from their friends. Some
felt they did not need any information; I knew
I could do it, so I just did it. I did not feel the
need for more information (IT 1).
Where do iPros get
support and advice?
Most iPros need advice on a range of
technical and legal issues in setting up and
operating their business. These range from
tax and social security issues through to
35. such as in the UK PCG, in the Netherlands PZO, in France FEDAE, in Italy ACTA and Unione di Commercio, and in Spain ATA and UPTA.
61
There are other important areas where advice
is generally needed: knowledge of business
context, intellectual property and generating
sales. There is also the key issue of
negotiating and managing contracts for work.
The nature of iPro working is that they work
for a range of clients in a range of business
contexts, all of which they need to understand
to work effectively. How and where do they
get advice on this?
Although many saw the fnance issue as
relatively unimportant, some had substantial
concerns. One IT professional said; I am
more worried about running costs and not
having a pension which has hit me badly.
(BE 2)
This reminds us that iPro working can be very
precarious, often with heavy social costs but
limited access to support and with periods
without work. The question of fnancing is
therefore much wider than getting a bank
loan. At the same time, fnancial advice is
necessary and some struggled with gaining
this.

By contrast, some in the sample had received
government or other fnancial support in the
form of start-up grants. Two iPros receiving
this reported that they had beneftted from
the fnancial support, not least because
the schemes combined payment with skills
development. They did not refer to mentoring
or other support structures, but it did build
confdence, introduce people to networks and
their professional work certainly seemed to be
thriving.

Aside from fnancial matters, interviewees
reported poor experiences in seeking support
and advice: several reported that had
What did we learn from
the interviews on sources
of advice and support?
Although iPros supplied much of the information
here, we also consider views from state offcials,
trade unionists, leaders of professional support
organisations, policy makers and academic
experts. Many of the non-iPros were very
senior and very experienced. For example,
they included Secretary General or President
or Policy Director of professional bodies, senior
policy advisors of trade unions, an ombudsman
of a trade union and some themselves provided
support for iPros.
Our sample tended to be well educated,
articulate and, one suspects, better able than
most to navigate and use possible sources of
support. Even then though, many struggled
to access good advice for setting up their
business. It came across as very hit and miss
experience, with much time being wasted
and basic errors made. There were national
differences but also in terms of profession,
with the writing professions and those working
across marketing, media and counselling work
reporting some of the greatest diffculties.
The advice and support most iPros were seeking
was about fscal and regulatory matters, as well
as business models and entrepreneurial skills.
They also sought advice on work-life balance
issues: iPros are as much as employees at risk
of stress, of isolation and the risk of overwork.
This is a critical area for advice and support. We
know from research data that although iPros
report themselves to be less prone to stress,
illness generally and, say, domestic diffculties,
that is not to say the all iPros cope well with
working independently.
62
hospital appointments, holidays and caring
responsibilities all have to be covered from the
work that is done creating pressure to succeed
and to sustain success. All but fve interviewees
had suffered periods without work in the last fve
years.
For some iPros there are major restrictions
on how they can obtain work. Most liberal
professionals in all states are affected by
restrictions. Some cannot advertise, cannot
set their own fees or aim to undercut a fellow
professional, cannot undertake certain types of
work or work with a professional from another
discipline. These diffculties are often offset by
monopoly or other privileges which increase
their earning prospects. Although there have
been moves towards de-regulation in many
states, some of these rules remain very robust
and are typically strictly enforced.
Several of our non-iPro interviewees spoke
of the growing opportunities for iPro working
through client organisations becoming more
fexible, using outsourcing and being willing to
experiment. Their arguments were that there is
much work available and iPros need to ensure
they get it.
Actually obtaining work is a constant priority.
Most of those we interviewed were successful
and worked full time, but sometimes over
80 hours a week. Unlike the Eurobarometer
responses on self-employment, where part-
time work is common and hours are in line with
employees, our sample told a different story.
It was not just the risk of feast or famine, but
the need to complete assignments on time
and effciently and also the risks, even when
hard-pressed, of rejecting work. Some of the
older and more established iPros that were
interviewed were more relaxed and did not work
received no advice at all.
Were the
advice sources useful?
Were any sources of advice helpful or did all
the iPros struggle alone? The answer to the
frst question is yes, but very few mentioned
offcial sources of advice. In many cases
some of the potential sources of advice were
not thought appropriate for iPros. Some
mentioned Chambers of Commerce but
then added that the Chambers were for real
entrepreneurs. Others thought there might
be publicly available information but did not
know where to get it.
Many, especially from the UK, Netherlands,
and Italy mentioned the advice and support
they had from accountants and many felt that
legal advice was important but expensive.
Several used their professional bodies
and reported that they had found them
very useful, but for many it was self-help.
There was no bureaucracy, just access to
professional know-how. Trade unions, too,
were commented on as sources of advice.
There was a strong sense from the interviews
of many problems, including poor treatment
by offcials, delays and some confusion. The
application of the rules relating to VAT caused
particular anger, but often there was simply a
sense of hostility from some offcials and an
air of distrust (UK 3).
Obtaining
and sustaining work
For an iPro there are no guarantees earning
a living means winning and sustaining work. If
there is no work, there is no pay, and illness,
63
for IT, design, writing, interim management.
Some also provide some back up support
and training.
Some of our interviewees used agencies, not
so much because they got more or better
assignments but because they are such
much better than me in securing payment
quickly and effectively but they also undertake
some tasks for me such as proof reading (FR
2). However, some were unenthusiastic about
agencies, Overall, I have not found them
much good for getting work (UK 4).
A few made comments about the use of on-
line jobs boards. Although a few said they
found them useful, others were highly critical.
I use word of mouth. I wont bid for jobs
on job boards - it drives down rates (DE1).
Similar comments were made about tendering
and in places where there is a strong sense
of a freelance community there is a tension
between collaboration and competition.

Very few used traditional press advertising,
although for varying reasons. Sometimes it
was simply because it is ineffective. However,
one writer said; Advertising sends out the
wrong signals. It is much more important
to put yourself about, attend events and
generally be visible (UK 3). Being visible
was mentioned by several iPros, and some
felt that a website was helpful in this regard,
though there were generally very mixed views
on the value of websites to attract work.
Sometimes, radio and TV work was seen as
preferable, though much depended on the
profession in question.

Although many had their own website, use
overall was by a minority. Use was seen as
sensible for those whose work was connected
very long hours, but, certainly for most people
starting out, it seemed to be required. Several of
our younger iPros had more than one iPro job;
one had three roles: teaching, importing goods
and their work as a translator.
Many reported that getting going was hard.
As one senior offcial of an iPro support
organisation put it; Finding your frst client is
the most diffcult thing. I try to help by publishing
a book with advice, I hold meetings and the
organisation has a set-up portal. One third of
those that set out quickly fail. Its cruel (FR 8).
How did they get work?
Broadly speaking, although the people we
interviewed had different professions and skills
and different client bases, relatively few had
developed a strategic approach to accessing
work. That is not to say they had not thought
about what worked and what didnt but rather
that the methods seemed more intuitive than
strategic. Very few spoke in terms of marketing
themselves or having a marketing plan. The
preference was clearly much more for informal
and personal contacts.

In fact, when seeking work, iPros have a wide
range of options, especially in the context of
advances made by IT and social media. They
can use employment agencies, especially ones
that specialise in their area of work, such as

Finding your frst client is the

most difcult thing.

Relatively few had developed a
strategic approach to accessing
work.
64
other than continuing to attract work. This is
a bit limiting, as many would likely appreciate
constructive criticism.
A few mentioned the benefts of having one or
two regular clients who could be relied on to
supply a steady stream of work, or enough to
pay household or family expenses. Clearly, there
are risks here, if having such reliance on one
or two clients may be seen as an indication of
sham employment relationship as considered
in Chapters 1 and 3. Where, for example, in IT or
a liberal profession, assignments or projects can
be lengthy and perhaps repeated, the risks are
greater and in the interviews we were told of an
increased tendency for fscal authorities to probe
this area.

Getting paid
Although we did not probe this area in depth,
we are aware that delays in payment are a major
problem for iPros. It appears that the smaller
the debt, the smaller the creditor, but often the
larger the debtor, the more likely that pay will be
delayed. For an iPro delays for even a moderate
sum can be catastrophic. Across the EU, 96%
of bankruptcies and cessations of trading cite
late payment as a signifcant cause. Some of
our interviewees were philosophical about the
problem, but others had procedures in place to
minimise the risk and some professional bodies
offer insurance against this. This is an area
requiring more research but also the sharing of
best practice. Some commented on the fact
that although debt enforcement procedures
are available, by the time legal and other costs
are taken into account its not worth the effort.
They called for a debt enforcement policy that is
sensitive to the needs of one-person businesses.
with it, such as website designers, people
in marketing and for IT work in general.
However, some reported that little work was
gained by using a website and that it could
be time consuming dealing with enquiries
that led to nothing. Those who worked in the
media, for example, as TV journalists, tended
to have a website so as to maintain visibility
but generally the telephone, the business card
and using networks seemed far more popular
methods of seeking work.
Many simply spoke of word of mouth or
being well known in their local community
as their method of getting work. This was
often followed by an explanation of the
networks they used. Clearly, a number simply
waited for work to come to them but some
were a bit more systematic about it. For
example, one said; I work from the ground
up. I shamelessly use all my contacts, do
lots of cold calling and hope that things will
snowball (FN 1).
The question of referrals was interesting. For
many it is a passive process, responding to
enquiries arriving as a result of reputation
and track record, with little direct control.
However, the extent to which iPros ask for
recommendations or testimonials proved
surprisingly controversial. For example, in
Spain, it is common practice for testimonials
to be provided and asked for, but this was not
the norm across all states.
Most of the interviewees were deterred from
asking for recommendations in a formal way,
feeling it might damage the professional
relationship with a client. As the lack of formal
recommendations is coupled with the rarity
of formal feedback on assignments, iPros
have little to rely on as indicating success
65
working or sought advice and/or support.
The most general reaction was a passive and
philosophical one. This is another issue which
requires further analysis and review.
Education and training
This topic emerged as one of the most critical
for iPro working; with some interviewees
(both iPros and non-iPros) expressing major
concerns about how effectiveness and
competitiveness can be sustained given
current educational arrangements.

The professions we have focussed on are
united by the fact that they are generally
in fast moving knowledge industries. Most
iPros arrive into their new status with their
professional skills and know-how in place,
ready to offer them to clients. For that reason,
while wider education and training policy
is often dominated by concerns over the
initial skills of young people, the iPro agenda
is much more concerned with continuing
professional development and lifelong
learning.
Eurobarometer 369, Attitudes Towards
Vocational Education and Training (2011),
concluded that vocational training generally
doesnt stimulate small business or
adequately prepare people for independent
working. That report spends little time
on lifelong learning and updating skills,
which are the more critical issues for iPros.
Many regulated professions across the EU
operate formal professional development
requirements for example points-based
systems whereby training activities from
on-line learning, through to lectures and
conference attendance attract a number of
points. Failure to achieve the required number
Response to no work
Discussions during the interviews were a forceful
reminder of the risks facing iPros. All but fve
had suffered unplanned periods with no work.
Unsurprisingly, the older and more established
iPros tended to be more relaxed about such
periods. By contrast, younger iPros reported
feeling enormous pressure, especially as in
many member states the self-employed do not
qualify for any state support when unemployed.
A number were philosophical about having
no work saying; It has happened to me a
few times. In the end, I have found it to be a
welcome break (IT1).
Interestingly, although a number of iPros from
states where it was possible to do so did claim
unemployment beneft, none reported that they
thought about giving up freelancing or seeking
an employee job. As one said; I have had two
dips in my career, but I learnt to diversify. It was
hard but the values and upsides of freelancing
far outweigh the problems. However, some felt
angry about the situation.
Others who went through periods without work
did a range of tasks that they did not normally
have time for, such as updating data bases,
re-doing their LinkedIn profle, redesigning
their website or seeking out new possible
client bases. Few reported that they undertook
a review of their whole business or way of

I have had two dips in my

career, but I learnt to diversify.
It was hard but the values
and upsides of freelancing far

outweigh the problems.

66
Slightly less than two thirds had undertaken no
formal professional skills development in the
last fve years and a higher proportion had no
training in business skills. Of those that had
done training, most were from professions where
it was compulsory. The implication is that where
training is not required, iPros are unlikely to
voluntarily undertake it. Why is this?
Most who had not trained felt themselves to
be confdent to continue to work well and took
client responses as their key indicator.
There were two basic groups who reported little
or no training. First, those who felt no need for
training and second those who felt they could
access the information they needed themselves;
I am always very curious and there is so much
free on-line (FI 4).
A group of iPros had, in effect, outsourced
business training to their accountants and
several spoke of the fact that they relied on them
to keep them up to speed.

Those who had not undertaken any or much
training identifed various problems with the
quality and use of training. Sometimes it simply
that the facilities were not there; its hard to get
really current things (ES 1).

Others made similar comments. Common
problems included: sourcing appropriate,
advanced level courses, covering the costs
involved, and the normal requirement to attend
training on a face-to-face basis, which is diffcult
to schedule around work commitments. As one
said; What I need are more on-line-distance
courses which I can ft around my work (DE5).
Although for various reasons many of the iPros
interviewed undertook little or no training, some
of points runs the risk of losing your license to
practice.
Some professional bodies provide courses
at a nominal fee but the evidence from
EU research is that most iPros pay for
themselves. It is generally tax deductible in
part, but it is arguable that such an important
issue for those in innovative, creative and
fast moving areas of work should not be left
simply to individuals. Indeed, it appears that it
is in those member states where iPro working
is fastest growing and tends to be in highly
technical areas, that individuals bear the
highest costs.

Are iPros
continuing to train?
Interviewees were questioned as to whether
they had undergone any recent training, and
if they had, their experience of it, suggestions
for improvement and importantly, whether
they had identifed skills needs that they
found hard to gain support for. Non-iPro
interviewees were asked for their views on
training - and if their organisation provided it.
The skills referred to were both the skills to
perform their professional role but also the
skills needed to support a small business.

Slightly less than two thirds
had undertaken no formal
professional skills development
in the last fve years and a
higher proportion had no
training in business skills.
67
What helps iPros
to be successful
and what impedes them?
Most of the people we interviewed, though
they had a range of concerns, reported that
their work went well, they enjoyed it and
would not sacrifce the freedom and fexibility
or return to or seek employee status. They
came across as enthusiastic, ambitious and
were deriving considerable self-fulflment from
their work.
To a considerable extent, their success
depended on their personalities and the traits
typical of both iPros and many entrepreneurs.
They had to tolerate risk, especially of not
having work or of illness. They did not report
that they felt they were treated with suspicion
or hostility by colleagues, friends, family,
aside from government and other offcials.

Many of them were very frustrated by what
they thought were surmountable problems
that prevented them from maximising their
skills. They spent too long seeking out
opportunities to develop their skills and,
partly as a consequence, found it hard to
fnd time to meet their training needs. They
were also working on an ad hoc basis and
often in isolation, confronting practical
problems that could be dealt with on a far
more systematic basis. Why does information
about fscal matters appear to be harder to
track down than for employees? Why are
the self-employed so often excluded from
developmental schemes and from publicly
fnanced training? With justifcation, iPros
point out that they pay taxes and yet do not
seem to receive a level of support in any way
similar to that of conventional employees.
did. Why, especially where it was not required by
their professional body? Some appreciated the
need to update and gain new skills, especially
in a context of fast-moving professional work.
Others recognised the need for business skills,
especially marketing, but of those who had done
such a course, none had updated or developed
skills. There were, of course, those who were
required to undertake formal training and who
generally reported that the training was good,
though they paid for it.

Another of the areas we probed was: who should
provide the training? We found no link between
membership of professional associations and
the likelihood to have undertaken training or to
have attended the associations training. We
found that where training was not obligatory,
professional associations, if they did provide
training, did so on a demand-led basis. It was
unclear from the non-iPro interviews the extent
to which training was a priority and whether the
association/body had a strategy to support it.
The picture is very mixed. We did ask for views
as to how, ideally, training should be provided.
For example, some suggested training methods
were a bit old-fashioned and still geared
towards employees, which were generally
paid for by their employer. They wanted more
fexible learning methods. Those who did use
professional associations generally stated that
the courses were helpful and relevant. However,
many spoke of the need for less formal self-
help groups where everyday problems could be
discussed and advice provided. We heard that
such facilities were offered by the co-working
movement and by others who had set up small
groups to share experiences.
68
Perhaps the major issue of concern, aside from
the often mentioned late payment by clients, is
that of continuing professional development,
because so many iPros are in knowledge-
based professions. It seems that the gaps are
not just in terms of maintaining and enhancing
existing professional skills but also business
skills. However, success depends on working
effectively and this includes keeping up with
changes in business contexts, whether it be, say
the topics that political journalists write about to
the context for other writers, such as specialists
in medicine, science, ecology and even law.
Lawyers themselves need to be aware of
changes in how their clients are working or
developing business and IT specialists need to
be up to speed not only in technical areas but
organisational and managerial changes.
The problem for many iPros is not just isolation
but semi-detachment from their client base. We
became aware of much good practice, and this
needs to be shared. However, our interviews
of all sorts revealed very low awareness of
government policy development at either EU
or member state level, and an abiding sense
of being neglected by politicians and policies.
It is to these matters that attention will now be
turned in Chapter 5.
Summary points
Research indicates that compared to many
other developed economies a lower
percentage of people in the EU are interested
in working as selfemployed. Amongst those
that are interested, many are deterred by fear
of failure, insecurity and red tape. The
responses for potential iPros would not
necessarily be in line with the generality of the
potential self-employed
The recession appears to have led to a
Conclusion
This chapter has provided a mixed picture of
how iPros access, prepared for and sustain
work. The interview data partially refects the
anticipated problems of moving into self-
employment identifed by Eurobarometers
283 and 354. Insofar as they identifed
complex administrative procedures and lack
of information, the iPros themselves generally
coped by using a wide range of advice and
support services (including often fellow iPros).
They felt frustrated by their invisibility or
marginalisation in public information services.
Quite clearly, the issue is not just accessing
support but fnding reliable sources and then
paying for it. For many iPros, especially the
young and new to iPro working, this is a major
burden, compounding the burdens of fscal
matters referred to in Chapter 3.

Most of the iPros we spoke to felt well able
to sustain work, largely through informal
techniques. Few expressed concern about
this such that they would move away
from their own tried and tested methods.
Problems were most likely to be expressed
by those working for the public sector
where fee levels have been driven down.
This has affected groups like translators in
the justice system. However, it is possible
the situation could be improved by targeted
and appropriate support, be they larger
organisations, local networks or professional
bodies.
One commentator on iPro development stated
it was close collaboration with big business
that was the answer and more systematic
promotion of collaborative arrangements
which maximised the strengths of both parties
but retained integrity (NL 8).
more realistic view of self-employment and its
feasibility
The interest in self-employment varies
considerably across our nine states
There is evidence that some groups are more
likely than the norm to be interested in self
employment - the young, well educated, men
and those brought up in an entrepreneurial
home environment
From our interviews, starting out as an
iPro appears problematic for many due to
lack of relevant information and the expense
or unavailability of advice. The sources of
advice that were used ranged from friends to
accountants and professional bodies but there
seem to be few state-funded resources
Relatively few iPros had a formal strategy
for accessing work. The traditional methods of
word of mouth, recommendations, now
backed up by social networks and other
collaborative activities, were mostly relied on
Nearly all the iPros interviewed had suffered
periods without work. None had sought either
work as an employee or given up. There were
many practical problems identifed, such as
how to set their fee, how to ensure payment,
how to develop business skills
Few had undertaken recent continuing
professional development despite the high
skill areas most worked in. Sometimes it
was complacency, but sometimes there were
practical reasons, many of which could be
easily remedied
69
70
iPros and their wider
context: what are the
key political, economic
and cultural factors?
Chapter 5 analyses political and cultural
issues and looks at how government policies
and initiatives from both the EU and its
member states impact on iPros. The previous
chapters have identifed a range of issues,
such as the recognition of iPros, access to
support and training and development. Is
anyone with a decision-making role aware of
these issues? Are they listening to proposals
for change? Is there much support for iPros at
all?
The problems are sometimes compounded
by politicians giving out mixed messages
by praising the fexibility, self-reliance and
innovation that characterises iPro working, but
then omitting them from policy agendas or even
developing policies directly hostile to iPros. Few
politicians and policy makers champion iPros.
And yet it is intriguing that iPro working can
thrive in a climate that does not overtly support
independence and entrepreuerism and/or
promotes the social model of secure, employee
status employment. Conversely, in some
states, despite notionally having a strong pro-
entrepreneurism/self-employment policy agenda
and open markets, there is limited growth.
This chapter examines the following questions:
Are iPros on policy agendas at all?
Are they simply subsumed under the SME
label?
Are iPros recognised positively in the EU and
individual member states culture?
Do tax and social security policies
disadvantage iPros?
Where do, if at all, iPros ft in commercial and
employment laws?
Are there policies and practices that do
support iPros?
This chapter considers why these questions are
important from a macro and even international
perspective. There are no organisations that
assess iPro working and so, once more,
material for this overview is drawn from data
focused primarily on entrepreneurship and
competitiveness.
CHAPTER 5
Te problems are sometimes
compounded by politicians
giving out mixed messages by
praising the fexibility, self-
reliance and innovation that
characterises iPro working, but
then omitting them from policy
agendas or even developing
policies directly hostile to iPros.
71
recognition in their own eyes and only then
can they go to policy makers/political powers.
Then they need to go to economic powers
(IT 11).
He argued that this was critical in order to
access tenders, outsourcing opportunities
etc and doubted whether those in power
recognised the contribution of iPros.
Local politicians were viewed more favourably
and some of the most interesting initiatives to
support iPros are locally based.
Categorising iPros
As has been mentioned, one of the on-going
and major issues is the classifcation of
iPros.
36
This makes putting forward a case for
their recognition and support diffcult. To treat
them simply as self-employed or just refer to
them as small businesses is not appropriate.
Although we can observe differences
between countries in terms of, for example,
the sectors iPros work in and the gender
balance, the one thing that unites iPros
is their psycho-social make-up. Whether
in Belgium, Australia, Poland or Canada,
iPros are in agreement on why they want
to work this way and what is important to
them. The consistency of research data
here is remarkable but also has important
consequences for policy and law makers.
Why do
politicians neglect iPros?
We noted in the opening section of Chapter
3 that many of the iPros we interviewed were
generally highly critical of politicians and
many government policies. Most had mused
on the question of why they felt neglected or
marginalised. We also asked our non-iPro and
academic interviewees the same question.
Many shared the views of iPros - that such a
relatively small group in the labour market was of
insuffcient importance for politicians.
A broader and more refective approach was
taken by a senior trade union offcial who said;
There is great fear of growing casualisation
and precarious work across the EU. However,
she recognised the growing attraction of iPro
working and felt that EU policy-making is rather
behind the times (UK 7).
A challenging view came from a senior
representative of a professional body who felt
that politicians and policy makers could afford
to neglect iPros because they lack a strong
collective voice; there is an absence of a clear
common background and common problems;
iPros are fragmented (IT 11).
Others saw economic factors as the reason for
iPros being neglected by politicians;
Governments still look to big business and
multi-nationals as the most important players
and job creators and fail, for example, to open
up procurement processes to iPros (FR 7).
An academic thought the problem might be
closer to home, saying; First of all iPros need
iPros are valuable in labour
markets but are difcult to
respond to in part because their
distinct contribution is not
recognised.
36. For a discussion, see Leighton, P (2011) Neither Fish nor Fowl: The Professional Self-Employed and the Need for a Better Regulatory
Framework CESR Review, July 2011, Centre for Employment Studies Research, University of West of England.
72
iPro working is very diffcult. Data covering the
self-employed as a whole is not appropriate as
many of those surveyed will be in manual jobs or
in occupations such as retailing and agriculture
that fall outside our iPro defnition. The SME
sector is also not appropriate as SME owners
employ or intend to employ others. iPros do
not. This is not to say that these surveys are
not helpful; rather, caution must be exercised in
applying data and fndings from them to iPros.
One of the most useful sources is Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) - an
international collaborative consortium that
undertakes regular analyses of the state of
entrepreneurship. In 2011 GEM conducted its
13th annual survey.
39
GEMs reports refect a
survey of 40,000 adults in 54 economies; around
40% of these did not employ others and it can
be anticipated that some were iPros.
The basic criteria used to measure the state
of entrepreneurism in the various states are
adopted from the World Economic Forums
(WEF) Global Competitiveness Report. This
identifes the key institutions and policies that
impact on entrepreneurism.
GEM divides economies into three groups.
These are factor driven, effciency driven and
innovation driven. These broadly correlate
with the stage of economic development, with
innovation economies being the most advanced.
For our research, all of our EU states are
categorised as innovation driven economies,
aside from Poland, which is classifed as
effciency driven. There is no equivalent GEM
analysis of EU policies and practices.
iPros are valuable in labour markets
37
but are
diffcult to respond to in part because their
distinct contribution is not recognised.

Only the Netherlands
38
out of our nine
member states has an offcial defnition
of an iPro or distinct policies for them.
However, others, such as Spain and Italy
have moved towards developing policies for
iPros but defnitional diffculties remain. A
comprehensive defnition applying to several
states seems a long way off. A few states, for
example Italy and Spain, have made tentative
moves towards encouraging or requiring
iPros to set up limited companies. This would
presumably more clearly locate them in the
business community. None of these policy
moves is either comprehensive or in the same
direction.
Within EU policy making, the same
applies - which Directorate General (DG)
has responsibility for iPros - Employment,
Enterprise or Single Market? iPros are
subsumed under self-employment generally
or occasionally incorporated into the
entrepreneurism policy area. In some cases,
they are sometimes assumed to be vulnerable
workers forced into a sham employment
status by unscrupulous employers and
therefore the appropriate policy is to save the
iPros from themselves.
What data can we use?
With iPros not consistently defned or
measured, identifying those political,
economic and cultural factors which affect
37. McKeown, T (2000) Why do Professionals Become Contractors?, Monash University Press; Morgan, R (2009) People who are Self-
Employed: Profle July 2008 - June 2009, Roy Morgan Associates; iPro Index (2009 - 2013), Entity Solutions and Monash University; McKeown,
T and Hanley, G (2009) Challenges and Changes in the Contractor Workforce vol 47, Asia Pacifc Journal of Human Resource Management
295; Kitching, J and Smallbone, D (2012) Are freelancers a neglected form of small business? vol. 19 Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development; 74
38. See Social Akkord, 2013
39. GEM Global Report 2011 (2012), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor; GEM Global Report 2012 (2013), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. It
should be noted that reliance was placed on the GEM Extended Reports 2011(2012) where detailed data are presented for individual states.
Is applying GEM data helpful for iPros?
GEM develops nine key entrepreneurial conditions and identifes indicators against each of them.
Some of the factors, such as fnance and research and development transfer are not especially
important for iPros. Here, we will analyse the fve factors which are the most relevant for iPros;

Government policy with regards to seeing
such activity as relevant and important, and
the fscal system
Government programmes to assist
entrepreneurism
Entrepreneurism education at school and in
post-school education
Openness of markets
Cultural and social norms
Figure 5.1 shows how our eight states perform on each of these factors which infuence
entrepreneurialism (Italy is not included as it was not covered in the 2012 report, though is
the subject of a separate report in 2013
40
). The further the data point is from the centre of the
diagram for the state, the higher the prevalence of the factor in question.
40. GEM Entrepreneurship Report on Italy, 2012 (2013), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (only in Italian)
73
74
What does the GEM data show?
Figure 5.1: GEM data on different indicators on the state of entrepreneurism
There are signifcant differences in the GEM ratings for our eight countries. No state scores well
across the different indicators on the state of entrepreneurism.
In terms of government policy, Belgium scores the highest, followed by Finland, France, Germany
and Poland. Spain emerges the weakest for this factor. Looking at programmes to assist
entrepreneurism, Belgium again performs best out of our eight countries, with Germany and
France also performing well. The UK does not score well in this area, indicating that there is a real
lack in programmes to assist entrepreneurism in this state.

75
the following features.
Government policies and programmes that
are supportive
A strong business infrastructure, which may
require government investment
Good sources of information, advice and
fnance
The ability to access R&D facilities (but this
may be of less importance to most iPros)
Strong school entreprenurism education,
but less emphasis on post-school
education
Much of this would chime with our iPro
interviewees. In Annexe 1 we provide a more
detailed review of the GEM data.
How reliable is this data?
For reasons already discussed, GEM is
measuring entrepreneurship, which carries
with it the notion of growth largely through
job creation and employing others. Therefore,
certain societal factors will be more important
than for iPros. Few of our iPros identifed with
entrepreneurism in any event and therefore
we have to be cautious about applying these
research fndings to iPros.
Another reason to approach the data with
caution when comparing it to other research
is the different approach used. Respondents
to Eurobarometers 283 and 354 were asked
about the extent to which their school
education had made them aware of the option
of self-employment and provided help with
the skills to work that way.
Dealing with the same question, GEM
research uses expert opinions rather than
relying on survey data. This produces some
real contrasts in results. For example,
For education, few countries perform well,
with Belgium and France scoring the highest.
Finland scores well for school education and the
Netherlands appears to perform especially well
for school education and fairly well for post-
school education. Spain performs the weakest
out of the states in this area. With regards to
market openness, Belgium and the UK perform
well, followed by Poland and the Netherlands.
France, Germany and Spain have the least open
markets out of our states.
Perhaps the most interesting and most relevant
data concerns the ratings for cultural and social
norms. These norms also create the climate
for independent working and many argue this
is the critical factor for iPro working
41
. Few
states perform strongly in this area, with the
Netherlands and the UK scoring the highest.
Germany and Spain emerge the weakest in this
area, suggesting they are unenthusiastic about
entrepreneurism which could impact on iPros as
well as entrepreneurs working in these states.
GEM also explores other factors that are
applied
42
, revealing major differences between
states dependent on the stage of economic
development in innovation driven economies,
successful entrepreneurism appears much
infuenced by the physical infrastructure and
R&D transfer possibilities. Market dynamics, i.e.
the extent of change, appears less important.
Interestingly, cultural and social norms that
either encourage or discourage entrepreneurism
appear less important than one might have
anticipated. This supports our fndings in
Chapters 2 and 4 that even in states where there
is little reported enthusiasm for self-employment
there can be a signifcant growth in iPro working.
By way of summary, GEM suggests that
supportive frameworks for entrepreneurs have
41. Bridges, S (2010) Re-thinking Enterprise Policy, Palgrave Macmillan
42. GEM Global Report 2011(2012), at p. 49, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
76
Although iPros do not directly create jobs,
they assist many existing employers to
improve effciency such that they can create
jobs. They can deal with technical problems,
marketing, management and a wide range
of support services. In providing an external
view of an organisation and drawing on a
wealth of experience from working with other
organisations, their role is to make businesses
more competitive and innovative. They gather
business practices, and gain insights which
they can use in their work with new clients. This
process leads to improved delivery by client
organisations and indirectly creates jobs.
This is a complex argument to make and
requires a lot of underpinning by robust research
and analysis. The argument that iPros provide
value-added skills and use their wide experience
to promote innovation and hold many
organisations together, needs to be sustained to
get onto policy agendas.

What is the EU doing?
The GEM data, though not all unfavourable,
highlights the fact that many EU states have a
long way to go to be truly entrepreneurial and
competitive. Clearly, improvements would likely
beneft iPros as well. The EU can play a major
role in establishing supportive institutional and
environmental frameworks. At the same time,
it might be noted that not one of our iPros
referred to EU measures or looked to the EU, as
whereas the Eurobarometer survey fndings
for the Netherlands suggest schooling did
not give them the skills to be entrepreneurs,
the GEM fndings for the Netherlands are that
school education is well above the average
in terms of supporting entrepreneurism. Even
allowing for the fact that the two research
projects are very different, in that one deals
with self-employment and the other with
entrepreneurism, it may be relevant that
the perceptions of people who may wish
to become independent are often more
pessimistic than those of the experts who
have explored the reality.
Te iPro evidence gap
Entrepreneurs have a long established place
in policy making with a very favourable
supportive climate. iPros do not. Politicians
and law-makers attach overwhelming
importance to job creation. The number
of jobs is relatively easily measured and
politicians are generally keen to enjoy
the rewards of being seen to be a creator
of jobs. The current climate is especially
demanding, with high and still growing levels
of unemployment, and record levels of youth
unemployment. There are particular concerns
about graduate unemployment. Inevitably,
therefore, policies aimed to create jobs and
support entrepreneurism will have a priority,
especially in a context where there remains a
belief that most new jobs are created by small
frms.

Although iPros do not directly
create jobs, they assist many
existing employers to improve
efciency such that they can
create jobs.
77
What changes
are required?
The frst area for change is the same one that
has featured so strongly in this report. This is
the improvement of education and training. It
sets out a raft of policies to develop relevant
education and training in schools and higher
education, but also emphasising the need for
real hands-on entrepreneurial experience. The
recommendations are for governments as
well as the EU but there is little mention of the
role of professional bodies, unions and others
in the professional world.
The Action Plan focusses on fscal matters,
which it recognises presents considerable
problems for small businesses, especially
start-ups. It calls for simplifcation, increased
use of online services and adjustment of
payment schedules for social contributions
for a limited time.
49
Many of our interviewees
and supporters of iPro working would
welcome this, along with greater fexibility
and responsiveness on fscal matters. The
Plan also calls for red tape to be eliminated
or reduced, particularly for micro-businesses,
including the self-employed and the liberal
professions. This recommendation is seen as
especially relevant for cross border working.
There is then a recommendation that the
opposed to state governments, for change.
Since 1997 and the Treaty of Amsterdam, there
has been an attempt to co-ordinate EU policy for
economic, enterprise and employment matters
using soft law. Such a strategy should bridge
the gap between business and employment
matters, which has been of such importance for
iPros. More specifcally, the Commissions Green
Paper on Modernising Labour Law (2006)
43
,
raised the question of access to protective
rights for the self-employed, but since then there
has been little progress in this area. Aside from
the Temporary Agency Work Directive
44
, and
the Equal Treatment Directive
45
which grants
some maternity rights to self-employed women,
there have been few EU employment law
developments of particular relevance. However,
the recession has led to the urgent review of
many EU strategies, including the 2020 Strategy
for Growth and Jobs
46
which now has objectives
more sympathetic to iPro working.
Most relevantly, we have the Entrepreneurship
2020 Action Plan 2012
47
that aims to reignite
the entrepreneurial spirit in Europe. It focusses
on education and training, creating the right
business environment (including the removal of
existing structural barriers) and reaching out to
specifc labour market groups. It unambiguously
covers iPros. It calls for policy makers to
respond in a co-ordinated way. Importantly, the
document recognises that support measures for
SMEs remain unbalanced in many EU states
because they often fail to take into account the
characteristics of small business - particularly
micro businesses which includes iPros
48
.
43. EC Modernising Labour Law in the EU (2006), COM 798 fnal
44. 104/EC (2008)
45. 41/EU (2010)
46. EC Europe 2020: A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth (2010) COM (2010) 2020 fnal See also, EC Towards a Job-Rich
Recovery (2012) COM(2012) 173 fnal
47. COM(2012) 795 fnal
48. Ibid p.4
49. Ibid p. 13
Much will hinge on the political
will of both the EU and member
states to embrace the cultural
and policy changes that are
required.
78
EU states, but, in principle, this is a welcome
initiative by the EU.
Of direct relevance for iPros is the Services
Directive
52
, aimed to support open competition
for service provision ranging from construction
project management through to the delivery
of liberal professional services such as law,
architecture and accountancy. It was especially
targeted at removing barriers to cross-border
working and a wider range of restrictive
practices. Given its relevance for iPros, it is
important to consider its impact and the extent
to which it has eased problems with accessing
work, especially outside their home state.
Several of the people we interviewed worked
outside their home state, though none was a
member of a regulated or liberal profession.
The general response was that they had not
experienced major diffculties in accessing work,
though there were issues of payment, tax and
administration that some found very complex
and diffcult. Most reported that things had
improved in recent years. The problem may be
greater than expressed, as it was clear from
interviews that where a state had a reputation
for negative attitudes to non-nationals, the iPros
simply worked elsewhere.
The EU is engaged in much policy development
of relevance to iPros. However, a search through
preparatory documents for law reveals little
on the application of policy development to
skilled independent workers. Clearly, the recent
Action Plan for Entrepreneuriship is a notable
exception. EU legislation is geared either to
employees or to SMEs. This is not to say that
EU law is not of any relevance to iPros, but it is
generally a matter of coincidence rather than
conscious policy making.
Commission sets up a working group to
assess the specifc needs of liberal profession
entrepreneurs. This may well be the frst time
that iPros have had a direct mention in an EU
policy document. As part of the simplifcation
process, the Plan calls for one-stop shops
for information and advice - something our
iPros would welcome.
Overall, this is a useful policy document, if
only in terms of recognising the self-employed
and independent professionals and their
distinctive needs. Much will hinge on the
political will of both the EU and member
states to embrace the cultural and policy
changes that are required.
What else
is the EU doing?
We have had measures reforming the
EU Qualifcations Framework, and an
enhancement of the role of EURES (the EU
public job centre) aiming to create a truly EU
wide labour market, including for iPros. From
2011, we have had the Programme for Social
Innovation
50
geared to improving employment,
productivity and competitiveness. The
measures, though aspirational, have generally
drawn good responses from national
governments.

The Small Business Act, 2008, geared
to the needs of SMEs, has been recently
updated by an Act of 2012
51
. It establishes
ten principles for SMEs, including support for
skills upgrading, making public administration
more responsive to their needs, measures to
ensure more prompt payment and a call for a
new Statute of European Private Companies
and lowering of VAT. We await responses from
50. EC COM( 2011) 609
51. EC SEC (2008) 2012
52. EC Services Directive 2006 123/EC
79
in both areas. The lifting the burdens on
business agenda has had some impact on
iPros, but much less than on SMEs. This
is especially the case with fscal matters
where many governments have sought to
lower business taxes, provide tax breaks
and generally support investment. Many
have provided tax advantages for those
hiring new staff or taking on apprentices.
Several governments have also invested in
the infrastructure, including IT, and often in
the process have shifted money from welfare
and social issues to business support. Again,
these changes are generally of marginal
beneft to iPros and some changes, especially
fscal changes, have had a negative impact
on iPros, especially those unable to access
social security payments when they are ill for
example.
If tackling unemployment and job creation
is the driver for many specifc business
initiatives, including de-regulatory measures,
the drivers for change in professional
regulation are different. Here, the issues are to
challenge perceived protectionist practices,
encourage more competition, improve
effciency and encourage more cross-border
work. At EU level, progress has been slow,
with strong defensive strategies by the liberal
professions who cite reasons of ethics and
quality to retain their rules. Efforts to change
the status quo for the liberal professions
have been most marked in Italy and Spain.
iPros in the liberal professions remain frmly
in the sights of politicians and law-makers.
However, as we have seen in Chapter 3,
new professional structures are emerging,
including within the liberal professions,which
may be far more supportive of iPro working
than government measures.
A few substantive topics
for policy development
Having explored the, albeit limited, research data
on the political, economic and cultural factors
that impact on iPros, and noted signifcant gaps
and limitations, we now focus on the areas that
do need change for iPro working to successfully
move forward. We synthesise the ideas that
interviewees put to us and which featured
constantly - together, these are the beginning of
the iPro policy agenda.
1 Recognition
Although the picture differs between states and
many interviewees reported improvements in
some states, iPros have no formal voice at either
EU or state level - aside, possibly, from the
Netherlands. This lack of recognition impacts on
the ability to infuence policy-making, legislation,
voicing concerns, available support and results
in information sources ignoring iPros or creating
doubt as to whether, for example, a particular
scheme or initiative can be accessed by them.
iPros have to fall back on professional or private
bodies or else become isolated. However,
many we interviewed did put forward ideas for
how recognition could be achieved at different
decision-making levels. There was, indeed, no
shortage of ideas here.
2 Supportive and effective regulation
Chapter 3 dealt with the key issues of state
and professional regulation. There has been
considerable debate and policy development
Te ideas that interviewees put to
us are the beginning of the iPro
policy agenda.
80
Where professions typical of iPro working are
less regulated or unregulated, there seems to
be little on the policy agenda at either EU or
national level. As will be seen, the people we
interviewed did have some issues for policy
agendas in terms of professional regulation
but they were fairly limited and there were
no calls for new professional structures,
hierarchies or formality. Rather, there was
support for new types of collaboration and
work practices.
How important is
regulation anyway?
Before leaving this important issue of
professional regulation, it is relevant to
consider briefy the role of regulation/law more
generally. There is an assumption that law
can achieve change, not least in attitudes,
and can impact on national culture as well as
practices. But there are many laws that are
not enforced, that are confusing, unpopular
and many that are evaded. But what is their
impact on choice and conduct? One of the
interesting things about the iPro topic is that
people sometimes appear to be acting in
a perverse way. For example, iPro growth
appears unaffected by negative policies
and laws. Finland is a good example of this.
Alternatively, in Spain there is a benign though
complex legal regime, yet iPro working has
declined. This may be a refection of the
strong psychosocial traits of iPros but it may
also illustrate the far more limited abilities of
law than is often assumed.
The issue that dominated our interviews with
both iPros and some non-iPros was that of
taxation and benefts and although many were
philosophical about it, others expressed anger.
Many reported a sense of being targeted by tax
authorities or paying something for nothing.
But does it impact on their decision to work as
an iPro? Do they move to a lower tax state? Do
they change their business structure? We have
insuffcient evidence on these questions but
from our sample, the practical impact seemed
less dramatic than many claim.
3 Government support measures
Are there any explicit supportive policies for
iPros? At the EU level there appear to be few
but at the national level certain EU states have
policies that provide some sort of fnancial
support for iPros to start working in this way.
However, as we saw in Chapter 4, the suspicion
is that policies are often short-lived or otherwise
vulnerable to being phased out or withdrawn.
Some schemes provide a grant, some pay
the equivalent of unemployment beneft,
some require training in business skills and
others membership of some sort of approved
organisation, such as a co-operative.
A very useful source in this area is a recent
report from the European Foundation - Public
Measures to Support Self-employment and Job
Creation in One person and Micro Enterprises
(2012).
53
This relies on national experts providing
detailed responses to a set of questions. The
questions include the availability of fnancial
support, advice, bureaucratic processes, the
development of entrepreneurial skills and
culture. What is not clear in many national
responses is the underlying agenda for
supporting micro enterprises such as iPros. Is
it to actually support and invest in this way of
working; or, is it simply a question of dealing
Many reported a sense of being
targeted by tax authorities or
paying something for nothing.
53. European Foundation for the Improvement in Living and Working Conditions, Dublin.
81
Training and development is vital for creating
a supportive climate for effective iPro
working.The major sources for information
on policy and practices in the area of
education and training are the 2010 European
Working Conditions Survey, published
by the European Foundation in 2011; the
Eurobarometers 283 and 354 (dealing mainly
with perceptions of working for yourself and
the associated needs), the GEM surveys
(particularly the special report in 2008)
54
, and
some material from EURES and CEDEFOP.
These surveys approach the topic in different
ways. For example, the Working Conditions
and Eurobarometer surveys explore the
experiences and perceptions of individuals;
the GEM surveys rely on national experts to
reach judgments and EURES and CEDEFOP
use their own networks to obtain and analyse
data.
In Chapter 4 we explored the experiences
and attitudes of iPros in terms of maintaining
their professional skills and acquiring
business skills. It appears that as far as
liberal professional skills are concerned,
the professional bodies continue to have a
dominant role. Beyond these professions
there are other professions regulated by
law such as for para-medical work and
some parts of the professional services
sectors. Here, individuals are unable to
obtain employment without achieving a
certain professional standard. Then there
are the new professions where, although it
with unemployment? It is noteworthy that
many of the public schemes only apply to the
unemployed. Few iPros ft this bill. Nonetheless,
this is a useful report and a few examples shed
light on some of the key policy issues.
The report for Belgium generally shows
encouragement of micro enterprises, through
a strong professional infrastructure, grants
for the unemployed to set out on their own,
and possibilities to defer social payments. But
this is to an extent undermined by high taxes
and complex administration. In the UK, there
have been many schemes at various times to
help people to work for themselves - again
only open to the unemployed. The UK called
for entrepreneurial education to be on the
curriculum in all schools. However, school
inspections revealed that a third of schools were
unaware of what this meant and claimed they
had no-one to teach it. This reminds us that you
can have initiatives, but if they are not delivered
on the ground they are useless.
The national reports indicate activity by most of
our nine states though in the case of some, such
as Germany, it has been limited. Schemes can
be ephemeral and there remains pressure to set
up as an SME rather than become an iPro.
4 Effective training and development
There are three types of training that we
considered;
Initial academic and vocational education
and training
Continuing professional development
Training in business skills
Training and development is
vital for creating a supportive
climate for efective iPro
working.
54. GEM (2010) Special Report: Entrepreneurship Education and Training. Global Entrepreneurism Monitor.
82
may be expected by clients that people practising in the area have particular degrees or other
qualifcations and accreditations/memberships, they are not mandatory.
The iPro interviews, beyond those with lawyers, confrmed that most had undertaken no recent
training at all. The interviews also confrmed why they had not and these are the important
matters for policy development.
The European Foundations 2010 Working Conditions Survey explored this and 34% reported
they had received training in the last year. The research did not specify what type of training it had
been. However, there were marked differences between EU states and between the employee
and the self-employed. Figure 5.2 sets out the fndings by state and by employment status.
55


Figure 5.2 Incidence of training for respondents in the past year by state and employment
status (%).
Figure 5.2 clearly shows some dramatic differences between states, especially for employees.
However, when comparing employees and the self-employed, in general the self-employed have
a much lower incidence of training. An important issue is that of funding. Figure 5.3 shows the
incidence of training that is self-funded in our nine states.
55. Although the survey covers all types of self-employed, it is thought that the differences between self-employment generally and iPros would
be less marked.
83
Figure 5.3 Incidence of self-payment for training by state and employment status (%)
Once again, there is a signifcant gap in most states between employees and the self-employed
56
.
The highest percentage of self-employed who paid for their own training is in Germany (39%)
compared with an average of 25%. This begs the questions of who funded the training of
the self-employed and what happened with the iPros? It might also be noted that training for
women is generally at a slightly lower rate than for men and that older people are less likely to
receive training than younger people. Mostly, respondents reported that they beneftted from
training. Generally, however, these results are far more positive about training than the iPros we
interviewed.
What about training for business skills?
GEM created a special report in 2008 which covered 38 countries and was concerned with
education and training to do with skills required for setting up a business. The data does not,
therefore, refer to continuing professional development. This time, Italy was included, though of
our nine selected states, Netherlands and Poland did not participate. Again we have to approach
the data with caution as it is likely that iPros were only a small proportion of those interviewed.
It starts with the important fact that of the 21% that received training, over 50% of this training
was done on a purely voluntary basis and only 4% was reported as compulsory. This implies
that professional bodies, regulatory authorities and others are not making the acquisition of such
skills mandatory. Of the respondents reporting such training, 20% reported that they had received
formal training (directed by a body) and 60% had informal training (buying books, networking with
colleagues). It is reported that, overall, such training in business skills has a good marketplace in
Belgium, Netherlands, UK, Germany and France. However, it was again only Finland which stood
56. This data must be interpreted with caution as the actual numbers of self-employed who reported training is fairly low (see Figure 5.2).
84
training or any innovation in its delivery. Rather,
it was something that had to be done although
most did report that the training was of a good
standard.
Those outside the liberal professions held one of
two basic attitudes to training. Either a genuine
belief that they did not need it - they could
access data they needed and use their own
networks, or they recognised their needs but
found it hard to meet them.

It is concerning that the level of training amongst
iPros is much lower than for employees and
yet, iPros, by their nature, are often at the
leading edge of professional skills. Employers
will usually undertake regular training needs
analyses. They will fund training which is
increasingly done internally. They will monitor
training quality and often seek the training to be
accredited by a professional body.
But how can this be done for iPros? Do we know
enough about their needs and their aspirations?
Can professional bodies do more? Of course,
this can be a key agenda item for them, but we
know not all iPros are members of such bodies.
What of universities and colleges? They have
staff with skills that are in demand, but with
competing pressures and growing emphasis on
income generation by universities across the
EU, are they able to provide suitable training
for business? What, if any should be the role of
government? They provide support very often
for post university education and in some states,
such as Belgium, there has traditionally been
fnance for training post-retirement people, so
why not for iPros?
out, where almost 50% had received training.
In Italy only 17% had training and in France
only 18%.

It is interesting that the contribution of schools
to entrepreneurism skills is less developed
in countries where iPro working is well
developed and growing.
The report concluded that there can be
very positive gains from such training but
that much depends on broader institutional
support. This suggests that it is up to
professional and trade bodies to ensure that
training in how to run a business is mandatory
or highly recommended. There must also be
facilities to provide it. The authors suggest
that:
Experiential learning is best
Skills need to be developed with a very
close affnity with the motivations and
propensities of self-employed working
Business schools are not the best place for
training to be given
Emphasis should be placed on training the
trainer
Is there a
major problem here?

As considered previously, iPros in liberal
professions appear to have their training
taken care of. From our interviews we did
not get a sense of huge enthusiasm for
Tere can be very positive
gains from such training but
that much depends on broader
institutional support.
85
How could a voice for
iPros be best developed?
Here are a few ideas from the interviews;
We need to co-operate across Europe. We
need to exchange best practice, infuence
the European Parliament and get a seat at
one of those DGs (FR 8)
We need to be like the Pirates Party and
really campaign (DE 7)
We need a general freelancer association,
lobby like crazy, talk about developing work
not jobs. Me, I would prefer a collectivist
approach even though I feel very much an
individual (IT 4)
A risk was highlighted by an academic;
If there is too much regulation and
organisation to get a voice, there is a risk of
standardisation and Taylorisation. They [iPros]
need to organise themselves, while being
careful to retain their capacities of initiative,
their freedom, their innovation (FR 11).
Clearly, most of these comments are
generalised and if the voice of iPros is to be
heard, a great deal of thought and effort will
have to be used to build on the progress to
date.
Conclusion
This chapter has aimed to explore aspects
of the environment within which iPros
work and to identify factors which impede
or support them. This chapter has again
refected the central diffculties for iPros -
those of defnition and identifcation. It has
also seen a synergy between the problems
as perceived by our interviewees and many
What should be the driver for change -
competitiveness, consumer confdence, quality
assurance, ethical issues? Can a case for iPros
be made to policy makers without serious
consideration of their training needs?
5 Finding a voice
Nearly everyone who contributed to the
interviews accepted that there was a need for
the iPro community to have a voice and be
heard. For some it was simple recognition of
their existence and contribution to economies,
for others it was to differentiate them from SMEs
and other groups and yet for others it was to
promote a specifc policy agenda.
Some saw it as an international issue, because
there were important bodies, such as the
ILO that infuenced policy. They also know of
organisations in other non EU states where iPros
had become organised, such as in the USA and
Australia. For most it was simple;
We need a voice, that is why I am participating
in this research (UK 6).
Some recognised the diffculties of being
drawn from such different professions; We are
fragmented, so getting a voice is hard (NL 2).
Another problem and one related to identity was
that some iPros related more closely with fellow
professionals than with fellow iPros.
Nearly everyone who contributed
to the interviews accepted that
there was a need for the iPro
community to have a voice and be
heard.
of those pinpointed by external researchers:
particularly the diffculties with fscal policies
and practices and the key issue of education
and training. We have, though, noted some
progress both in terms of the responses of
national governments and, more recently, at
EU level. But there is clearly a long way to go.
Summary points
In aiming to create a policy agenda for iPro
working, the lack of directly relevant
research remains a major barrier
Research does show that there are a set
of factors that can support and enhance
independent working, and can form the
basis for iPro-specifc analysis
Defnitional issues remain a barrier - who
are the iPros and where do they ft?
There is some useful data from research
that deals with related issues of self
employment and entrepreneurism
iPros remain very marginal on political and
policy agendas
If iPros are on policy agendas, it is generally
through policy development for SMEs or
entrepreneurism. Only in a very recent EU
policy initiative are they explicitly referred
to
Changes to the regulatory framework have
been slow and are often of limited effect
Education and training emerges as the key
area for policy development
Much is dependent on the successful
development of an iPro voice

86
87
Conclusions and
recommendations
This report presents the results of a project that
combines data analysis with qualitative work
involving not only iPros themselves, but those
who work with or for them and those who, from
an academic perspective, analyse the possible
implications of this way of working. This has
enabled us to achieve, if not a 360 degree
overview, certainly a multi-dimensional one.

Analysis of EU data has confrmed that whilst
the EU has faced unprecedented levels of
unemployment, one part of the labour market
bucked this trend: the iPros. The growth in iPros
in the EU since 2004 has been remarkable and
they are now the fastest growing group in the EU
labour market.
The research has allowed us to fnd out about
who is choosing to work as an iPro, why they
do so, what sort of work they engage in and
what their work experiences are. The energy
and enthusiasm of iPros who participated
in the research is apparent, along with an
unwavering commitment to this way of
working. Many emphasised that becoming
an iPro has presented new opportunities and
challenges, yet many felt marginalised or
invisible.
This chapter summarises the main fndings
of the research and concludes by providing
recommendations for policy makers,
professional bodies, clients of iPros and iPros
themselves. The recommendations, which
are based on these fndings, will allow iPros
to grow at an even faster rate and for their
contribution to businesses and economies to
be nurtured.
How are iPros defned?
Our interviews found that there is no
consistency in the way iPros identify
themselves. Different professionals self-defne
CHAPTER 6
Te growth in iPros in the EU
since 2004 has been remarkable
and they are now the fastest
growing group in the EU labour
market.
88
Government policy favours traditional
employment patterns and the iPros we
interviewed felt this is because they pose
challenges for policy makers. Policy makers
tend to focus on job creation rather than work
creation, an area where iPros actively contribute.
This all results in marginalisation, neglect in
policy development, and a fscal system that
disadvantages iPros. In addition, iPros often face
accusations of sham or disguised employment,
where employees are forced or voluntarily
become self-employed to minimise tax and other
liabilities. iPros argue they are wrongly treated
with suspicion by fscal authorities: none of them
were forced into working independently and they
feel like they overpay in contributions as they
cannot access benefts.
Accessing benefts is another complex issue that
arose from the interviews. Many iPros thought
their lives were too precarious as they could not
access social security support - a matter many
considered unjust as they were liable for social
security contributions. This emerged as a key
concern for many, and iPros argued for a more
balanced approach to the risk they undertake,
calling on policy makers to fnd the right
framework.
In spite of iPro working often being seen
as sham employment, generally, hostility or
wariness towards iPro working is in decline and
it is increasingly being recognised as a legitimate
differently - some seeing their profession
as the dominant feature, some seeing
themselves as micro-businesses and others
seeing themselves as a distinct group in
the economy. Most commonly, they refer
to themselves as freelancers or iPros. The
rejection of the label entrepreneur by many
interviewed was interesting.
These variations in self-identifcation
complicate the process of defning iPros as a
coherent and recognisable group, refecting a
wider question of whether they are part of the
labour market, the business community, or if
they are a distinct group.
How does
this afect policy?
iPros are virtually invisible in academic
literature, and in offcial statistics they are
subsumed in either self-employment or
SME data. However, placing iPros in these
categories is considered misconceived by
those interviewed, and most recognised that
the legal defnitions for employment status
were inappropriate, calling for a better or an
EU-wide defnition of iPros.
Tese variations in
self-identifcation complicate
the process of defning iPros
as a coherent and recognisable
group, refecting a wider
question of whether they are
part of the labour market, the
business community, or if they
are a distinct group.
Government policy favours
traditional employment patterns
and the iPros we interviewed
felt this is because they pose
challenges for policy makers.
89
the ability to be fexible and innovative, and
provide value-added both to businesses and
economies in general.
Do iPros
receive any support?
The research revealed that there is a
scarcity of support for iPros. The perceived
unavailability of relevant and affordable
information and professional advice means
that iPros are concerned about their lack of
business skills.

iPros in regulated professions regard
professional bodies highly as a source of
support. However, others generally reject
the need for similar organisations and look
to less formal and contemporary forms of
professional support such as social clubs/
networks, and interdisciplinary facilities.
iPros value autonomy and freedom, yet to be
effective they need the appropriate support.
As their specifc needs are not recognised,
iPros have developed their own supportive
environments in the form of co-working
spaces and professional hubs. The growth
in iPro working demands that policy makers
and client organisations devise customised
initiatives to support this way of working.
employment arrangement. The research
revealed a growing interest in iPro working and
the fexibility and innovation it represents. Policy
makers and leaders of the business community
are beginning to recognise the importance of
iPros contribution to economies, and their
capacity to enhance this with recognition and
support.
Why do iPros
work in this way?
iPros fnd this way of working fulflling. Many
choose to work as iPros in rejection of standard
employment, which they feel requires conformity
and represses creativity. There is a remarkable
consensus from our interviews on the motivation
for, and work experiences of all iPros regardless
of state and profession. This is encapsulated
by a commitment to professional skills rather
than an organisation, fexibility and choice as
opposed to working in a hierarchical structure,
informality rather than being controlled, and a
commitment to work-life balance.
The rise in iPro working confrmed that there is a
major change in the way work is performed - a
shift from having a job to working for clients. It
marks a distinctive move to a more collaborative
way of working and a new, radical agenda based
on cooperation rather than competition, which
has emerged as a response to perceived failures
in existing business and management strategies.
iPros, with their different approach to work, have
Te rise in iPro working
confrmed that there is a major
change in the way work is
performed - a shift from having a
job to working for clients.
Continuing professional
development is critical for
iPros, arguably more than for
other groups in the economy,
as they operate in fast moving
knowledge areas.
90
The recommendations relate to:
Awareness, recognition and the
contribution of iPro working.
Finding a voice for iPros.
Attitudes towards iPros.
Training and development.
Providing support for iPros.
Policy makers and public offcials should:
Ensure that iPros are properly researched
and indentifed in national and EU data.
Recognise that iPros are a distinct group:
they are neither SMEs or entrepreneurs and
are not sham self-employed either.
Recognise the contribution of iPros to
economies and ensure that iPros
characteristics and needs are specifcally
recognised in policy development.
Ensure that iPros are expressly considered
where policy issues with particular
relevance (e.g. late payment, access to
public procurement contracts, enhancing
employability) are being addressed for
SMEs.
Ensure that policy and legal developments
do not negatively impact iPros and that
iPros are not disproportionately penalised
through fscal and other regimes.
Ensure that there is an emphasis on work
creation in publicly funded schemes to
support the creation of jobs so that iPros
are not excluded or disadvantaged.
Recognise that iPro working is a legitimate
and realistic career option, and encourage
this way of working by funding those
transitioning from traditional forms of
employment into iPro working.
Facilitate iPros in gaining a voice to express
views and concerns, and ensure they
have adequate representation at EU level
What about training?
Continuing professional development is
critical for iPros, arguably more than for other
groups in the economy, as they operate in fast
moving knowledge areas. However, surveys
from the EU reveal the low level of training for
the self-employed compared to employees
and this was confrmed in our interviews,
with few outside the liberal professions
undertaking regular training. We found that
cost plays a role, as does having to undertake
most training during working hours, leading
to a loss of income for iPros. This is a major
issue for policy makers and professional
bodies as well as for iPros themselves who, if
they are to retain their specialist skills, need to
give training a higher priority.
Recommendations
The fndings of the research has led to a
series of recommendations targeted at
policy makers, professional bodies, clients of
iPros and iPros themselves. Implementation
of these recommendations will enable the
contribution or iPros to businesses and
economies to be nurtured, and for iPro
working to grow at an even faster rate.
Implementation of these
recommendations will enable
the contribution or iPros to
businesses and economies to be
nurtured, and for iPro working
to grow at an even faster rate.
to iPro working and develop a policy
agenda to highlight these.
Continue to develop and gain support for
innovative support structures.
Take responsibility for career development
in a more active and coherent way.
Recognise that collaboration does not
undermine independence and fnd the
right balance between working in isolation
and with others.
Clients of iPros should:
Clearly identify and take into account the
distinctive needs of iPros.
Recognise that the growth in iPro working
presents challenges to traditional
management practices and develop new
models of working in response to this.
Review existing contractual and other
issues that may inhibit the way in which
iPros work.
Recognise the implications of late payment
and other practical concerns that iPros
often encounter.
through committee and consultative body
membership, and seats on advisory boards
so they can be consulted when change is
proposed.
Develop new models of work support with
greater fexibility and creativity in order to
explore different ways of responding to
iPros needs.
Encourage iPros to engage in continued
professional development by considering
their specifc training needs and providing
funding through the form of tax concessions,
subsidies or vouchers.
Professional bodies should:
Clearly identify and take into account the
distinctive needs of iPros as well as
employee members.
Recognise that the growth in iPro working
presents new opportunities and take an
innovative approach to recruiting iPros.
Consider how best to provide iPros with
support, particularly in terms of useful
training and offering a wider range of relevant
services.
Ensure the delivery of training is practical and
attractive to iPros through increased
use of online and other fexible forms of
training.
Ensure that iPros are represented on relevant
committees so they have a voice.
Collaborate more effectively with other bodies
and associations, and form alliances to
strengthen the support for iPros.
iPros should:
Consider the most effective ways of achieving
a voice and identify avenues to express
unifying views and promote iPro working.
Identify specifc issues and concerns relating
91
92
93
Annexe 1
National Reports for Chapter 3:
Regulation and Support
These national reports cover:
The tax system
The social security system
The legal framework for business
State support for start-ups
The professional framework
Te tax system in each of the nine states
Belgium
Income tax is relatively straightforward in Belgium and allows for the deduction of social security payments as a
business expense. As contributions are high in Belgium, this is helpful. Income tax rates vary between 25% and 50%.
A Royal Decree fxes the amount of the social security contributions (at 22%, though there is some fexibility), though
the rules applying to a new business are complex.
Complex, too, are the rules for VAT with variable rates. iPros need to be registered and complete quarterly VAT
returns. Much depends on the occupation of the iPro as to how much is payable. The local fnance offces deal with
the matter. Although the rules in Belgium are logical, the requirement for authorisation and for lawyers to deal with
some issues can make iPro working costly in Belgium, though iPros do also gain access to many social benefts.
Taxable profts are calculated in a similar way for companies and for self-employed persons. However, there are
different rates of payment which are higher for personal income tax (up to 50%) compared with corporation tax
(normally 33.9%). No corporation tax is payable for organisations without corporate status. Accounting obligations
depend on the type of organisation, the more onerous requirements being placed on large businesses, so iPros are
not subject to such stringent standards.
Finland
Income tax from a private entrepreneurs business depends on business profts, but all income generally is
taxable, with permitted taxable deductions.
All businesses and self-employed professionals are obliged to keep books, for which the management of an
enterprise is responsible. The obligation to keep books starts when founding the enterprise.
iPros appear to be potentially liable for both progressive income tax and proportionate (fxed) capital tax. This is
20% of net income.
ANNEXE
94
State income tax is progressive for income earned, the rate (30% rising according to the income earned;
corporation tax is at 24.5%).
France
iPros have a choice between a company and sole proprietorship. Tax rate and base differ depending on legal form,
turnover and activity. The main tax features on legal forms consistent with most iPros are as follows (as of 2013):
Income tax is payable on sole ownership i.e. the net profts are income, unless not fully accounted, in which case it
is 25% of net proft. Rates for a single person start at 5.5% and range up to 45%, starting on incomes above 5,963.
In addition, an extraordinary tax of 3% is applied above 250,000 and 4% above 500,000.
EURL companies are not taxed as a company, but the sole shareholder is taxed on the net proft as income, as a
sole proprietorship would be. EURL companies can opt instead to pay corporate tax; at 15% up to 38,120 of profts
and 33.33% above (or on all profts if turnover exceeds 7.63m). Dividends rebates of 40% apply to avoid double
taxation.
SASU companies are subject to corporation tax; newer SASU companies (under 5 years) may, subject to
certain conditions, opt for income taxation as an alternative.
VAT registration starts at 32,600 turnover; full accounting requirements are in force if turnover exceeds
234,000 (the VAT rate is 19.6%). Below the VAT registration threshold, it is considered a micro-enterprise and
is VAT exempt. In a micro-enterprise in the service or non-commercial sectors, income tax is assessed on the
basis of 66% of turnover, without consideration of expenses.
All companies are subject to territorial economic contributions, including a 1.5% tax on added value if
turnover exceeds 152,500, and a contribution on the rental value of any business property, determined by
municipality (with some exemptions for micro-enterprises).
Germany
There are three bases for taxes - individual, trade and corporate taxation.
iPros in Germany can opt for being taxed as an individual or as a business, and there is a choice as to the type of
company that can be used. A GmbH is a separate legal entity and an OHG is not, making the individual liable for any
debts.
If corporate status is not used, iPros are taxed simply on income.
There are special rules for members of liberal professions and other specifed groups.
The basic 2011 corporate federal rate of tax in Germany is 15%.
A business tax, 14%-17% on average, payable to the municipality, is added.
A company that operates in a number of cities pays business tax according to the location of its employees in the
various cities.
Taxable income for the purposes of business tax may be adjusted for purposes of calculating the basis on which
business tax is payable.
Business tax is an allowable expense for purposes of calculating the income on which corporation tax is payable.
Italy
In Italy, iPros can choose to be a sole professional and pay income tax or use a corporate structure. Direct taxes
depend on an organisations proftability, and are therefore calculated on the basis of income. The main ones are:
personal income tax (IRPEF): applied to revenues of sole proprietorships; It is dependent on income.
95
corporate income tax (IRES): applied to revenues of business corporations.
Italian regional tax on productive activities (IRAP): applied to all sole proprietorships,
partnerships and business corporations.
Indirect taxes include VAT, registration tax and legal transcription fees.
There is a cadastral tax and municipal tax is payable on property.
Other taxes include excise duties, stamp duties, publicity tax, TOSAP and TARSU.
Netherlands
Taxes in the Netherlands depend on the type of business the iPros have chosen. The choices are a sole
proprietorship (eenmanszaak) or a legal personality (limited liability company - BV).

Income tax is at 52% on incomes over 56,000 in 2013.
VAT is subject to variable rates up to 21%.
The limited liability company pays tax at 20% profts up to 200,000; an iPro will get his salary in this case from the
company and pay income tax.
Poland
iPros in Poland have the choice of a corporate structure or not. Corporation tax rate is 19%.
iPros who are natural persons (not using a company) can pay the tax rate of 18% or 32% for a threshold of PLN 85
528, or pay a rate of 19%. In certain cases, an iPro can decide on one of the forms of lump-sum income tax: lump-
sum tax on recorded revenue or fat rate tax.
All natural persons, including partners in partnerships and private partnerships pay income tax. Natural persons
who are not residents in Poland pay tax on income obtained only in Poland (limited tax obligation).
Spain
The taxation system in Spain operates at three levels, organised by central government (national level), autonomous
communities (regions) and local authorities.
At national level personal income tax (IRPF) is payable by sole traders, while corporation tax is paid on the profts
of companies. Likewise, iPros have to pay the Value Added Tax (VAT) nationally, regardless of their business structure
(sole traders or companies).
The regulation of the quoted taxes is dealt with below, along with the regulation of the different business structures.
The self-employed with a turnover of more than 1 million have to pay the Economic Activities Tax (IAE). Those
businesses which have a turnover under the referred limit have to register for IAE and to be assigned a tax category
and number. Royal Decree Act 1175/1990, of 28th September determines the rates to be payable.
Other local taxes also levy the ownership of and sale of properties.
At regional level, running alongside a general taxation system there is the possibility of imposing taxes for
environmental protection or fuel consumption. Some regions also have special tax systems (Navarre and the Basque
Country for historical reasons, The Canaries, Ceuta and Melilla due to geographical location). Local authority
taxes include a trading tax and tax on profts from sales or urban property or land.
United Kingdom
Income tax rates depend on income up to a maximum of 45% for high earners. iPros can offset against income
approved expenses which can include premises, secretarial, travel and training costs.
96
VAT is variable but the standard rate is 20%.
Payment of corporation tax is at two rates, depending on the taxable profts, a lower rate of 20%, known as
the small profts rate (for profts of up to 300,000) and a higher rate, the full or main rate of 24% (on profts
exceeding 1.5 million). There is also a sliding scale between these rates, called the Marginal Relief.
Te social security system in each of the nine states
Belgium
The self-employed must make social security contributions; they must also make contributions to cover sickness.
Contribution to unemployment, family allowances etc. and sickness etc. is not applicable for self-employed along
with contributions for work injuries. Although the self-employed are not therefore eligible for pension and sickness
benefts, there are some means-tested alternatives, for which they do qualify.
Voluntary contributions can be made for hospital and maternity costs as there are special systems for self-
employed persons there does not appear to be a category of universal beneft here.

Self-employed persons can expand their social protection and that of their family by, for example, taking out
additional insurance or insuring their home against seizure.
The self-employed have access to a basic pension after 45 years as an iPro. Currently it is at 12,327 per annum.
Finland
In some ways, social costs for the self-employed are higher in Finland for iPros than for employees; they are roughly
the equivalent for the combined employer/employee sum.
iPros setting up in business for the frst time pay a lower rate for the frst 48 months.
Entrepreneurs are required to take out special pensions insurance.
They are advised to take out health insurance through clinics or private companies.
They ought also to take out accident insurance.
iPros can claim most benefts, e.g. sick pay and maternity pay, old age pension, though the unemployment beneft
requires contribution if it is to be earnings-related. iPros then need to join the Entrepreneurs Unemployment Fund.
Some benefts are means tested, e.g. disability allowance.
To obtain payment following a work injury, the iPro should have made contributions dependent on the assessed risk
of their profession.
There are a range of other family benefts available.
Family allowances available to all, including the self-employed and payable on the same basis as for other
workers.
France
The self-employed are not special in the French system; they are dealt with as general employees, with no special
dispensation as exists for specifed sectoral groups (e.g. miners, seamen, railroad workers, ministers of religion). The
self-employed contribute to:
RSI for sickness and maternity.
97
URSSAF for family allowances.
National Fund Insurance Pension of Professionals for basic old age cover; in addition there are mandatory
supplementary pension funds that are managed by professional groups (10 funds) e.g. the National Fund for
the French Bar. Contribution rates vary from one occupational group to another. Some examples:
Old age, disability and survivor insurance: contributions are calculated on the basis of income tax
professional income calculations. Professionals pay 9.75% of income up to 31,477, then 1.81% up to a
maximum contribution of 5,851.
Sickness and maternity: again, income tax professional income calculations provide the base, and then all
professionals pay 6.5%; there is no maximum contribution.
iPros do not have access to sickness, unemployment or injury beneft and unless they have contributed,
family benefts are not available.
Germany
Although contribution is mandatory for employees, with insurance covering sickness, infrmity, old age,
unemployment. Premiums are paid equally by employees and employers; employers also pay for work injury
insurance.
For the self-employed, participation is generally voluntary, with an obligation to look after yourself through private
provision:
Sickness and maternity insurance can be maintained as a voluntary member, although with different
premiums.
Infrmity insurance is packaged with sickness insurance, although an exemption can be made for private
cover.
Old age insurance is generally only for employees; self-employed, voluntary members must pay the whole
premium themselves.
Unemployment and injury insurance again allows for voluntary membership, although only for those
working at least 15 hours and paying the entire premium.
In some cases there are professionally-based, mandatory systems. For example, the
Knstlersozialversicherungsgesetz (social security law for artists) provides mandatory old age, sickness and
infrmity insurance, where they do not employ people and their arts work is their main source of income. 50% of the
premiums are paid by the independent, with the remainder paid by contractual partners or the state.
Old age insurance is mandatory for certain independent professionals, including teachers, artists and writers. Also,
those self-employed working only for one client are mandated to join Arbeitnehmerhnliche (meaning solo-self-
employed).
Italy
Italy has a complex system of both contributions and benefts. Employees and the self-employed are generally
treated differently, with the self-employed contributing more and some benefts are means tested. There is a category
of contract workers, not referred to in other states that have quasi-employee status for these purposes. Non-
contract self-employed workers appear to have a low level of access to benefts:
Old age insurance with three types of coverage, all of which have special systems for public-sector
workers and self-employed persons. Contributions for self-employed are not applicable. A means-tested
Social Allowance is payable to those who do not qualify for one of the contributory old-age pensions. There is
a means-tested Disability Allowance, but there seems to be a minimum contribution condition attached.
Sickness and maternity - sickness benefts are payable to employed persons and contract workers.
Maternity benefts also extend to self-employed.
There is a dedicated Tuberculosis beneft, payable to employed persons and some categories of self-
employed. Whereas employed persons do not make any contributions toward the funding of these benefts,
98
self-employed make variable contributions. Each beneft, except for TB, is means-tested for contractors
and self-employed but not for other workers.
Work injury beneft self-employed, apart from agricultural workers, are not eligible but
contract workers are.
Unemployment beneft self-employed are excluded.
For family allowances there are special systems to cover the self-employed.
Netherlands
All iPros have to make social security contributions on the same basis as employees. Medical insurance is also
compulsory.
They have to make their own arrangements for disability protection.
iPros do qualify for sick pay and maternity pay and for a low level safety net welfare payment.
Although they qualify for an old age pension, most iPros need to take measures themselves to have enough income
for old age. There is a lack of possibilities for the self-employed to be part of a bigger group to save for a pension, so
they mostly have to arrange their pension in an expensive individual way or do nothing because of the complexity.
They do qualify for family allowances and child beneft.
Disability benefts have to be organized by the self employed. That means that there are many disability insurance
providers, because the high risks and costs the insurances are not all payable to self-employed.
Work injury no dedicated benefts exist. Coverage is included in the other provisions such as disability and
medical benefts.
For unemployment contributions are not applicable, nor are benefts.
Poland
Self-employment is a fexible and fscally attractive alternative to standard employment in Poland. The self-
employed can choose their level of protection in Poland but do have access to benefts. The social costs are high for
employees, especially high earning ones. This is an incentive for professionals to change their status to iPro.
iPros effectively pay lower contributions than employees. In return for lack of stability, lack of employees group
lay-off protection, lack of administrative burden and lack of paid holidays, they can chose one of two alternatives: a
progressive or a linear income tax.
The former consists of two thresholds (18% and 32%), which are the same as income tax for the employees.
The latter is fxed at the level of 19%. This is the most favourable option if revenue exceeds the equivalent of
approximately 20,000.
In both cases, the self-employed have a right to deduct costs linked to their professional activity as well as
depreciation before calculating earnings before tax, and also to deduct VAT tax (if applicable), which makes this form
even more attractive as compared to employment.
Relatively few in Poland operate through limited companies.
Spain
In Spain the system for iPros depends greatly on profession.
If an iPro is included in those Professional Institutes or Associations organised prior to 10th November 1995 which
have not become integrated within the Social Security System (including lawyers, architects, chemists, engineers)
they are entitled to opt between the Special Scheme for Self-Employed Workers (the so-called Rgimen Especial
de la Seguridad Social, hereinafter RETA) or in the mutual insurance established by their Professional Institute or
99
Association.
Professional mutual insurances provide less cover (in range of benefts and in amount) than the Social Security
System, but require much lower contributions. Thus, such alternative insurances are more affordable for iPros in
the beginning of their professional careers, but the result is that they obtain less and lower benefts than they would
secure under the Special Social Security Scheme for Self-employed.
Under RETA, professionals gain health care in case of maternity, common illness, professional illness and accidents;
economic benefts for temporary disability, maternity, paternity, incapacity, retirement, death, survival and having
child dependents. Self-employed members were not entitled to unemployment beneft until 2010; it is now allowable
but only in cases of involuntary cessation of business activity, and on less favourable terms than for employees (e.g.
for 12 months rather than 25 months).
Contributions are up to 29.8% plus 2.2% (covering unemployment), refecting a slightly reduced version of the total
of employee and employer contributions. Those under 30 (35 for women) enjoy reduced contributions for 15 months
after joining; those rejoining after maternity leave, and those with disability, are also given a concessionary allowance.
United Kingdom
The social security system provides for variable contribution rates. The self-employed pay a low level of contribution
but gain access to relatively few benefts. The system in the UK has recently undergone considerable reform, largely
as a result of the Welfare Reform Act 2012. This has brought together a number of hitherto separate benefts, but few
of them were available to the self-employed. Many benefts in the UK do not require a contributions record.
Self-employed people who only pay at the lower contribution rate can only really access the following benefts:
A basic state pension, currently around 130 Euros a week.
An incapacity beneft, currently being phased out and along with other non-contributory benefts being
rolled up into the Universal Credit.
Although there is no access to state sickness beneft or to state maternity, paternity and adoption pay,
some very basic payments are available to the self-employed, such as the Maternity Allowance which is a
one-off lump sum payment made to all.
iPros in the UK have to look to private providers for health, enhanced retirement and other protections,
including income protection. These tend to be expensive.
Te legal framework for
business in each of the nine states
Belgium
To be self-employed a person must normally be 18 years of age. Declared bankrupts, those convicted of fraudulent
bankruptcy or on probation are among the groups of people who are excluded from the right to be self-employed.
Belgium is a state with three major regions. This conditions much of the administrative framework and procedures
that apply to iPros.
Linguistic matters are also important for the world of work and all iPros, especially those moving to Belgium from
another EU state, must be able to demonstrate profciency in one of the offcial languages and be able to show they
have the capacity to run a business. Those moving to Belgium must also obtain the Professional Card indicating they
have the qualifcations to work in a particular occupation.
The iPro can seek advice from the public business co-ordination centres and must then register with the Register
of Companies (KBO/BCE) set up within the Federal Public Department for the Economy, Small and Medium-sized
Enterprises and the Self Employed and Energy. The iPro is then given a unique identifcation number to be used in
100
the future for a range of purposes. It is important to note that in Belgium an iPro who has not set up some form of
company (a fairly complex process requiring the notional lodging of funds with a bank etc.) is personally liable for
debts, as is their spouse unless a formal marital agreement dealing with the matter has been set up by a lawyer. The
choice of business structure is fairly wide but again legal professional advice is normally required to execute them.
Regulated professions are subject to specifc legislation. These are: estate agents; land surveyors; registered
accountants and tax consultants; chartered accountants and tax advisers; company auditors; psychologists;
architects.
There are many professional bodies in Belgium covering both regulated and new professions. Some are regionally
based, other religiously based; some dedicated to a single professional group and a few operating cross-profession.
Sole proprietorship (as a natural person) is easy to set up, but, having a single founder, the companys assets are
not separate from the founder (therefore that person incurs unlimited liability).
Public limited companies (SA/NV) require at least two shareholders and limited partnerships also require two or
more people. Thus, these are not appropriate structures for iPros.
The private limited liability company (socit prive responsabilit limite / besloten vennootschap met beperkte
aansprakelijkheid - SPRL/BVBA) is the only form of company that can be set up by an individual. However, formation,
registration, accounting etc. provisions are more onerous than for sole proprietorships, so it is unlikely that this would
be the natural choice of organisation for iPros.
Finland
As well as the requirement to register the right of residence with the Police, formal requirements depend on type of
business structure.
If the iPro remains a sole professional, they personally undertake full legal and fnancial liability for the business and
is entitled to any proft made (subject to taxation). There is no need to prepare establishment documents, keeping
start-up costs down. There is also no minimum capital requirement.
Setting up and running a limited liability company is more complex and expensive. Registration documents are
required; a relative modest minimum capital of 2,500 is also required. There are also more onerous rules governing
the preparation and publishing of accounts and for the ID number to be used in all company communications and
stationery etc.
Both private entrepreneur and limited company may have to register certain information on the Trade Register.
Registration fees are charged at a lower rate for iPros than for other organisations.
For some professionals, notifcation of their right to practice licenses may be required, depending on the nature of
the business. Unusually, there is no requirement in Finland for architects to be licensed.
France
The role of the professional bodies in France ensure that there are strict requirements for compliance with national
procedures and standards. In France, outside the governmental sector, the Chambers of Commerce and the Metiers
(craft organisation) have considerable roles and infuence. France generally relies on registration with relevant
government departments. Administration is effcient but can be slow and complex, especially for non-French
nationals.
If you are an iPro in France and are starting up or the business is small, the most appropriate form of business
structure is probably to register with tax and other authorities as an Enterprise Individuelle (EI). However for service
providers this is only possible where income is below 33,000 per annum and anyway there is personal liability for the
iPro themselves. It is possible to protect, say, the family home with a dclaration dinsaisissabilit through a notaire.
Business structure is regulated by the relevant Centre of Enterprise Formality (CFE), in accordance with 2006,
123/EC; CFE covers all registration paperwork, as well as registration with the social security system. CFEs include
chambers of commerce and URSSAF for professionals.
There are three company structures available as an alternative for sole proprietorship. The EURL is most popular,
101
followed by SASU (both limited liability but EURL has the simpler capital structure). The EIRL, adopted in 2011, is a
hybrid of limited liability and sole proprietorship, but is very rare in practice. EURL and SASU are fully limited liability;
EIRL limits liability according to limits on professional purposes.
Sole proprietorship has special status for the micro-enterprise and auto-entrepreneur. In all such cases, the iPro
retains full and unlimited liability, and direct liability. The auto-entrepreneur status has become particularly popular;
there are thought to be 700,000, 30% of all professionals. CFE registration fees are higher for limited companies than
for sole proprietorships, because of the need to pay for the drafting of statutes.
Legal recognition of status as a non-wage, independent professional depends on the presumption of non-
subordination; this is violated if a contract of employment exists; at that point, the Labour Code and collective
agreements come into force.
Germany
Business and employment administration is not complex in Germany. To work as a self-employed person it is only
necessary to inform the registry offce (Einwohnermeldeamt) although it should be noted that Germany is keen to
ensure only genuine self-employed people work as such.
There is resistance to disguised, sham or dependent worker status and so an iPro will need to be autonomous.

If self-employed status is used, the individual remains liable for all debts and other issues and so one of the various
business structures might be used. These include various forms of companies and partnerships. The legal question
is one of personal liability. The OHG provides a simple business model but does not protect personal liability of those
involved. The GbR is a fexible company model which can be a one person company but the GmbH, the usual limited
company requires a 25,000 deposit, which may be beyond the means of many iPros.
Registration procedures appear quite simple and generally the business and fscal authorities procedures in
Germany do not seem too diffcult or complex. There is clear division between employers and employees. Employees
(dependent workers) get full labour rights. Employee-like persons get (very) limited rights, including paid holiday
leave and access to collective bargaining some iPros may get these rights, but only if they perform their services
personally and mainly for one principal.
There are two categories of self-employed people, which are business people and members of the liberal
professions. In each case there are licensing or permit requirements, depending on the specialism of work. There is
also a requirement to become a member of the chamber of industry and commerce. It is also necessary to notify the
tax offce of any profts and provide a statement of assets and liabilities.
Italy
To work as a self-employed person, you have to have a certifcato di residenza but it has to be converted to one of
self-employment (lavoro autonomo) or a freelance certifcate (lavoro indipendente) or operate as a member of a liberal
profession (libero professionista).
It is likely that iPros will need to have one of the last two certifcates, depending on their occupation. Registration
with appropriate profession or association is essential and working without completing the administrative
requirements can lead not only to a heavy fne but expulsion from the country.
An individual must be therefore be on an appropriate register but if there is no regulated profession involved
they must be registered on the Registro delle Imprese (Register of Enterprises). They must obtain a certifcate of
registration, register with the local tax offce and be registered for VAT purposes.
These requirements are not in themselves daunting, but much depends on the speed and effciency of local
offces. Assuming successful registration, the self-employed person is taxed as an individual and therefore remains
personally liable. Alternatively, they can set up a limited company. Once again there are various options and the
strong advice to the self-employed is to seek professional support before going ahead as there are many fscal and
other implications of their choice.
A particular issue, which has impacted onto iPros has been Italys concerns about employment status. It has been
considered earlier in the report that to be genuinely self-employed you must not be in a subordinate position. Many
freelancers run the risk of para-subordinate status, i.e. as quasi employees, especially if they are dependent on
102
one client for work and lack the features of an entrepreneur. Associations in Italy devote much effort to advising,
especially new professionals, how to retain their independence. However, Italian Law (Article 2222 of the Civil Code)
in defning self-employment as not being subordinate, cites the liberal professions as being the best examples of it.
For a sole proprietorship it is necessary to set up a VAT number, request a tax identifcation number and sign up to
the Business Register of the Chamber of Commerce. Companies are set up by deed and notarised. Registration must
take place at the local Revenue Agency within 20 days.
Netherlands
The issue of correct employment status is a complex one, as there are concerns that self-employed status is
abused. An iPro can go to the local offce of the Tax and Customs Administration and apply for a VAR (Verklaring
arbeidsrelatie). The offce applies certain tests to determine status and if satisfed the VAR is granted and can be
used to reassure clients that self-employment is correct. Some clients require sight of the VAR before a contract is
granted. The application process can take up to eight weeks. The VAR is also subject to strict monitoring.
All businesses, including iPros have to register with the Chamber of Commerce (Kamer van Koophandel) Trade
Register. The registration, if done in person requires basic personal data and can be done in a few hours. There is an
initial and annual fee for this registration and the amount depends on the nature of the business. The Trade Register
is a public document and any changes to the business need to be promptly notifed.
There is a need to register with the local offces of direct taxation, indirect taxation and social security. For sole
traders/self-employed this registration can be done at the same time as registering on the Trade Register. It is
reported that Dutch taxation is very complex and will require professional advice. There are also specifc rules about
the types of contract a self-employed person should use, depending on the nature of an assignment. The two basic
versions are a Service Agreement, for on-going advice and other work, and the Contractor Agreement where work is
for a specifc project.
iPros would, by defnition come under the heading of a zzper (or freelancer) i.e. self-employed person with no
employees who works for a number of customers. However, this is not a legal category of self-employed worker,
so it is necessary to consider the legal categories which do exist. Dutch law provides a range of business models
beyond that of sole trader/self-employed. iPros who are members of regulated professions can form partnerships (A
VOF or CV) whereby income tax is payable on profts but individuals are liable for losses and other responsibilities.
They require registration, as do limited liability companies (BV), along with a cash deposit. This type of business
organisation may be too formal for most iPros, though it does have advantages.
In 2013 a new Social Akkoord was agreed which aims to recognise iPros as a distinct group and which should lead
to legislative changes.
Poland
The steps taken to set up a business in Poland have been previously considered in Chapter 3. In common with
most other EU states, a number of steps have to be followed:
The business must be entered on the Register of Business Activites. This can take up to two weeks and
has a small cost attached to it. The entry is fled at the City or Commune Offce.
A REGON number has to be obtained and be fled with the statistics offce. This works for most
administrative purposes and is unique to the individual.
Where a company is being set up there is a need to obtain a company seal. This is necessary for banking
etc.
A bank account must be set up.
The business must register with the tax offce.
The business must register with the social security institutions.
City or Commune must be notifed where the business is located.
103
Spain
Health and safety law has specifc provisions to ensure cooperation, information and instruction between
companies and any self-employed workers with whom they contract. Companies remain responsible for the health
and safety of those they contract, by ensuring compliance and readiness of any equipment. Self-employed workers
right to interrupt work where health and safety is in danger is specifcally protected.
iPros can work as sole proprietors with unlimited liability, with no additional legal status necessary, and no
obligation to register (although it may be advisable to do so). Set-up can be undertaken on-line, and there is no legal
minimum capital requirement.
Anecdotally, the administration system is complex and slow, coupled with continuing tight regulation of professions
and professional qualifcations. A self-employed worker works for themselves and before work can commence they
have to register. The steps are as follows:
Compete the Declaration Censal de Inicio de Activad. This is completed at the local tax offce.
Registration with Social Security under the Regimen Especial de Autonomos with the
local social security offce.
Registration with the relevant professional board.
Obtaining a municipal license for work premises.
Alternatively, limited liability companies can be formed, with just one member, with a process of incorporation
through the Central Register of Companies; certain taxes are incurred.
Employment law expressly states that own account work carried out shall not be subjected to labour legislation,
although the law also assures of their right to exercise fundamental public rights and liberties recognised by
the constitution. Specifc rights recognised for autonomous workers include equality before the law, protection
from discrimination or harassment, to professional training, to physical integrity, to receipt of agreed economic
compensation, and to family life and social assistance.
United Kingdom
There are relatively few regulations that impact on iPros.
Starting out as an iPro is simple, with the only key decision being whether to set up a limited company.
Registration is only required by the HMRC-the tax authority if they wish to be sole traders.
Setting up a limited company is simple and does not require capital. Registration is with Companies House and
recently reporting and monitoring requirements have been eased.
There have been major issues in the UK over employment status, ie what differentiates the employee from the self-
employed. There have been high profle cases involving highly paid staff allegedly self-employed working for public
sector bodies, in particular. HMRC has undertaken a number if initiatives to close loopholes but the outcomes seem
unclear.
State support for start-ups in each of the nine states
Belgium
These target the unemployed with support to become self-employed. It is also possible to delay social security
contributions and some self-employed qualify for allowances.
104
Young (under 30) people get support e.g. preferential loan rates and start-up loans. There is now a simplifed
company status (SPRLS) with relaxed requirements regarding minimum capital (EEOR) which is available to all.
Competitiveness and Innovation Programme for SMEs this is an EU scheme, so applies to all member states.
Finland
Free online service providing information for companies and entrepreneurs. Business start-up accelerator
programme.
France
Under the law in favour of SMEs (2005), tax arrangements were reformed to encourage investment, hiring and
inheritance of SME businesses. Under the Modernisation of the Economy Act, the auto-entrepreneur status was
created. Most recently, the 2010 law relating to sole proprietorship with limited liability created EIRL company
structure.
Financial supports include:
New support for the creation and enterprise buyout aimed primarily at job seekers, the entrepreneur is
technically assisted for three years, with a non-interest loan of up to 10,000 for 5 years.
Loan for business creation, secured by OSEO (SME business fnance public agency) of 2,000 to 5,000
coupled with a conventional bank loan, designed for enterprises under 3 years old.
Support for job seekers creating or buying out a business (ACCRE) offers an exemption from social security
contributions for one year up to 120% of minimum wage (20,595).
Professionals are subject to the compulsory contribution to vocational training (93 in 2013), qualifying them
for support for training and professional development. Subject to approval, iPros can gain funding from the
interprofessional fund for training professions (FIFPL).
Germany
Germany does not currently provide much support for iPro start-ups.
Until recently, there was a fairly widely used scheme that could be applied for if the potential iPro qualifed for
unemployment beneft. It was available for 6 months and paid at the same rate as unemployment beneft, plus some
extra sums to cover health insurance etc.
From 2011 availability has been much reduced (by an estimated 85%) as the grant has become discretionary.
Germany also has a micro-credit scheme introduced in 2010 but it has not proved especially effective.
Italy
Preferential interest rate loans to encourage under-30s, who can also apply for a start-up loan.
SPRL Starter status allows lower levels of start-up capital.
There are a number of fscal incentives for businesses in Italy which can periodically be made use of. These are
aimed at supporting entrepreneurial development, promoting employment, developing certain areas and regions,
primarily in the South of Italy (Abruzzo, Molise, Campania, Basilicata, Apulia, Calabria, Sicily and Sardinia) and
supporting research and innovation.
The support measures available include fnancial aid for investment in some areas; research aid covering up to
40% of costs; aid boosting employment (in the South) and special provision for start-ups in duty-free urban zones,
benefting from lower credit taxes, lower regional tax (IRAP) for the frst fve periods, lower municipal property tax (ICI)
and lower wedge of tax and contributions on wages.
105
Investment aid: fnancial aid is provided to businesses which buy new materials and equipment destined for
organisations and specifc areas of Basilicata, Calabria, Campania, Apulia, Sicily, Abruzzo, Molise and Sardinia. Aid is
granted as part of public regional aid.
Netherlands
Has an active policy about becoming an entrepreneur, not specifcally for the iPros. For the unemployed to start a
business and funding for example, relevant courses, there is more than for the self starting iPro.
Answers for Business: Small Businesses Scheme gives VAT reductions/exemptions for VAT payments and can get
exemption from fling VAT returns (administrative burden/costs reduced); SME proft exemption; Private Business
Ownership Allowance; microfnancing for start-up businesses; entrepreneurs allowance (for tax purposes).
Poland
Limited support is available. We have no data on specifc initiatives.
Spain
Legal provision is made for a wide range of support, including economic assistance, such as easing the
administration of the VAT systems, and the lump sum payment of accrued unemployment benefts to support
business creations.
Advice to those considering self-employment and business start-up is available from the Chambers of Commerce.
Work has also been undertaken to streamline the associated administrative procedures, as well as provide
Entrepreneur Support Centres (CEAEs). The single points of contact (VUE) have been located at Chambers of
Commerce, and further technical advice is available through the Employment Public Services, with the ability to fund
viability studies (between 75% and 100% up to 2,000) and training courses (75% to 100% up to 3,000); although
funding for training has apparently declined 75% over the four years to 2012.
Further support is available from the Union Profesional (UP), bringing together 33 associations, institutes and
societies, representing more than 1,000 bodies at regional and national level across all different kinds of profession.
There are also unions representing autonomous workers, such as Unin de Profesionales y Trabajadores Autnomos
(UPTA) and Federacin Nacional de Trabajadores Autnomos (ATA); the government has also established a Council
for Autonomous Work.
United Kingdom
Limited support is available. But see New Deal Plus and Flexible New Deal for the over-50s unemployed who have
been in receipt of Job Seekers Allowance (JSA). There is also a self-employment credit for the newly self-employed
formerly on unemployment beneft (JSA) funded by the DWP.
Te professional framework in each of the nine states
Belgium
As considered earlier, Belgium has strong regional differences. Professional accreditation is often highly localised
with, for example, lawyers having be accredited by their local Bar in order to practice before local courts. These
traditions impact on the framework within which both liberal and new professionals work. Belgium reports 140
regulated professions, broadly in line with the average of the nine states.
106
The liberal professions
The liberal professions in Belgium appear to be regulated along traditional lines. Ordres provide the licensing/
accreditation process which includes prescription of training, qualifcations, rules on advertising cooperating or
working collectively with other professions, and business structures.
Some of the developments in professional practice outside Belgium such as no win-no fee or other incentivised
practices have not developed in Belgium. Although regulation remains, in pan European terms, quite strict, it
does not, in reality, provide a monopoly for most professionals. For example, although architects appear to have a
monopoly to draw up plans, and to supervise construction projects, if non-architects undertake such work, there
appears little enforcement of the rules.
Other professions, especially those concerned with health care, are subject also to state control, for example, as
to the numbers entering the profession, but also enjoy wide discretions, especially, over the fees they can charge.
(Subject to overall state monitoring). Physicians and pharmacists, for example, operate within a clearly defned
structure that differentiates between the various medical and para medical groups. They have monopolies to practice
their work and also considerable infuence through their specialist professional bodies such as the Royal Academy of
Medicine.
The overall position as regards the liberal professions in Belgium remains that of fairly strong professional regulatory
and support bodies which remain effective to control entry to the professions along with professional conduct and
business practices. At the same time, it should be noted that the notion of the sole-practitioner, ie the self-employed
individual who works alone or in loose associations is still the norm and Belgium has not seen, outside Brussels and
other major cities, the rise of the large multi-national professional companies that dominate the market place in some
other EU states. In this sense, professional practice by iPros is an, or even the, orthodox way of working, though tight
self-regulatory controls do inhibit entry, especially for non-nationals.
The new professions
Belgium has a richness of associations and bodies concerned with the new professions. Some cover traditional
new professions, such as translating and interpreting, (CBTIP) and those in journalism, publishing and other media
occupations traditionally undertaken on an iPro/freelance basis. (See, for example, the Association of Professionals
of the Cinema and Audio-visual Independents of Wallonia). Illustrative is also the Belgian Association of Architects of
Gardens and Landscape Gardens (ABAJP) and the Union of Designers in Belgium (UDB).
The newer professionals, such as consultants, fnancial advisors, ICT specialists also have their professional
bodies. For example, the BPRCA, which represents public relations consultants. Belgium has a relatively well
developed market for both specialist and general temporary work agencies. We explored this in Phase 2 of this
project.
Many of the Belgian associations report that they offer training and skills updating, as well as aiming to infuence
policy development and lobbying.
Trade unions appear to play little role in Belgium for iPros, though it is reported that the main white collar union,
LBC-NVK has in recent years targeted iPros, though it is unclear whether this has been successful.
A particular feature of Belgium, which was touched on in this Chapter, is the role of the High Council for Self-
Employed (HRZKMO/CSIPME). This is a public body at federal level for policy development for professions and
trades. It recognises over 140 bodies covering trades and both liberal and free professions. Professions appear to be
represented in terms of areas of expertise, rather than whether they are regulated. For example, there is a sub-section
on law and business professions, another on medical and para-medical professions, one on technical professions
and others. It is clear that iPros do have or can have representation in this body but what remains unclear is the
extent to which it fully represents their interests and ensures iPro friendly laws and policies.
Belgium appears to have a more collaborative approach to professional body representation and at some levels
there is not such a strict divide as in other states as between the regulated and less regulated professions.
Finland
Finland experienced steady growth in self-employment, including iPro work in the early 2000s. Finland reports that
the major growth has been in what it refers to as associate professionals, rather than liberal professionals. In this
respect, Finland is in line with general trends across the EU in iPro work.
107
It will be recalled that in the Rapelli Report data revealed that iPro work in Finland is dominated by health and
social services, media work and Other services, but that the largest single occupational group are in the other
new professional area of technical services, such as ICT. It is reported that there has also been signifcant growth in
technical consultancy, business actuaries and fnancial intermediation.
The general importance of health service work and technical consultancy work might suggest that iPros in Finland
are subject to a regulatory framework typical of those that dominate the liberal professionals. In fact, Finland
has a different profle. Although it reports 69 regulated professions, it only lightly regulates the traditional liberal
professions, such as law, engineering and architects. The exception to light or fairly light regulation is the medical
profession where, for example, pharmacists are tightly regulated and Finland is one of only seven EEA states where
psychotherapists and health psychologists are regulated.
The liberal professions
The state in the form of the Education Ministry regulates academic and vocational qualifcations in Finland, though
there are professional bodies in Finland that apply codes of practice and ethical rules etc. Regulation does not
appear to provide monopolies to practice with the exception of some areas of health work. This implies that access
to professional work is relatively easy. There have been no signifcant regulatory changes recently, and there are few
restrictions on the way professionals work in terms of fee setting, business structures, collaboration etc.
The new professions
In Finland, there is strong sense that if you are not a member of a liberal profession you self-defne as an
entrepreneur or small business. The associations that some new professionals belong to is the Federation of Finnish
Enterprises (SY). It has around 100,000 members of whom around half are enterprises with no employees. SY has
21 regional organisations, 52 sectoral trade organisations and 400 purely local associations. The latter sometimes
conclude collective agreements on the entrepreneurs behalf.
SY also lobbies strongly on fscal matters, labour policies, enterprise issues and lobbying within the EU. Importantly,
it lobbies for support for enterprise training and support for new entrepreneurs. The latter led to the recent scheme of
start-up grants.
Professional associations for new professionals such as for ICT, artists, journalists and others in publishing and
media work have developed. For example, Grafa - the Association of Visual Communication Designers, and the
Association for Investigative Journalism.
ICT professionals can join the Finnish Information Processing Association (FIPA) which, although it has 15,000
members, it is thought only a minority are iPros. There are 48 visual art associations. The Union of Journalists in
Finland is large, with a high representation of freelancers. Others are members of the Association of Investigative
Journalists.
Trade unions have recognised the growth in iPro numbers and some, such as the Confederation of Unions for
Professionals have aimed to recruit self-employed professionals. It is thought that around 4% of its membership is
self-employed, thought it has to be said the overall numbers are low and generally data on Finland is very limited.
France
France is one of the countries that has seen signifcant iPro growth but it is also a country with tight regulation
of its traditional liberal professions. It is reported that 78% of professionals in France are sole practitioners with no
employees. In terms of entrepreneurism it is estimated that of the c.700.000 so-called auto-entrepreneurs 30% are
in the liberal professions and an unknown percentage in the new professions. iPro working, as has been referred to
before, is well represented in the liberal professions, but also in the artistic, sports, health, accountancy and fnancial
services sectors and in various forms of business consultancy.
The liberal professions
Rights to practice and use professional titles are protected by law and the professional bodies are able to control
numbers entering professions and aspects of professional practice.
108
The Law of 2012-387 of 22nd March 2012 aimed to simplify a range of French administrative processes provided in
Article 29. Importantly, it includes a defnition of the key features of a liberal profession. This stresses the overriding
nature of duties to the client and professional ethics and possibly aims to retain the distinction between liberal and
other professions.
Academic and professional qualifcations are centrally controlled by the state, with professional conduct often
controlled locally by, for example, local Bars for lawyers. The Paris Bar is clearly the most powerful, with Bars
providing exclusive advocacy rights. Professional titles are also bestowed on licensed professionals and are closely
guarded.
In terms of the degree of regulation and extent of self-regulation France is rated as having high levels, especially for
accountants, lawyers, notaries, engineers, surveyors and core medical professionals.
In terms of professional bodies, there are many for long-established individual professions. There is also the
Chambres Nationale des Professions Liberale (CNPL) which is a key co-ordinating and lobbying body and is cross-
professional.
The overall position of liberal professions in France appears to show that attempts to de-regulate have been limited
to administrative and fscal matters with a keen commitment to retaining the distinctive features of liberal/free and
autonomous professionalism, including that of stressing the public service role. Therefore access to French liberal
professions is dependent on the EU provisions regarding recognition of qualifcations and experience, along with
freedom of movement rights.
The new professions
The main growth in iPros has been in the new professions, though this has not been without controversy. The
controversy has turned on the suspicion that many arrangements are shams. One consequence in France has been
the development of umbrella companies (salarie porte) that require their clients to provide iPros with information
about collective representative organisations, to explain what type they are (trade or union) and whether they have
bargaining rights. The National Union of Umbrella Companies (SNEPS) has grown rapidly in the last fve years and
has signed agreements with clients in some sectors for pay and a right to training.
Despite the controversies and the aim of some policy makers to resist iPro growth, iPros are well represented in
professional bodies, though most are information, support and lobbying bodies. Examples are the French Association
for Information and Technology, the French Asset Management Association, the French Association of Environmental
Engineers and Technicians, the French Company of Translators, the Federation of Vocational Training, the French
Finance Association and the French Federation of Fashion and Fashion Designers.
Some iPros will join local branches of Chambers of Commerce but there is no overall structure in France to support
iPros and promote their interests. Trade unions generally see them as a threat, the liberal professions want to retain
their difference and although there are many active professional bodies for individual occupations developing broad
policy objectives for iPros appears quite diffcult in France.
There is one cross professional body-the Union Nationale des Professions Liberales (UNAPL), though it excludes
advocates. It is a lobbying organisation and has succeeded in getting clarifcation of the VAT rules and simplifed rules
for setting up in professional practice.
Germany
As we have seen, Germany has enjoyed growth in iPro working but against a backdrop of a strong national
commitment to iPros in many occupations self-defning as members of liberal professions rather than entrepreneurs
or iPro/freelancers. This is despite the fact that many iPros work alone. There are an estimated 1.5 million iPros
in Germany. It has a strong tradition of lengthy training for many professional groups, combined with high levels
of academic knowledge. German law aims to exclude sham self-employment relationships and to protect stable
employment generally.
The liberal professions
There are an estimated 152 regulated professions in Germany though much fewer are liberal professionals. The
liberal professions include the traditional occupations and rules comply with the 2005 professions directive.
Regulation comes from a variety of sources, for example, for lawyers, there is the Federal Lawyers Act, (BRAO),
109
the Rules of Professional Practice (BORA), the rules of FAO, RVG and CCBE (Bars and Law Societies of Europe),
along with EURAG rules. The rules require high level qualifcations and adherence to professional ethics. Liberal
professional regulation is rated as high in Germany.
There are, of course, many specialist professional bodies but there is also a national body for professions. This is
the Bundesverband der Freien Berufe (BFB) that covers over 70 professional associations. It includes iPros. It is a
prestigious co-ordinating body and it goes beyond the traditional liberal professional associations, for example, a
body that represents freelance proof readers and editors is a member of BFB. It is interesting to explore the extent to
which the existence of overarching representative bodies strengthens the position of iPros in Germany or whether the
more protective polices of the liberal professions continue to dominate.
There has been little legislative or other change to the powers, and impact of rules on the liberal professions and
it seems that the idea that strict regulation protects the public and maintains standards is closely guarded. There is
a resistance to the de-regulation and liberalisation that is required to encourage greater competition and diversity in
the delivery of professional services. Case law has prompted a few changes, for example, to successfully challenge
some of the barriers against access to professional work of lawyers by non-German qualifed persons.
The new professions
Data remains hard to access, with little information on the number of bodies that represent iPros. There are many
bodies described as trade bodies and it is often hard to determine whether they are promoting an area of work or
the people who work in it. The freelance proof readers have already been referred to, and there is the Federation of
Germany Industry Designers, the Federation of Freelance Translators and Interpreters (ATICOM), the German Society
of Cinematographors (BVK) and a Society for Translators of German Literature. It is unclear the extent to which the
typical new professions, such as in ICT, consultancy, interim management, provision of specialist health work, trainers
and, say, fnancial advisors have active and useful professional bodies.
Against the backdrop of the regulated and liberal professions requiring such high educational and professional
standards, iPros in the areas of work in the previous paragraph need effective advice support, especially as regards
training.
The temporary agency and recruitment market is well-developed in Germany and the extent to which they provide
professional support is being explored.
Trade unions have long had a signifcant role in some areas of iPro work. For example, the United Services Union
(ver-di) is largely concerned with media-related occupations. Ver-di offers a wide range of professional support and
services to members, including to the Association of German Writers which is affliated to it. The German Union of
Journalists is a mainstream trade union with one third of its members being iPros. Mediafon offers strong support
to iPros/freelancers. However, although these unions do provide some professional support for freelancers, they do
not negotiate on their behalf but pay appears to be capable of being fxed in the media. These rates are not strongly
relied on but do possibly set a benchmark.
Interestingly, iPros in the media sector are entitled to copyright protection by the Copyright Act, 2002 which applies
equally to iPro photographers. Ver-di has also reached arrangements for iPros regarding royalties, though not
technically as part of a collective agreement.
Overall, Germany is a vibrant market place for independent working, though formal structures and processes to
support them have not so far developed strongly outside the media sector. The infuence of the liberal professions
remains very strong and, broadly, sets the tone for policy development and other initiatives.
Italy
Italy has a long tradition of professional bodies to represent and regulate liberal professions. It has a reported 148
regulated professions and many associations that deal with the new professions. There have been recent moves
to reduce regulatory provisions. Data is not easy to obtain for Italy, as although they are members of CEPLIS,
information is sparse. A very useful source is a very recent publication by Confprofessioni (Conferation of Free
Professionals) of July 2012 entitled Il lavoro negli studi professionali. This compares Italys regulation of liberal
professions to Germany, France and the UK. A useful but less up to date source is Georgio Broscios Regulation
of Professions in Italy (1997) and the Fondazione Rodolfo Debenedetti has recently published a report (2012) on
licensed professions. Italys overall regulatory indicator is described as medium.
A particular issue, which has impacted onto iPros, has been Italys concerns about employment status. It has been
110
considered earlier in the Report, that to be genuinely self-employed you must not be in a sub-ordinate position. Many
freelancers/iPros run the risk of para-subordinate status, i.e. as quasi employees, especially if they are dependent
on one client for work and lack the features of an entrepreneur. Law n. 92/2012 re-affrms that the employee contract
of indefnite length is the norm and aims to counter alleged abuses through more fexible contracts and restricts
project work. Associations in Italy devote much effort to advising especially new professionals how to retain
their independence. However, Italian Law (Art 2222 of the Civil Code) in defning self-employment as not being
subordinate, cites the liberal professions as being the best examples of it.
The liberal professions
The professions referred to here are the traditional ones of law, medicine, engineering, architecture, vets,
pharmacists etc. Educational provisions are tightly state controlled, with lengthy periods of study and shorter periods
of professional training. To practice you need to be enrolled on a professional register (Albo Professionale) and will
be subject to supervision by the Council of the relevant professional body. The Councils are prestigious state bodies,
with considerable powers. The Council members are elected by the whole of the enrolled profession and are fnanced
by membership fees. Italy has new legislation on professions (Act of 14th January 2013 n 4) which excludes craft
workers and health professionals and requires professions to provide statements of qualifcations and professional
responsibilities etc. The law applies to professions that must have the aim of enhancing the skills of its members
and rules of professional conduct. Generally, new professions would not meet these criteria. Regulated professions
can now advertise, but cannot restrict numbers, exclude non-nationals, but must insure and undertake continuing
professional development (CPD).
The democratic structure of professions, whilst retaining a high degree of self-regulation has also made change
slow. Many professionals work independently and there is a strong sense of localism. There remain strict rules about
advertising, fee setting in many professions, and professional conduct.
Italy has been the subject of a number of high profle cases before the CJEC regarding both mutual recognition of
qualifcations and freedom of movement, where some of Italys practices have been criticised for being too restrictive
and too infexible. The ability of non-Italian qualifed professionals being able to practice in Italy appears not to be
easy.
The new professions
Italy has a wide range of professional associations for various new professional groups. For example, there are
associations for translators, designers and IT specialists and there is even an Association of Italian Ski Masters. Many
occupations have several associations. Take for example, counsellors who provide psychological support. There is
SICO, FAIP, CNCP, REICO and AICO which are thought to have several thousand in membership, including iPros.
There is also CoLAP (Co-ordination of Free Professional Associations) founded in 1999 to raise the profle of non-
regulated professions. The policies of such bodies are not just to raise awareness of such iPro groups but to raise
status as well, through offering training, support, networks and facilities. Although some progress has been made, the
inability to award titles to these professionals has been a contentious issue.
Trade unions remain strong in Italy, though much is changing on the labour law front. However, the genuine self-
employed/ freelancer as opposed to the para-subordinates remain outside the domain of trade unions and collective
bargaining for most occupations.
There is only limited information to date on how the associations that support new professionals work and the
extent to which they provide tangible and relevant support for iPros.
Netherlands
The Netherlands has a well-established and well organised iPro community. As has been seen, recent growth in
numbers has been less spectacular than in other states but this is probably a refection of the maturity of the market.
Employment agencies have a key role in the Netherlands. However, despite this maturity, the Netherlands is not well
featured in major surveys and data bases. This includes CEPLIS, the EU organisation for liberal professions, is absent
from some GEM reports and in some ways its data is limited
As has been seen, the Netherlands only has two employment categories - employee or self-employed - though
some occupations have special rules applying to them, such as in the entertainment industry, for students on
placement and agency temps. The Netherlands, too, is concerned by sham self-employment such that the tax
authorities sometimes deem individuals to be employees. This practice is an important agenda item for professional
bodies in the Netherlands. However, on the positive side, as has been seen, working from home does provide the
self-employed with some tax advantages.
111
The liberal professions
The Netherlands has well regulated professions in the usual civil law tradition. The level of regulation is recorded as
being medium with fewer restrictions on professional practice, such as advertising, types of business models, pricing
etc but strict educational and qualifcations regimes than in some states.
The Netherlands has a good record of compliance with EU legislation on professions and case law and is
recognised as being more open to prospective applicants and practitioners than most EU states.
The new professions
There are a number of occupation-specifc associations, such as the Association of Dutch Designers (BNO) and
the Netherlands Psychiatry Association (NVVP), where again we see the evolution of the bodies to represent para-
medical and health care and welfare professionals.
The Netherlands has probably the best developed cross occupational organisations to represent iPros. One such is
PZO (Platform Zelfstandige Ondernemers), a pressure and support group. PZO has a large membership and provides
a wide range of services for members.
It is reported by the European Foundation that in the Netherlands there are three types of associations (for iPros).
First there are trade unions, then trade associations (to promote trade activities) and then private/commercial bodies.
Many of the iPro bodies are in the last group. It is reported that they offer strong support and this indicates again the
maturity of market referred to earlier.
There is no collective bargaining for iPros, though their position in the labour market remains controversial for trade
unions. However, the strength of numbers of iPros, their high levels of professional organisation and their effective
voice in policy terms makes their position relatively strong.
There are some interesting examples of innovative working practices and new forms of co-operation and business
structures. In this regard, developments are much in line with those in the UK, eased by the relatively low regulatory
regime generally and the Netherlands strong reputation for a fexible labour market.
Poland
Obtaining data on iPros and their organisations is diffcult, though data on the liberal professions is more accessible.
Poland has one of the fastest growing iPro rates in the EU and we also know that there is a wide distribution of
occupations. Poland has generally made considerable strides towards deregulation and increasing fexibility, which,
in principle, should support iPros. Poland is keen to differentiate the genuine self-employed from sham relationships
and there is evidence that this policy has been effective. So the freelance/iPro community in Poland is now more
clearly identifable and settled.
The liberal professions
The obtaining of professional qualifcations and prescribed practical training for professions such as law, medicine
and architecture in effect provide a monopoly for individuals. The framework is state controlled, though Poland has
many of the usual professional bodies for the liberal professions.
Although there have been recent moves to relax or even remove some of the regulations, the level of regulation
generally remains tight. Entry for non-Poles remains also diffcult, though the entry of many non-Polish organisations
since 2004 - in particular, multi-national law and accountancy frms - have changed the landscape.
Increasingly, Poland is looking to outside its borders to recruit professionals, including on a freelance/iPro basis.
Again, this is a feature of the law and accountancy professions.
The new professions
Data on the regulations that apply to the new professions and the organisations that support them is scarce
indeed. However, we do know that in 2006 iPros set up the Self-Employment Forum, interestingly affliated to the
Polish Confederation of Private Employers (Lewitan). It needs to be explored whether iPros are in membership or
represented. It seems doubtful and it is unclear how many other bodies do exist for iPros beyond occupation specifc
associations.
112
Associations have been set up in Poland for several of the typical iPro occupations. For example, there is a Polish
Chamber of Information Technology and Telecommunications (though it might be more of a trade than professional
body); there is also the Accountants Association in Poland and SEP, the Association of Polish Electrical Engineers.
Again, it is unclear whether these associations cover liberal or free professions. There may well be many other
associations for, say, journalists and designers but this needs to be probed further.
We do know from research undertaken in Poland, that in line with research from other states, iPros in Poland tend to
have the same personal and work characteristics as in those other states and in global terms.
Spain
Spain, exceptionally among the nine countries, has seen recent decline (9%) in iPros. This is likely to be a
consequence of the general economic diffculties but the reasons are not entirely clear. For many years there has
been growing deregulation of Spains once heavily regulated labour market. However, Spain has also been concerned
to ensure that only the genuinely self-employed are so treated, the key defnitions coming from social security law.
In 2007, Spain passed the Self-employed Workers Statute, following negotiations confning it to genuine self-
employed with the social partners. It provides, according to its preamble a comprehensive and structured legal
framework covering all aspects of self-employment. In fact, its main relevance appears to be for the less skilled
self-employed rather than professionals, for it provides as we have seen in Chapter 3, unemployment payments after
business failure, maternity and paternity leave, statutory sick pay and health and safety protections. Rather than
deeming dependent workers to be employees, the statute recognises and legitimises them. However, its relevance
for iPros is not entirely clear.
Professions, at least the traditional ones, are covered by legislation relating to qualifcations rights and duties. On
the regulatory index, Spain emerges as having high levels of regulation of professions.
The liberal professions
It is reported that Spain has 174 regulated professions, not all of which are liberal, i.e. having a high degree of
self-regulation. Information about professions in Spain is obtained from the Professional Union (Canal Profesiones).
This grew out of Ley de Colegios Profesionales Professionals Law and Article 36 of the Spanish Constitution.
Almost all professional bodies belong, not just members of liberal professions. The aim is to bridge the gap between
educational bodies, especially the universities, and the professions.
The key professions in membership include lawyers, actuaries, real estate agents, architects, registrars,
architectural technicians, health professionals, members of the College of Economists, pharmacists, doctors,
dentists, vets, court administrators, agricultural engineers, physiotherapists, opticians, patent agents. This appears
to be a very important policy making body and the topics for discussion appear likely to be a considerable relevance,
especially insofar as they deal with training and up-skilling.
The extent of self-regulation for some of those professions is considerable, in terms of control of numbers, entry
qualifcations, fees, professional conduct etc. There appears little evidence of innovation in professional practice or
other developments to change the landscape for the regulated liberal professions in Spain.
The new professions
As has been seen, there is an umbrella structure that includes both new and liberal professions. Over 50% of iPros
are engaged in technical or other services, but fewer in ICT.
Some occupations, such as those in health care are necessarily regulated but it is unclear the extent to which
business, artistic, and fnancial and other services are regulated. What we do know is that there are associations in
Spain that represent them, such as the Spanish Association of Computer Professionals, the Association of Authors of
Theatres, the Chiropractic Association and the Spanish Association of Pharmacists in Industry.
There is no evidence of trade union representation of iPros or collective agreements.
United Kingdom
The UKs emphasis on professional services market liberalisation means in many ways a much less clear distinction
113
between liberal professions and new professions. For example, most of the legal services market is no longer
controlled by monopoly professional bodies. While the legal services market has recently been liberalised, other
professions such as in para-medical work, i.e. beyond a liberal professional, have become strictly regulated by
the state. The picture in the UK is complex and fast-moving. However, should professional groups seek to access
privileges, they are unlikely to succeed.
The liberal professions
The traditional professions of medicine, law and accountancy have thrived in the UK, with powerful professional
bodies, especially for medicine. The UK has taken seriously both the EUs recognition of qualifcations provisions
and freedom to provide services. There are many current reviews and debates about liberalising professions in the
interests of consumers.
The new professions
The UK has a fairly mature new professional services market, with freelancing well-established in some
occupations, especially in arts, media and consultancy services. There has been growth in the health and education
sectors.
The UK has a richness of professional associations, some having chartered status, Royal in their title and many,
therefore, seeking prestige and recognition. Some have the air of a learned society and provide lectures, debates
and have journals; others are more in the nature of trade associations with a severely practical agenda of supporting
members in their work.
There have been conscious government moves to increase regulation of some sectors such as the Health Care
Professionals Council responsible for conduct and ethics regulation in its feld since 2009. The Council maintains
a register, removal from which removes the ability to operate in many felds. Again, much as in law, professional
regulation has been separated from the positive, representative roles, which remain with the likes of the British
Association of Social Workers.
In technology and media, as elsewhere, there is much less statutory involvement, no doubt refecting a lower
perceived risk to consumer or public interests. Most such sectors have professional bodies, but these are often
wholly voluntary professional standards can only be enforced by sanction of withdrawing membership, not affecting
the right to practice. The use of royal charters, described previously, has allowed some of these professional bodies,
to develop a level of reputation and perceived assurance that such sanctions are considered signifcant for
example, the British Computer Society (BCS) or the Chartered Institute for Information Technology (CIIT) are well-
regarded in their feld.
Most of the UK associations are profession specifc, with few promoting and supporting freelance working across
professions. PCG is a notable exception as it has a range of professions within membership, though, of course,
membership is not compulsory, and its role is primarily representative and supportive, rather than setting and
enforcing regulatory standards.

National Reports for Chapter 4: How iPros Work
These national reports cover:
Information and advice
Business support, education and training
Information and advice in each of the nine states
Belgium
Information sources appear to be mainly local offces of the various administrative functions.
114
The public business co-ordination centres are well spoken of, although they cannot play a formal role in the various
procedures. Professional bodies are well organised in Belgium and many iPros can use their facilities. For some
occupations trade unions also play a role. For example, it is reported that journalists are well supported.
Sources of advice and support appear mainly to be members of the traditional liberal professions. There is no legal
aid, so costs have to be borne by the individual.
However, where Belgium appears strong is in its fnancial support for iPros. For example, the Flemish, Walloon and
Capital Region offer investment aid for a business operating in the relevant region.
The support can take many forms, including interest subsidies, support for particular kinds of work, e.g.
environmentally friendly projects and investment that might lead to job creation attract a number of tax advantages.
Finland
Despite seeing signifcant iPro growth in recent years, data on Finland has proved hard to obtain.
There are some fairly tight rules on residence, registration only if the business is likely to be successful and aspects
of employment status. For example, you cannot be self-employed if you are employed by a company where you are
the sole owner or dominant shareholder.
Self-employment is essentially an individual status with individual responsibility for tax etc.
France
Advice and support is generally with various professions and with banks and other fnancial services organisations.
Germany
Information is available from the German governments business start-up portal and from the Chambers of
Commerce or Chambers of Skilled Trades. In addition, local business registration offces (Gewerbeamt) provide
information.
Practical support on fscal and other matters, including dealing with business regulation is generally provided by
local professionals, such as lawyers and accountants. Free advice appears less readily available.
Italy
The extent of offcial information is unclear. The Professional bodies and the Chambers of Commerce will likely
provide both information and some support.
Self-employed people can join the Unione de Commercio which does provide information and also support in
matters such as insurance, health insurance and help in dealing with the Italian bureaucracy itself. These are local
organisations and therefore, it is presumed, reasonably accessible.
Netherlands
Advice is available from the Chamber of Commerce, and from the Tax and Customs Administration.
Especially useful is Holland Gateway, a network of government and private information providers, especially useful
to non-Dutch people. Postbus 51 Information Service has a Freephone number and it is reported that queries are
answered speedily.
There are some matters that probably need professional help and that has cost implications.
Poland
115
The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy is a useful source of information but we are unsure of any other practical
sources of information, especially to do with iPros, as opposed to SMEs.
The same applies to sources of advice and support. These include initiatives for funding start-ups and help with
legal and other duties.
Spain
Information on being self-employed in Spain is not easy to obtain.
Many accounts of working Spain stress that much work is cash in hand and part of the grey economy. Both the
general economic climate and the public administration system seem to conspire to make informal working more
attractive.
One commentator on a social network commented that; Spain has no fame or history for helping small businesses
or entrepreneurs, so the cards are stacked against you from the start. There is reference to crippling social security
costs which are fxed at 270 Euros per month, regardless of income.
Although there are concerns about the risks of iPro working in Spain - and indeed, iPro working has declined in
recent years - signifcant numbers work this way, including in the public services.
Legal and other advice has to be obtained from appropriate professionals. It is unclear whether there are specifc
programmes to help with fnance.
United Kingdom
It is generally considered that working as an iPro in the UK is relatively straightforward and this was broadly
confrmed by the interviews in the UK.
Public information about what has to be done before starting work is now available from GOV.UK, which took this
role over from Business Link from Autumn 2012.
In England, Business Link has been replaced by Local Enterprise Partnerships, though it is as yet unclear how these
are functioning. All of the UK bodies have a primary concern with setting up SMEs, though much of their advice is
useful for iPros. At least one of the UK iPros mentioned the website but it is clear that if you want detailed advice and
support you need to go elsewhere as the GOV.UK site is very much a frst stop but little more.
Other sources of use are Citizens Advice Bureaux (CABx) which do provide a Self-employed Checklist. It is
doubtful they have the resources to provide much direct help to an intending iPro.
The tax authorities - Her Majestys Revenue and Customs (HMRC) provides probably the most useful information
and advice, though clearly it only extends to tax and social security matters. As the issue of alleged sham contracts
has a very high profle in the UK, advice from HMRC is especially useful. They provide a checklist for employment
status and potential iPros are advised to use it, especially if they have relatively few clients, long assignments and
could fairly easily be seen as employee-like.
There is a wide range of professional and trade bodies in the UK to provide support.
The Institute of Directors (IoD), which is a subscription body with a large number of members, does provide much
support and advice relevant for iPros/freelancers. It provides information, some free legal and fnancial advice,
events, meeting facilities, training but these come at quite a high cost, especially for someone starting out. The IoD
is a very useful support facility for established iPros and a good networking body and has a section that deals with
international work.
There are a few organisations in the UK with a specifc remit for some types of iPros. The Princes Trust provide
fnancial support, work experience etc. for young people who want to work for themselves and the PRIME Business
Club has a remit to help older people to become self-employed.
Co-operatives are also a business model, which along with their core business, also provide support to members
in terms of business advice and some of our interviewees have reported that working in a co-operative was a useful
116
prelude to working for themselves.
The UK has a vast number of private organisations and websites that support iPros, including ones such as
Quickstart which provides packages, especially for those migrating to work as iPros in the UK, but this is done on a
full cost basis. On-line facilities such as ContractorCalculator provide much useful information, especially on fscal
matters and for a wider range of information and support, PCG - The Voice of Freelancing is extremely useful.
Nonetheless, it seems that most iPros in the UK rely on an accountant and occasionally a lawyer to provide the
targeted advice that they need. They report that fees are not too high and the use of an accountant who can deal with
matters such as setting up a limited company gives peace of mind and is a continuing resource.
Business support, education
and training in each of the nine states
Belgium
There is little information to date on education and training and how iPros in Belgium update skills and the extent to
which there are formal requirements to do so.
Members of the liberal professions have requirements. It is also unclear the extent to which the national council that
deals with professions in Belgium has this as an agenda item. In terms of non-national iPros working in Belgium, case
law suggests that there can be diffculties with some occupation (both liberal and free) making it diffcult for non-
nationals to practice.
There is little distinctive data for Belgium on accessing work.
There appears less evidence for the development of formal networks and co-working in Belgium, though there are
several media outlets that support and provide advice for especially young people fnding a career, including as iPros.
Finland
Finland has an excellent reputation for its general educational standards, but rates less well for business education
skills and CPD.
The liberal professions are generally well provided for in terms of CPD but there appears to be less development of
CPD for the free professions.
France
Vocational education is well developed in France, as is preparation for the liberal professions and new professions.
It is unclear the extent to which the updating of business skills is formally developed and assessed, and what the
requirements on individuals are.
Employment agencies, both generalist and specialist are well developed in France and with the rise of the portage
salarial (Umbrella) and, one suspects, other innovative forms of working.
Germany
Germany has an especially well-developed system of education and training, with an emphasis on formal
qualifcations and competences. It is unclear whether there is a developed system for providing business skills for
the self-employed and SMEs and whether there is an emphasis on life-long learning/professional development. This
needs to be further explored.
Germany has a number of international and specialist employment agencies that aim to obtain employment for the
117
self-employed as well as employees.
It is unclear as to the extent to which networks, innovative work seeking structures have evolved beyond those
of the international websites referred to in the chapter. It appears to have some specialist networks for some
professions, such as the VFLL, the Society for Editors and Proof Readers.
Italy
It is unclear the extent to which there are facilities for developing business skills for iPros and for providing up-
skilling.
It is assumed that the various professions do have formal requirements but where and how training is provided is
unclear. It is assumed also that there are private bodies dealing with vocational training.
Employment agencies, both general and specialised and less developed in Italy, and it is assumed that iPros obtain
employment through advertising, where this is lawful, and the use of professional networks. The extent of the use of
the international and specialist websites considered briefy in the Overview is also unclear.
Netherlands
It is unclear the extent to which the Dutch education system develops business skills, or what is required for life-
long learning and/or up-skilling for various professions. It is necessary to check with the various professional bodies
and fnd out more about the facilities and costs of such up-skilling.
The Netherlands is an open labour market and the typical work search methods of iPros ft well.
The employment agencies are well-established in the Netherlands, though it is unclear as to whether innovations,
such as umbrella companies, co-operatives and business associations that are not formal or corporate have evolved.
iPros appear well supported in the Netherlands but there is need to to learn about how they obtain contracts.
Poland
Data is also limited on vocational training, up skilling and support for developing business skills.
Similarly, there is little easily accessible on how iPros gain work.
Spain
The education system in Spain appears to offer traditional academic and professional qualifcations. It is unclear
where vocational skills programmes are available and if there is specifc training for business skills. It is likely that
liberal professions have schemes that require up-skilling.
Similarly evidence is limited on how iPros obtain employment. Agencies are not well-established in Spain.
United Kingdom
There are few schemes that provide fnancial support for iPros. They tend not to qualify unless they have been
unemployed and/or intend to set up an SME. It is thought the current government policy is to increase support.
Entrepreneurism training is not well developed in the UK at either school or post-school level. However, the
provision of professional training is extensive and is provided by a combination of public education (universities and
colleges), private bodies, independent training organisations and professional bodies.
CPD requirements for members of liberal professions tend to be high, especially for lawyers, accountants but less
so for medical professionals. For recognised awards, training is provided using a qualifcations framework, following
118
the EU model. A very recent report indicates that there has been a recent decline in training activities in the UK and
the research did cover iPros. Training in Britain, 2013 Green et al, LLAKES, Institute of Education University, London).
The cost of training tends to be high in the UK, though on-line and other innovative forms of training have evolved.
We are unaware of any specifc government policy to provide or encourage training outside the regulated professions.
National Reports for Chapter 5:
Political, economic and cultural factors
These national reports cover:

Detailed analysis of GEM data for each state
Belgium
Belgium emerges generally well from data, though there are major differences as between the regions that have
strongly different traditions. Its reports for GEM are fairly brief, though Belgium scores well on other data sources for
support for the self-employed/entrepreneurs and therefore, hopefully, iPros. This needs to be verifed.
Overall, Belgium scores well on R&D transfer, fnancial support, government programmes, market openness
and support for training. Data suggests that independent working is growing rapidly in Belgium, there is strong
though devolved institutional support, though less strong cultural support. Belgium has been slow to transpose EU
legislation and policy development and has had some major political problems recently. Despite this, the framework
for iPros in Belgium looks generally positive.
Finland
On all international indicators Finland does well, and not just for economic and innovation factors but also well-
being and happiness. Against a backdrop of relatively low numbers in Finland interested in self-employment (24%)
but higher percentage considering it feasible (37%) , iPro working in Finland has beneftted from considerable
investment in skills and evidence indicating that self-employment in Finland is opportunity driven rather than
necessity driven.
There is clearly a positive framework in Finland, though numbers are not yet high, despite considerable recent
growth. Finland does well on the GEM analysis and especially well on surveys relating to training and development.
Unfortunately some research data is only available in Finnish.
France
Frances political, economic and cultural climate is rated less highly than some of our selected states by, for
example, OECD, WEF and others. It does perform soundly, rather than being a clear leader. It is consistently in the
top 20 for competition, innovation and economic development but is seen as having an overheavy public sector and
not being especially fexible and responsive. Despite this, iPro working has grown strongly in France, though fewer
than in most EU states fnd self-employment attractive and there remains considerable fear of failure.
The GEM data reveals some positive aspects, such as a growing number of supportive government programmes,
(though some are under attack or have been phased out) and measures to deal with regulations that may hinder small
business/entrepreneurism growth. There are some concerns about the extent to which iPros are genuinely supported
or merely tolerated. There is a strong business infrastructure and R&D dissemination. France does not rate well for
education and training, especially for continuing training and entrepreneurism training.
119
Germany
On international league tables, Germany does well for competition, though not as well as some Nordic states, such
as Switzerland scores well on innovation. Fewer people than the average want to be self-employed in Germany and
there is a much higher than average fear of failure. Germany presents something of a paradox. On the one hand, data
show a strong institutional framework for entrepreneurism and yet, relatively few Germans express interest in being
self-employed/entrepreneurial. Such ways of working, including iPro working, remain below average. The tradition
of employee working within strong institutional frameworks remains strong and there is some evidence of suspicion
towards iPro working.
There are many strong entrepreneurial programmes but weak educational and societal support and poor ratings
for support for women entrepreneurs. Although there has been signifcant iPro growth it appears to have occurred
against a backdrop of lukewarm (at best) institutional support.
Italy
The report on Italy is problematic as there is no GEM data and only skeletal data from other sources used in this
report. Although we have access to some specialist reports from Italy we have little in terms of overview aside from
the Working Conditions Survey and information from GEM on training. Italy reported especially high levels of concern
in Eurobarometer 283 for the negative impact of administrative burdens, though we are aware of recent labour market
and other reforms.
Netherlands
The Netherlands rates well on international league tables. For example, it is rated by GEM as 7 out of 142 for
Competitiveness and 9 out of 125 for Innovation. A higher percentage than in most states see self-employment
as an opportunity (48%) and there is a lower percentage fear of failure (37%), suggesting a generally supportive
environment for iPro working. As can be seen below, the Netherlands rates well on having a strong professional and
commercial infrastructure, and physical infrastructure. Many reforms to its labour and commercial markets have
made the Netherlands one of the most fexible places to work and do business in the EU.
Poland
Poland is our one Effciency Driven Economy for GEM purposes and, of course, has had to make considerable
adjustments in its policies and practices in recent years. It remains production rather than service orientated and at
present its policies for entrepreneurism remain under-developed. It is thought that the emphasis on production would
lead to a lower representation of iPros in its self-employed workforce. However, its markets are open and only lightly
regulated following major reforms.
There are few explicit government policies to support entrepreneurism and educational provision is not strong for
entrepreneurism either at school or in higher education. Poland is clearly an evolving economy and it may be relevant
that there is little written about self-employment or entrepreneurism in academic and other journals.
Spain
Spain has been the subject of Special GEM Report for 2012, published in 2013, as well as the Extended Report for
2011. These reports show that the climate for entrepreneurship is not positive, despite the fact that there are good
opportunities. Business services are growing, which is good news for iPros. One feature is the declining opportunities
for women. There are major issues in education and training. However, Spain is partly decentralised, and some parts
of Spain are performing much better, for example, Catalonia, Balearics and Basque Country, with decline in Murcia,
Valencia, Navarre and Castile.
United Kingdom
In the last year, the UK has seen some improvements in its ratings on international league tables, for example,
for competitiveness and fexibility. Indeed, it is its famed fexibility that the UK is best known for. This translates
into relatively low level protections for employees, relatively weak trade unions but very high levels of fexible work
patterns, including self-employment and iPro working. Recent policies have been to reduce regulation, though it may
120
be that these policies have not yet brought about major change. Despite some positive indicators, potential self-
employed still report high fear of failure rates. The institutional support for entrepreneurism emerges as weak, with
few government programmes, weak educational support and poor fnancial support. Although the openness of the
labour and commercial markets is supportive, professional and commercial advice is not rated highly.
The paradox for the UK, along with some other states, is that the incidence and growth of iPro working is strong
in the UK, yet support structures remain weak. Recent government initiatives have given rise to suspicions that iPro
working is not welcomed and there have been a number of highly publicised interventions in tax processes.
Annexe 2: Research Team Members
Professor Patricia Leighton
University of South Wales, UK;
IPAG Business School,
France
Duncan Brown
Survey data expert and writer

Dr Eileen Fry
Fiscal data expert

National Experts
Dr Stphane Rapelli (France)
Professor Rolf Wank (Germany)
Hanna Kuikka (Finland)
Robbert Brantz (Netherlands)
Professor Dr Daria Golebiowska-Tataj (Poland)
Dr Francisca Maria Ferrando Garcia (Spain)
Dr Martina Vincieri (Italy)
Wim Casse and Luc Hens (Belgium)
Annexe 3:
Information about Interviewees
In the report, each interviewee is identifable in the text by their reference number which combines their state
with their interview status. The iPros are numbered 1-5; non-iPros are numbered 6-10 and the academics are
numbered 11-12. Hence a reference in the text to (FR 3) indicates a French iPro; (NL 8) indicates a non-iPro from the
Netherlands and (ES 12) indicates a Spanish academic.
Belgium (BE)
1 Experienced Lawyer (F)
2 Journalist, trainer and broadcaster who works through a limited company (M)
3 IT and marketing specialist with very varied experience (M)
4 Researcher, analyst and writer (M)
5 An experienced lawyer, also active in an iPro organisation (M)
6 Experienced journalist and broadcaster, with a focus on careers, especially for young people (M)
121
7 Executive of a pan-European organisation for lawyers (M)
8 Executive of a Brussels-based think tank (M)
9 Politician concerned with employment matters (M)
10 Experienced commentator and lawyer (F)
11 Academic labour economist (M)
12 Commentator on new ways of working (M)
Finland (FI)
1 Communications expert and professional in health and wellbeing (F)
2 IT Specialist (M)
3 Since 2007 has worked as a journalist in a variety of media (M)
4 Experienced and specialist lawyer, working through a limited company (F)
6 Experienced trade union offcial with experience of many different union roles (F)
11 Academic in social psychology (F)
France (FR)
1 Specialist engineer and ICT professional working through a limited company (F)
2 Established professional translator (F)
3 Recently qualifed lawyer (F)
4 IT and marketing specialist (M)
6 Established management consultant using iPros (M)
7 Experienced and senior member of professional body (M)
8 An executive of an iPro organisation (M)
9 Writer and publisher of journals aimed at iPros (M)
10 Manager of an international development company (F)
11 Professor and expert in training for professionals (M)
12 Commentator and writer from large business organisation on aspects of fexible working (M)
Germany (DE)
1 Translator with other iPro professional activities (F)
2 Experienced journalist (M)
3 ICT specialist with an international client base (F)
4 Journalist, trainer and policy developer (M)
5 ICT specialist but with other iPro roles (F)
6 Very experienced mentor and supplier of iPros to other companies (M)
7 Communications expert who also manages co-working spaces (F)
8 Trade unionist with an interest in self-employment (F)
9 Communications expert, journalist and promoter of co-working (M)
10 Researcher in co-operative/co-working movements (F)
11 Professor of labour law (M)
12 Professor of economic development (M)
Italy (IT)
1 Experienced writer and translator in specialist area of law and fnance (M)
2 Newly qualifed lawyer (F)
3 Experienced writer for the media but especially flm (M)
4 Lawyer for 15 years (F)
5 Experienced ICT specialist (M)
8 Executive of major professional body (M)
9 Trade union offcial (M)
10 Experienced government offcial with expertise in economic development, especially SMEs and
self-employment (M)
11 Leading academic on self-employment and labour market changes generally (M)
12 Researcher and writer on employment law (F)
122
Netherlands (NL)
1 Established IT contractor (M)
2 Specialist translator (M)
3 ICT specialist (M)
6 Senior government offcial with key policy role (M)
7 Government offcial for fscal matters (M)
8 Representative of professional body (M)
9 Member of research body on freelancing (M)
10 Trade union representative (M)
11 Senior academic specialising in organisational change (M)
12 Academic specialist in fscal matters (M)
Poland (PL)
1 Long established specialist lawyer working internationally (M)
2 Experienced translator (F)
3 Experienced conference translator (F)
11 Commentator and writer on iPro working (F)
12 Academic expert on business change (F)
Spain (ES)
1 Experienced communications and marketing specialist working internationally (M)
2 Experienced lawyer (M)
3 Experienced lawyer (F)
4 Financial writer and advisor (F)
6 Senior Executive iPro organisation (M)
8 President of an association for the self-employed (M)
12 Academic expert in labour law and social security (F)
United Kingdom (UK)
1 Experienced lawyer, trainer and writer (M)
2 Specialist writer fairly new to iPro working (M)
3 Experienced management writer and journalist (M)
4 Experienced IT specialist, originally from outside the EU (F)
5 IT specialist who works internationally (M)
6 Senior trade union offcial (F)
7 Co-owner of innovative law frm using iPros (F)
8 Head of an umbrella company (M)
9 Senior policy advisor, leading iPro professional body (M)
10 Co-ordinator of website for iPros (M)
11 Leading academic on fexible working (F)
12 Senior academic on HRM (M)
Annexe 4: Pre-Interview Data Sheet
Please provide the following information relating to your own circumstances prior to the interview (your responses will
be treated anonymously).
1. Introduction
1 (a) Your name
1 (b) The name of your business
1 (c) Your EU country of residence
123
2. About your career

2 (a) What academic qualifcations do you have? Please provide dates.
2 (b) What professional qualifcations awarded by a regulated or accredited body/institution do you
have?
2 (c) Do you have any professional titles or awards from a non-regulated or accredited
body/institution, such as through membership, compliance with codes of practice or other
procedures?
2 (d) Have you undertaken any professional skills development in the last fve years? Please provide
details, including whether it was required by your relevant professional body.
2 (e) Have you worked previously as an employee? Please provide details of your employers and your professional
role(s).
3. Your work
3 (a) Please describe the area(s) of expertise in which you are currently engaged as an iPro (i.e. for
the business named at 1(b) above).
3 (b) Is this on a full-time or part-time basis?
3 (c) Other than your work as an iPro do you undertake any other paid work?
3 (d) Other than your paid work as an iPro do you undertake any unpaid/charitable work either using your expertise or
otherwise?
3 (e) Please give an indication of the number of clients you are currently working for. How many did you work for in
the past year?
3 (f) Is there a typical duration/length of contract for you?
3 (g) Please indicate whether your annual income from iPro working is;
< 20k Euros 20-50k 50-85k Euros > 85k Euros
Annexe 5: Interview Schedules
Interview schedule for iPros.
1. Starting to work as an iPro
1.1 What were the major factors affecting your decision to become an iPro?
1.2 How do you self-defne? (Prompt: a freelancer, small business, member of a liberal profession, entrepreneur,
iPro etc.)
1.3 When did you start working as an iPro? Have you been working continuously as an iPro since you frst
started?
1.4 Where is your business registered? Do you work in other EU states and/or non-EU states? (Prompt: which,
for how long etc.)
1.5 What type of business structure/type do you work through and why?
(Prompt: a limited company, co-operative, etc? Why did you choose that structure?)
1.6 Did you receive any fnancial or other support and advice when you set up as an iPro? (Prompt: a bank loan,
direct public funding, training, advice from professional or trade bodies). If so, what were the sources of
fnance and other support? Were they of help to you?
124
1.7 What administrative and other procedures did you have to go through to begin work as an iPro? Were they
relatively easy and quick to comply with?
1.8 Did you feel you were well treated?
1.9 If you have worked or wanted to work outside your own EU state but in another EU state, did you have to
comply with regulations from that state and/or a profession to begin work? If so, please describe the
requirements and your experience of dealing with them.

1.10 Overall, how would you describe your experience of starting to work as an iPro?
Positive / Negative / Neutral
1.11 Which sources of advice were the most helpful for you?
1.12 Do you have any suggestions for how the process of starting work as an iPro could be improved?
2. Day-to-day working
2.1 How do you obtain work? Please describe the methods you use and assess their effectiveness for you.
Do you ever use employment agencies to fnd work?
2.2 What types of clients do you typically work for? (Prompt: large frms, public sector, individuals etc.) Do you
have regular clients? If so, how many? Have there been any changes in your client base in recent years?
Are you anticipating any changes now?
2.3 How many hours do you typically work as an iPro each day/week?

2.4 In the last year have there been times when you have had no work as an iPro?
If yes, were you able to claim social security benefts? Did you?
2.5 Can you describe what taxation you are liable for? What level is the taxation set at?
Do you consider it is too high? What has been your experience of dealing with taxation authorities?
2.6 What social security contributions are you liable for? What entitlements do you have? What has been your
experience of dealing with social security authorities?
2.7 What other regulations are you covered by, including by your relevant professional body?
(Prompt: this might include H&S, planning, pricing, advertising, and competing with fellow
professionals. What work activities are diffcult/impossible to do? Do you consider any of the regulations/
limitations excessive?)
2.8 Are you subject to soft regulation, such as Codes of Practice/Conduct? If so, please give examples.
2.9 Overall, do you consider that the regulations you are subject to are:
Positive / Negative / Neutral
Why?

3. Your career
3.1 Do you feel confdent about your skills to (a) deliver your professional services (b) run a micro business?
3.2 Does your profession require you to undergo continuing professional development/training? If so, what?
3.2 Have you received training in the last year in the skills for your profession?
Who provided the training and did you have to pay for it?
Was it useful? How might it have been improved?
3.3 Do you consider you have professional training needs that are hard to get support for?

3.4 Do you feel you having training and support needs for running your business? What are they and are they
hard to obtain? If you have received training for running a business, was it helpful?
125
4. Your networks and associations
4.1 Do you belong to any professional associations/organisations? Please name them and indicate whether you
are required to be a member of a particular organisation. If it is not compulsory, why have you joined specifc
associations/organisations? Are you an active member? Do you feel there are any gaps in professional
association provision?
4.2 Which associations/ organisations are helpful for the development or maintenance of your professional skills
and which are important for your work generally as an iPro?

4.3 What support do the associations/organisations you belong to provide that is relevant for your work as an
iPro (as opposed to as an employee)?

4.4 What do you consider to be the most positive aspects of your membership of associations/organisations?
4.5 What improvements do you think could be made to the ways in which iPros are supported and their voices
are heard?
4.6 Generally, do you think politicians, policy makers and others in the labour and commercial markets are
supportive of iPros? If not, indicate ways in which you think they are more negative and why?
Interview schedule for non-iPros
1. Which of the following descriptions most closely fts your own role?
(a) Administrator/offcial
(b) Representative/senior member of a professional body( please specify: ____________)
(c) Politician (where, for what Party?)
(d) Policy maker (where?)
(e) Journalist/writer
(f) Management or other consultant
(g) Trade unionist
(h) Other- please specify _________________________________
2 How long have you been performing this role? Could you briefy describe your role in regards iPro/freelance
working?
3 Have you ever, in the past, been an iPro/freelancer yourself?
4 What would you say are the main issues (or problems) in the performance of this role with iPros/freelancers?
(prompt: defning the genuine iPro; knowing whether they are part of the labour market or commercial
market; not knowing enough about them; fnding out what they want)
5 What would you say are the positive aspects of dealing with iPros/freelancers? What do you think they
contribute? What benefts do they bring?
6 Overall, do you see iPro/freelance working as a positive or negative aspect of your national and local
economy?
7 What do think are the key current issues facing iPro/freelance working?
8 Do you anticipate any legislative, policy or other changes affecting the way that iPros/freelancers work in the
near future?
9 How would you say iPros are viewed by your colleagues/associates/people you work with? Why?
10 If you broadly see iPro/freelance working in a positive way, what developments would you see as being
required to improve their effectiveness? (Prompt: de-regulation of liberal professions, fairer tax laws, better
training opportunities, toughening of EU legislation for rights of establishment, Services Directive etc. It could
also include cultural and attitudinal changes)
126
Interview schedule for academics
1 Can you tell me a little about your academic specialism and about your academic roles over recent years?
2 In what way does your specialism relate to iPro/freelance working?
Have you researched or published on the topic?
3 Where do you, conceptually, locate iPros within academic study and literature?
4 Do you think that iPros have any academic parallels? (Prompt: diffcult to defne topic; have little research on
them; subject to ambiguities etc)
5 Why do you think that they have been relatively neglected by academics and in literature?
6 What do you think are the main academic issues that they generate, if any?
(Prompt: challenges for HRM/fragmentation of labour markets and employment/challenges for trade unions/
employee relations etc.)
7 What do you think are the main regulatory and policy issues that they generate?
(Prompt: social welfare/pensions, freedom of movement; professional credibility/integrity; sham
arrangements; challenges to notions of community and the social model; stability etc.)
8 Why do you think politicians and policy makers appear also to have neglected them?
9 What do you see as the main (a) opportunities and (b) challenges for iPro working?
10 Where do you think iPro working will be in 5 years and then 10 years time?
127
1. Public sources
DG Internal Policies (2013) Social Protection Rights of the Economically Dependent Self-employed. Report requested
by the Employment and Social Committee of the European Parliament
Eurostat to First Quarter 2013
Eurostat Annual National Accounts (with OECD and following ESA 95)
EC Employment in Europe 2010-12
EC/EU Labour Force Surveys (Quarterly)
EC (2011) Employment and Social Developments in Europe
EC EU Employment Situation and Social Outlook (Monthly Monitor)
EC (2010) Self Employment in the EU: Facts, Figures and Policy Implications
EC (2010) Entrepreneurship in the EU and Beyond. Flash Eurobarometer No 283
EC (2012) Entrepreneurship in the EU and Beyond. Flash Eurobarometer No 354
EC (2012) Supporting Entrepreneurs and the Self-employed
EC (2010) Europe 2020 COM (2010) 2020 fnal
EC (2013) Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan Com 2012 795 fnal
EC (2006) Modernising Labour Law COM
EIRO (2010) Self-employed Workers: Industrial Relations and Working Conditions. European Industrial Relations
Observatory
EIRO (2011) SMEs in the Crisis: Employment, Industrial Relations and Local Partnerships. European Industrial
Relations Observatory.
EIRO (2012) Public Measures to Support Self-employment and Job Creation in One Person and Micro-Enterprises.
European Industrial Relations Observatory
European Foundation (2011) 5th EU Working Conditions Survey 2010
European Foundation (2012) Trends in Job Quality in Europe: A Report Based on the Fifth Working Conditions Survey
European Foundation Monthly Jobs Vacancy Monitor
EU-OSHA (2010) A Review of methods used across the EU to Estimate Work-related Accidents and Illness Among
the Self-employed
EU-OSHA Pan-European Opinion on Occupational Safety and Health
EU-CEDEFOP Data in Research Arena. CEDRA
EU-CEDEFOP Quality in Vocational Education and Training. Regular Reports
EU-CEDEFOP (2012) Entrepreneurship Education at School in Europe: National Strategies and Learning Outcomes
EU- CEDEFOP (2012) Assuring the Quality of VET Qualifcations: The Contribution of EU Tools
BIBLIOGRAPHY
128
ETUI/REHS (2009) Benchmarking Working Europe. European Trade Unions Institute
OECD (2009-2013) Employment Outlook Annual Surveys
OECD (2010) SMEs, Entrepreneurship and Innovation
IMD (annual) The Competitiveness Index IMD Business School
GEM (2010) GEM Special Report: A Global Perspective on Entrepreneurship Education and Training
GEM (2011) National Reports
GEM (2013) Special Report on Spain 2012
GEM (2013) Generation E: The State of Global Youth Entrepreneurship
GEM (2013) Special Report on Italy, 2012
ILO Global Employment Trends (Annual)
ILO Dialogue Database. Labour Law Comparisons
ILO Inform Database. National Labour Force Studies
ILO (2011) Self-employment (The Casale Report)
ILO R 198. The Recommendation on the Employment Relationship
ILO (2007) The Employment Relationship: An Annotated Guide to the ILO Recommendation No 198
World Bank. Ease of Doing Business Index (Annual Surveys)
Books and research reports
Amar, M et al (2009) Panorama des Independents: Emploi et Revenus. INSEE
Barley, S and Kunda, G (2004) Gurus, Hired Guns and Warm Bodies: Itinerant Experts in a Knowledge. Economy
Princeton University Press
Burke, A (2012) The Role of Freelancers in the 21st Century British Economy. PCG
Bridges, S (2010) Rethinking Enterprise Policy. Palgrave Macmillan
Brynjolfsson, E and Saunders, A (2010) Wired for Innovation: How Information Technology is Re-shaping the
Economy. MIT Press
CER (2010) The Lisbon Scorecard X: The Road to 2020 Centre for European Reform
Casale, G (2012) The Employment Relationship: A Comparative Overview ILO
ComRes (2011) Flexible Working: A Tool for Growth. REC and PCG
Cooper, C (2013) The Theory and Research on Occupational Stress and Well-being. Palgrave Macmillan
Di Nunzio et al (2011) Professionisti: a Quali Condizioni? N.03/2011 Rapporto di Ricerca
Erickson, T (2010) Whats Next, Gen X?: Keeping Up, Moving Ahead and Getting the Career You Want. Harvard
Business School
Espirito Santo (2011) The Legal Services Market. The Race is On: Externalisation and Consolidation in 2012. E.S
Investment Bank
Ferrando Garcia, F and Lopez Aniorte ,M (2005) La Seguridad Social de Los Trabajadores Autonomos: Nuevo
Regimen Juridico, Thompson-Civitas, Coleccion Estudios de Derecho Laboral
Florida, R (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class. Basic Books
129
Gold, M (2009) European Employment Policy in the EU: Origins, Themes and Prospects. Palgrave Macmillan
Guest, D et al (2010) Employment Contracts, Psychological Contracts and Employee Well-being. Oxford University
Press
Hagel III, J et al (2010) The Power of Pull: How Small Moves, Smartly Made, Can Set Big Things in Motion. Basic
Books
Gratton, L (2012) The Shift: The Future of Work is Already Here. Collins
Lasok, D (1986) The Professions and Services in the European Economic Community. Kluwer Law
Leighton et al (2007) Out of the Shadows: Managing Self-employed, Agency and Outsourced Workers. Butterworth-
Heinemann
Leighton, P and Felstead, A (1992) The New Entrepreneurs: Self-employment and Small Business in Europe. Kogan
Page
McKeown, T (2000) Why do Professionals become Contractors? Monash University
Meager, N Martin, R and Carta, E (2011) Skills for Self Employment. UK Commission for Employment and Skills
Napoli, M (2004) Il contratto di Livoro
Kitching, J and Smallbone, D (2011) Exploring the UK Freelance Workforce. PCG
Pedersini, R and Coletto, D (2009) Self-employed Workers, Industrial Relations and Working Conditions. EIRO
Phillips, K (2008) Independence and the Death of Employment. Connor. Court Publishing
Rapelli, S (2012) European I-pros: A Study. PCG
REC (2012) Flexible Work Commission Report Recruitment and Employment Confederation
Morgan, R (2009) People who are Self-employed: Profle July 2008-9. Roy Morgan Associates
Selman Penalva, A (2007) El Trabajo Autonomo Dependiente en el Siglo XXI Civitas 151
Susskind, R (2010) The End of Lawyers: Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services. Oxford University Press
Illustrative Articles
Blair, H (2001) Youre Only as Good as Your Last Job: The Labour Process and Labour Market in the British Film
Industry. Vol. 15 Work, Employment and Society: 149
Bryson, A and Kleiner, M (2010) The Regulation of Occupations. Vol. 48 British Journal of Industrial Relations: 670
Callehan, R (2011) Making the Most of Free Agents in the Workforce. Vol. 38 Employment Relations Today
Chittenden, F et al (2003) Tax Regulation and Small Business in the USA, UK, Australia and New Zealand. Vol. 21
International Small Business Journal: 93
Coulson, S (2012) Collaborating in a Competitive World: Musicians Working Lives and Understandings of
Entrepreneurship. Vol. 26 Work Employment and Society: 246
Dex, S (2001) Portfolio Workers: Autonomy and Control Amongst Freelance Translators. Vol. 15 Work Employment
and Society: 679
Donnelly, R (2009) The Knowledge Economy and the Restructuring of Employment: The Case of Consultants. Vol.
23 Work, Employment and Society: 323
Felstead, A et al (2001) Paying the Price for Flexibility? Training, Skills and Non -Standard Jobs in Britain. Vol. 9
International Journal of Employment Studies: 25
Frazer, J and Gold, M (2001) Portfolio Workers: Autonomy and Control Amongst Freelance Translators Work. Vol. 15
Work Employment and Society: 679
130
Green, F and Saridakis, G (2008) The Role of Higher Education Skills and Support in Graduate Self-Employment.
Vol. 33 Studies in Higher Education: 653
Jackson, C (1996) Managing and Developing the Boundaryless Career: Lessons From Dance and Drama. Vol.5
European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology: 617
Kitching, J et al (2013) Burden Or Beneft? Regulation as a Dynamic Infuence on Small Business Performance.
(Forthcoming)
Kitching, J and Smallbone, D (2012) Are Freelancers a Neglected Form of Small Business?. Vol. 19 Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development: 74
Lee, R and Jones, O (2008) Networks, Communication and Learning During Business Start-Up. Vol. 26 International
Small Business Journal: 559
Leighton, P (2012) Policy Fit for Purpose? in New Forms of Work. A Fabian Society Publication
Leighton, P and Wynn, M (2011) Classifying Employment Relationships: More Sliding Doors Or a Better Regulatory
Framework?. Vol. 40 Industrial Law Journal: 5
Leighton, P (2011) Neither Fish nor Fowl: The Professional Self-Employed and the Need for a Better Regulatory
Framework. CESR Review University of the West of England
Mallon, M (1998) The Portfolio Career: Pulled Or Pushed to It? Vol. 10 Human Resource Management Journal: 33
Mckeown, T (2005) Non-Standard Employment: When Even the Elite are Precarious Vol.47. Journal of Industrial
Relations: 276
Mckeown, T and Hanley, G (2009) Challenges and Change in the Contractor Workforce. Vol. 47 Asian Pacifc Journal
of Human Resource Management: 295
Pernika, S (2006) Organising the Self-Employed: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Findings. Vol. 12
European Journal of Industrial Relations: 125
Platman, K (2004) Portfolio Careers and the Search for Flexibility in Later Life, Work. Vol. 18 Employment and
Society: 573
Propstmeier, J et al (2012) The Role of Human Capital and Opportunity Costs in Graduate Self-Employment
Decisions. Paper for ACERE Conference, Freemantle, Australia
Razzolini, O (2011) Defning Economic Dependency on the Basis of Quantitative Remuneration Parameters: Is this
the Answer to the Increasing Demand for a Social Contract Law? European Journal of Social Law: 186
Schaufelli, W, Bakker, A, and Van Rhenen, W (2009) How Changes in Job Demand Predict Burnout; Work
Engagement and Sickness Absenteeism. Vol. 30 Journal Or Organisational Behaviour: 893
Special Issue (2011) Crisis, Causes and Alternatives. Vol. 3 International Journal of Labour Research
Storey, J et al (2005) Living With Enterprise in the Enterprise Economy: Freelance and Contract Workers in the
Media. Vol. 58 Human Relations: 1033
Unger, J et al (2009) Human Capital and Entrepreneurial Success: A Meta-Analytical Review. Vol. 26 Journal of
Business Venturing: 341
Von Graevenitz et al (2012) The Effects of Entrepreneurship Education. Vol. 76 Journal of Economic Behaviour and
Organization: 90
Zietz, G et al (2009) Boundaryless Careers and Institutional Resources. Vol. 20 The International Journal of Human
Resource Management: 372
131
About EFIP
Founded in 2010, the European Forum of Independent Professionals (EFIP) is a collaboration of
national associations which represent independent professionals at EU level through targeted
research and advocacy. EFIP is a not-for-proft organisation that is not affliated to any political
party. Our mission is to promote the value of independents to the European and national
economies and to ensure that independent working is respected as a legitimate alternative to
employment.
Contact EFIP

W: www.efp.org.uk
E: efp@pcg.org.uk
About PCG

PCG, the voice of freelancing, is the cross sector association for freelancers, contractors and
consultants in the UK, providing its members with knowledge, representation, community
and insurance. With around 21,000 members, PCG is the largest association of independent
professionals in the EU. It is PCGs fundamental belief that fexibility in the labour market is the
key to ensuring Britains future economic success.
Contact PCG
Heron House
10 Dean Farrar Street
London
SW1H 0DX
T: +44 (0)208 897 9970
W: www.pcg.org.uk
Professional Contractors Group Ltd. Nov 2013
Registered in England and Wales, number 03770926, registered at 35 Ballards Lane, London N3 1XW. This guide is not intended to constitute legal or professional advice, and neither PCG nor the
documents authors accept any liability for any action or inaction taken on the basis of this document. This document is intended for general guidance and information purposes only. It has been
prepared in good faith and represents PCGs own interpretation of the law; reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy. Whilst this document has been prepared with the help of legal
advice and research, its content is of its nature generalised and it is no substitute for specifc legal advice. Individual circumstances will always vary, and specialist professional or legal advice should
be sought where required.