Introduction

The capability approach (CA), as developed by Amartya Sen [Reference Sen1] and Martha Nussbaum [Reference Nussbaum2], provides a comprehensive framework for evaluating and promoting human well-being. By emphasising the ‘doings and beings’ individuals have reason to value, the CA shifts the focus from traditional economic metrics to a more holistic understanding of human flourishing [Reference Sen1]. Central to this approach are the principles of diversity, customisation, and contextuality, which enable its application across varied cultural and institutional contexts [Reference Nussbaum2]. While grounded in the universality of human values, the CA also respects the uniqueness of individual and collective experiences, making it particularly suited for cross-cultural and decolonial perspectives.

This chapter explores the universality and contextual applicability of the capability model from a cross-cultural perspective, emphasising the importance of tailoring its implementation to specific societal needs. It highlights how the CA addresses questions about whether a universal conception of ‘decent work’ is possible and demonstrates its relevance for policy applications aimed at fostering inclusivity and equity. Furthermore, classic theoretical distinctions (such as the etic-emic debate) within cross-cultural and cultural psychology are introduced and mapped onto the CA premises. By drawing from theoretical foundations, empirical evidence, and practical applications, the chapter underscores the dynamic interplay between individual agency and cultural contexts, offering insights into how the CA can be a transformative tool in diverse settings and environments.

This chapter contributes to expanding the CA by presenting not only its foundational concepts but also weaving them together with indigenous philosophical traditions, cross-cultural psychological debates (notably the tension between universalism and cultural specificity), and methodological innovations. It seeks to demonstrate that the CA is not a static or prescriptive model but rather a hybrid, dynamic, decolonial, and context-sensitive framework capable of accommodating diverse cultural conceptions of well-being, justice, and human flourishing, particularly in contexts shaped by colonial histories, structural oppression, and collective world views (see also Chapter 12).

Theoretical Foundations of the Capability Approach

The CA originated in response to limitations in traditional welfare economics, which often reduce well-being to material resources or utility. Instead, Sen proposed that well-being should be measured in terms of individuals’ capabilities, that is, their real freedoms to achieve the lives they value [Reference Sen1, Reference Sen3, Reference Sen and McMurrin4]. This groundbreaking shift highlighted the inadequacy of metrics such as GDP in capturing human development, advocating instead for an evaluative framework rooted in people’s actual opportunities and choices [Reference Sen and McMurrin4].

Nussbaum expanded this theoretical framework by introducing a list of ten central capabilities, including life, bodily health, bodily integrity, practical reason, and affiliation [Reference Nussbaum2, Reference Nussbaum5]. Her emphasis on dignity, autonomy, and agency underscored the importance of creating conditions that allow individuals to live a life they have reason to value [Reference Nussbaum5]. This list served as a philosophical foundation for operationalising the CA in policy and practice, already demonstrating its versatility across different cultural and institutional contexts – a crucial point that we will return to later in this chapter.

The CA’s focus on substantive freedoms distinguishes it from other models of well-being, such as utilitarianism or resource-based approaches. By prioritising individual agencies and the diversity of values, the CA addresses inequalities that arise from systemic barriers, such as social norms, institutional constraints, and cultural practices [Reference Sen1, Reference Sen6]. This perspective has been instrumental in various applications, from assessing poverty to designing educational and workplace policies [Reference Nussbaum5, Reference Sen6, Reference Robeyns7].

Additionally, the CA’s emphasis on contextual sensitivity has made it a valuable tool in cross-cultural settings. By recognising that capabilities are shaped by local conditions, such as cultural norms and institutional structures, the CA provides a nuanced framework for understanding and addressing disparities in well-being [Reference Sen8, Reference Alkire9, Reference Clark10]. This adaptability allows it to balance universal principles of human dignity and autonomy with respect to cultural diversity, making it particularly relevant for addressing global challenges such as inequality and social justice [Reference Comim, Qizilbash and Alkire11] (see Chapter 5).

(Cross-)Cultural Applications of the Capability Approach

In this section, we briefly discuss what and how (cross-)cultural psychology is, and we highlight how the CA easily inscribes itself into this field. Cross-cultural psychology has been variously defined in the literature, the earliest ones stemming from the nineteenth century [Reference Tylor33], when a relatively static view of culture as the social heredity of a society [Reference Chen34] or the man-made part of the environment [Reference Van Assche35] was commonplace. A consideration of some more recent operationalisations sheds light on how the field is currently more dynamically construed by its students. According to a definition provided in an advanced textbook of cross-cultural psychology [Reference Berry, Poortinga, Segall and Dasen36], the aim of the field is to study similarities and differences in individual psychological functioning in various cultural and ethnic groups. Moreover, a vital mission should be to explore the relationships between psychological variables and sociocultural, ecological, and biological variables, as well as changes in these variables and their interrelationships. This is a comprehensive definition of the field, involving, on the one hand, a comparative focus on similarities and differences across cultures and, on the other hand, a focus on relating psychological variables to environmental and even biological ones.

This duality ultimately led to the creation of two independent yet related subdisciplines: ‘cross-cultural psychology’, which focuses on the comparison of cultures in terms of values, attitudes, roles, perceptions, and cognitions, and ‘cultural psychology’, which focuses on one culture as a complex and complicated unit that is worthy of proper examination [Reference Berry, Poortinga, Segall and Dasen36]. Most researchers in the field focus on one approach rather than the other, resulting in variations in perspectives and emphases. Inherent in these characterisations is the issue of whether a universalistic (comparative, or ‘etic’) or a contextualistic (noncomparative, relativistic, or ‘emic’) perspective is preferred. This is essentially a methodological problem that will be addressed later. Notably, although often seen as conflicting [Reference Shweder37], the two perspectives can rather be considered complementary.

Cultural psychology examines psychological phenomena within their cultural context, emphasising that all human psychology should inherently be cultural psychology, as no psychological processes occur in isolation from culture. However, since this ideal is far from reality, psychological studies that explicitly consider cultural contexts qualify as cultural psychology [Reference Kağıtçıbaşı38]. When such studies adopt a comparative approach involving at least two cultures, even implicitly, they fall within the domain of cross-cultural psychology. Hence, the title “(Cross-)Cultural Psychology” reflects the intentional inclusion of both perspectives. For this chapter, the term ‘cross-cultural’ will generally be used unless a specific distinction is being made to ‘cultural psychology’.

Outstanding (Cross-)Cultural Questions within the Capability Approach

In the following section, we focus on three key debates: procedural versus contributive justice, resources versus capabilities, and capability sets versus well-being.

Indigenous Philosophies and the Capability Approach

Recent studies have further explored the interplay between indigenous philosophies and the CA.

Practical Implications and Recommendations

Conclusion

We can confidently conclude that the CA offers a robust and adaptable framework for promoting human well-being across diverse cultural contexts. By balancing universal principles, such as human dignity and agency, with cultural specificity, the CA provides a nuanced approach to addressing the complexities of cross-cultural and cultural applications. Its emphasis on relational capabilities, contextuality, and valuing pluralism ensures that interventions are inclusive and sensitive to the unique dynamics of local contexts.

Future research and practice should continue to explore the interplay between individual capabilities, cultural values, and structural factors. This includes examining how diverse cultural and institutional settings influence the formation of capabilities and identifying strategies to enhance their realisation in a sustainable and equitable manner. Efforts to integrate non-Western philosophies, such as Ubuntu and Buen Vivir, can further enrich the CA by broadening its theoretical and practical applications.

As global challenges such as political polarisation, economic inequality, environmental degradation, and cultural conflicts persist, the CA’s transformative potential becomes increasingly vital. By fostering inclusivity, equity, and sustainability, the CA not only addresses disparities in well-being but also paves the way for a more just and harmonious global society. Through continued innovation and collaboration, the CA can serve as a guiding framework for building a world where all individuals have the freedom and opportunity to lead lives they value.

Introduction: Setting the Scene on Universalising ‘Decent Work’

What is meant by ‘decent work’ in different social environments? At a global level, it may be understood in a regulatory, ‘functional’, and hierarchical sense that is faithful to normative vocabularies and structural arrangements that are enfolded by an abundance of institutions such as the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the United Nations (UN), and academia. Decent work, however, can also serve emancipatory objectives, as well as concrete efforts to address job creation, rights at work, inclusion, dignity, fair pay, equity, social protection, and social dialogue; this is important in many ways. However, there exists a risk of hegemonic versions that may prevent particularist expressions from different contexts and, as a consequence, become complicit in reproducing the very same order that particularist expressions seek to counter. This dialectic of the provincial versus the universal is a long-standing conversation in academia and in political discourse. Aimé Césaire illuminates this discussion by positing the following:

This instructive excerpt from Cesaire aligns with Sen’s concept of ‘Nyaya’ (see Chapters 1 and 2) and demonstrates the possibility of a shared universal, but the key condition of possibility is the recognition of the particular/provincial. A universal meaning of decent work is therefore possible. The view of a universal meaning of decent work resonates with the transcendentality of Marx’s dictum: “Workers of the world, unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.” This focuses on the worker’s universal identity, which can play a significant role in proposing and establishing universal values for workers. It cannot be denied, however, that these well-meaning dictums, shaped by respective local histories, may develop a life of their own; for example, in the South African miners’ strike of 1922, the dictum took a racial turn into: ‘Workers of the World, Fight and Unite for a White South Africa!’. See the section on ‘South Africa and the Coloniality of Work’ for an elaboration of the South African example.

Michel Foucault entirely dismisses the idea of the universal by stating that no single, overarching theory can fully account for all contexts, only situated responses to specific questions are possible [Reference Sarup2]. How can we conceptualise well-being and decent work with universal application when the precarity of workers differs across the globe as caused by respective historical circumstances and legal and social institutions? This chapter argues that notions of well-being and decent work need to be contextualised through the recognition of localised concrete social realities before they can be universalised. This approach prevents solutions adopted from other social orders that often result in constructed social policies that deepen the structural social exclusions of others.

The proposed approach also enables the analysis to move away from idealist improvisations of concepts, especially in the face of changes in the world of work, where new information technologies and the proliferation of legalities have not restrained the challenges that exist. This position, we hope, can help us break down the persistent divisions between the global North/Global South, Centre/Periphery, Communist/Capitalist, and Developed/Non-developed and thus create a universal meaning of decent work in the process of transcending but not invisibilising particularities of national and group identities.

Rather than viewing the universalisation of well-being and decent work as a means to incorporate those who are structurally marginalised into the mainstream, this chapter aims to create a platform for shared cultural values on the basis of dialogue, equality, justice, inclusion, and societal solidarity. These values will enable us to interrogate the streams of the social division of work and to scrutinise the existing ideas and frameworks of the very meaning of work. At the centre of this chapter are three questions.

First, is the following question: How may border thinking help us think about decent work in different societal contexts? Border thinking is a decolonial concept that is based on the idea that “the theoretical and epistemic must have a lived dimension to them, and it constitutes the alternative experiences of those who have been excluded from knowledge production by modernity” [Reference Mignolo and Tlostanova3, p. 206]. This terrain has been overemphasised by many scholars: “no one has ever devised a method for detaching the scholar from the circumstances of life, from the fact of his involvement, conscious or unconscious, with a class, set of beliefs, a social position or from the mere activity of being a member of a society” [Reference Said4, p. 10].

Second, is it possible to be human in the workplace? Decent work and capital may seem to be contradictory couplings because, in modernity, workers appear to be tools that may be disposed of after certain hours or age (retirement) and use. An examination of the fundamental practicalities of the concept of decent work may reveal how it is connected to an underlying philosophy of humanity, human dignity, justice, equity, and flourishing. However, the complexity of the world system in modernity places other people below the human line, something that disrupts all efforts to transcend particularities in the pursuit of a universal concept of decent work. The Portuguese scholar Boaventura Santos introduced the concept of the abyssal line. The abyssal line denotes a line that separates metropolitan societies from colonial societies after the end of historical colonialism and that also divides the social reality within the respective societies [Reference Santos5]. Santos’s posture reveals how normative categories may be limiting due to variances in the socio-historical circumstances of people; however, we submit that the centrality of the human and basic social needs in all these challenges demands a universal explanation.

This leads to the third question: how, despite enduring intra-communal antagonisms, may social justice theories help construct a universal understanding of decent work that transcends national and epistemological lines?

Using two social justice frameworks that converge, diverge, and cross-fertilise, the decolonial epistemic lens, and the capability approach (CA), we critically examine how concepts emerging from local specificities can be embedded in broader universal critique. On the basis of these two theories, we provide a platform for understanding how not only local conceptions of decent work may be generated but also how they may be broadened to incorporate and inform experiences from other global contexts. Located in the South African experience and historical context and to reinforce our argument, the chapter is overarched by Michel Foucault’s concept of parrhesia.

Parrhesia, an early-century Greek concept, denotes “a verbal activity in which the speaker expresses his personal relationship to truth, and risks his life because he recognises truth-telling as a duty to improve or help other people as well as himself” [Reference Foucault6, p. 20]. It is “linked to a certain social situation, to a difference of status between the speaker and his audience, to the fact that the parrehsiastas says something which is dangerous to himself and thus involves a risk” [Reference Foucault6, p. 13]. It is about truth. “In Parrhesia, the speaker emphasises the fact that he is both the subject of the enunciation and the subject of the enunciandum” [Reference Foucault6, p. 17]. Decolonial theory and the CA as parrhesia are relevant in discoursing decent work, particularly in the colonies where the definition of labour was built on the back of dehumanisation, exploitation, and dispossession.

This complex character of labour foundations is explored through an attempt to amalgamate the decolonial epistemic lens and the CA as one way to move beyond Eurocentric frameworks that marginalize the role of the colonial experience in shaping the modern world. A proper and authentic understanding of this complex character plays an important role in constructing a transformative and universal understanding of decent work. Perhaps only then can we think of an organic solidarity that deviates from transfixed bourgeoise scholarship that is ignorant of non-Western epistemologies. Consequently, in the Foucauldian spirit, “the parrehsiastas primarily chooses a specific relationship to himself: he prefers himself as a truth-teller rather than a living being who is false to himself” [Reference Foucault6, p. 17], which tells the truth as duty and an element of risk as espoused in many cultures such as Steve Biko’s Frank Talk: “Bourgeoise humanism has been implicated in the false consolidation of scientific racism” [Reference Biko and Stubbs7, p. 29]; or, in another example, Jewish historians: “whichever approach they took, they risked incurring the wrath of peers, relatives and eventually the state for being unwilling to accept the prevalent view of Zionism” [Reference Pappé8, p. 9].

South Africa and the Coloniality of Work: Need for a Paradigm Shift

To understand what decent work means in the Global South, especially in the South African context, it is essential to reckon with the enduring legacy of colonialism and apartheid. These historical structures and power asymmetries continue to shape the labour environment. These systems do not merely impose economic inequalities; they institute an ontological division in humanity itself, a division that continues to shape labour relations. The concept of decent work cannot be approached as a neutral or universal category because it has long been entangled in colonial legacies and racial hierarchies.

This section argues that coloniality is not a residue of the past but rather an enduring structure that informs modernity and the meanings of labour, productivity, and human worth. It seeks to unveil how well-meaning universalist claims about decent work may unwittingly sustain the very systems of inequality they aim to challenge. Therefore, this section reveals how universal claims to decent work may mask and sometimes reproduce hierarchies of race, value, and voice. Decolonial thought and the CA, when read as parrhesia truth-telling in the face of risk, offer critical tools to confront this contradiction.

A Capability Approach

The previous section focused on the decolonial lens and demonstrated how it is impossible to imagine organised and decent work in contemporary South Africa without recognising the historical moorings and multitude of processes that characterise this history. This section explores the CA and how this approach, together with the decolonial approach, may cross-fertilise the pursuit of universal values of decent work that may shape policy in a global context.

The CA, as advanced by Sen [Reference Sen43] and Nussbaum [Reference Nussbaum46], is a normative framework focused on expanding individuals’ freedoms to do and be what they have reason to value. It centres on human flourishing and dignity, arguing that social arrangements should support people’s capabilities, the real opportunities they have to pursue meaningful lives. This approach has gained prominence in discussions of decent work, sustainable development, and social justice, including the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 8 (SDG 8), which aims to promote productive employment and decent work for all [47].

Despite its global uptake, the CA has faced criticism – particularly from decolonial and critical scholars – for being overly individualistic, universalist, and insufficiently contextual [Reference Deneulin48, Reference Maldonado-Torres49]. However, such critiques risk misrepresenting the framework. While the CA emphasises individual agency, it does not isolate individuals from their social, political, or historical contexts. In contrast, it explicitly acknowledges that capabilities are shaped by relational structures such as institutions, culture, and power dynamics [Reference Nussbaum46, Reference Robeyns50]. Education and health, for instance, are recognised not only as individual achievements but also as preconditions for future agency, forming a recursive loop where the outcomes of one cycle become the (individual and contextual) inputs of the next [Reference Sen42, Reference Alkire51].

The CA’s emphasis on transformation, emancipation, and structural change aligns closely with broader social justice goals. It is not merely descriptive but deeply normative and interventionist, seeking to reshape social realities to enhance substantive freedoms. Therefore, the convergence with the decolonial lens is striking. For example, both theories can deepen conversations if our epistemological positions pursue acts of solidarity, connectedness, and collective attempts at social transformation guided by an emergent understanding of historical constraints and possibilities.

In this sense, parrhesia – the act of courageous truth-telling in the face of power – is not an external supplement to either the CA or decolonial thinking but a constitutive feature of it. Speaking truth to unjust systems and advocating for dignity, equity, and inclusion are embedded in the CA’s as well as in decolonial ethical commitments [Reference Foucault6, Reference Mbembe52].

Critiques that dismiss the CA as Western or Eurocentric often overlook its flexibility and openness to plural conceptions of the good (see Chapter 5). While universalist in aspiration, the CA explicitly rejects imposing a single model of development. Instead, it provides a procedural framework in which locally valued capabilities can be identified in context [Reference Sen and Brooks45, Reference Nussbaum46]. As such, it can be mobilised to support decolonial struggles that seek epistemic justice and self-determination.

Recent policy reversals across various global contexts – including rollbacks on affirmative action and the erosion of labour protection – have intensified anxieties around justice, equity, and human dignity. These developments stand in stark contrast to the ILO’s Decent Work Agenda, which emphasises equity, non-discrimination, and freedom of association [53], and to the broader SDGs [47]. In this context, the CA offers an important lens for evaluating systemic exclusions and for reclaiming the human in work.

In the spirit of epistemic humility and global dialogue, the CA can be enriched by insights from decolonial thought. Traditions from indigenous, African, and feminist epistemologies emphasise community, reciprocity, and interconnectedness – values not foreign to the CA but entirely compatible with its emphasis on relational well-being. When mobilised alongside the CA, decolonial critique deepens the analysis of power and historical injustice, whereas the CA contributes a normative scaffold for imagining concrete pathways of change.

Interconnected Histories and the Work of Eric Wolf

This relational understanding of justice and the connection, apart from the parrhesia aspect, between the CA and decolonial thinking finds a strong historical basis in the work of Eric Wolf [Reference Wolf54], who warned against the fragmentation of disciplines and the isolation of human societies from broader systemic contexts. In Europe and the People without History, Wolf argues that humankind constitutes “a totality of interconnected processes” and that scholarly inquiries that disassemble this totality into separate parts – without reassembling them – present a “false reality” [Reference Wolf54]. He critiques how economics, for instance, became severed from social and political life, reducing production to market transactions and erasing the relational foundations of human organisation [Reference Wolf54].

Wolf’s critique resonates with the connection between the CA and decolonial thinking in at least three principal ways:

• Challenging Fragmentation. Both Wolf and the CA reject siloed analysis. The CA calls for the integration of economic, political, and social dimensions of development to understand how freedoms are expanded or constrained. This resonates with decolonial critiques of Western epistemology, which expose how colonial knowledge systems fragmented and depoliticised the lives of the colonised. Therefore, like Wolf, the CA and decolonial thought both resist reductive, siloed approaches and argue for contextual, relational, and historically embedded understandings of well-being and justice.

• Restoring Agency to the Marginalised. Wolf restores historical agency to the so-called people without history, showing how non-European societies actively shaped global transformations. The CA likewise centres agency – not as abstract autonomy but as the real ability to act meaningfully in the world. Similarly, decolonial thought insists on valuing epistemologies from the Global South and recognising the historical silencing of colonised peoples.

• All these frameworks call for the recovery of voice and recognition for historically marginalised actors.

• Critiquing Eurocentric Models of Development. Wolf’s work helps explain why Western-centric development thinking fails: it is based on the false idea that Europe developed autonomously and linearly, and others must ‘catch up’. This critique is echoed in the CA’s call to focus on plural, locally relevant values of well-being, not just GDP or modernisation and decolonial demands for development rooted in local knowledge and values.

Together, these approaches advocate for a post-universalist, context-sensitive vision of justice and development.

Eric Wolf’s book, in sum, provides a historical–materialist critique of Western knowledge systems and shows how global inequality was actively produced through interconnected processes. His work aligns with the emphasis on agency in the CA. It can help ground the CA historically and align it with decolonial concerns about voice, epistemic justice, and the rehumanisation of those written out of dominant histories.

To conclude this section, the CA – far from being Eurocentric or overly individualistic – offers a dynamic, context-sensitive, and justice-oriented framework that aligns with the core concerns of decolonial thought. Both perspectives call for truth-telling (parrhesia) in the face of structural injustice, and both foreground the agency, dignity, and futures of those who have long been excluded from dominant narratives of development.

The CA is most important when every individual has been ushered into the human zone and not ‘thingified’ and removed from the structural curse of being eternal hewers of wood, drawers of water, doing chores for those in the zone of being, tillers of the soil, permanent immigrants, and diggers of mines who are not heard or covered by well-meaning human proclamations. Cathedral builders and not merely stonecutters in the terminology of the anecdote this book started with.

Practical Implications

This chapter underscores that decent work, when viewed through the combined lens of decoloniality and the CA, must be reclaimed from abstraction and rooted in lived realities. Practical implications can be formulated on four levels:

• Policy and Regulation. Labour policies and empowerment frameworks (e.g., B-BBEE, public works programmes, and platform regulation) should be evaluated and redesigned on the basis of their impact on workers’ capabilities rather than formal compliance alone. Procurement, just transition policies, and minimum wage systems should be tied explicitly to the expansion of capabilities such as voice, agency, and security.

• Organisations and Social Partners. Employers, unions, and professional bodies can operationalise this by instituting capability audits and incorporating paresthesia mechanisms – safe, structured opportunities for truth-telling without retaliation – into workplace governance. Such measures would transform diversity and inclusion programmes into genuine practices of co-creation.

• Workplace Practice. At the micro level, occupational health and career services should integrate capability-oriented tools into counselling and case management, ensuring that workers’ agency, voice, and dignity are central in pathways to sustainable employability. Community forums for decent work could further institutionalise participatory dialogue.

• Measurement and Accountability. New tools such as capability impact assessments and conscio-hierarchality audits are needed to reveal structural conversion barriers (e.g., commuting burdens and racialised job segregation). These instruments complement existing compliance-based monitoring and restore attention to substantive freedoms (see Chapter 4).

Future Research

The argument advanced in this chapter also opens several lines for further scholarly inquiry:

• Conceptual Development. More work is needed to articulate contextual universalism in decent work – a framework that identifies core freedoms while allowing contextual variation. Similarly, theorising parrhesia as a workplace right deserves systematic exploration.

• Measurement and Methods. Future studies should co-create decolonial capability indices that reflect workers’ situated realities in the Global South. The development of valid measures of conscio-hierarchality would allow researchers to capture how historical hierarchies translate into contemporary work-related inequalities.

• Policy and Organisational Evaluation. Rigorous impact evaluations of redesigned public works programmes, B-BBEE reforms, and capability-based procurement practices can provide evidence of what truly enhances worker freedoms. Longitudinal research on platform workers and mining communities could illuminate how labour regimes evolve under globalisation and climate transitions.

• Historical and Comparative Studies. Further archival and ethnographic research is needed to trace how colonial and apartheid logics persist in labour institutions. Comparative studies across Global North and South contexts may reveal the institutional conversion factors that most effectively expand capabilities under resource constraints.

These implications and research directions aim to move the discourse on decent work beyond compliance and rhetoric. By embedding parrhesia, epistemic justice, and capability expansion into both scholarship and practice, decent work can be reimagined as a site of rehumanisation and solidarity rather than regulation alone.

Conclusion: Pathways to Universal Conceptions of Decent Work

It cannot be overstated that work plays a crucial role in the global economy and in personal development. Owing to technological developments, the effects of pandemics such as COVID-19, outsourcing, and other geopolitical changes, decent work has even become more important. However, what cannot be ignored is that in the Global South, the genealogy of work is laced with mechanisms of domination, dehumanisation, and expropriation and the logic that currently guides workplace relations. An alien idea of work was imposed upon people whose identity, culture, and humanity were eroded, and white supremacy was forced into their way of life. These injustices may not only shape policies but also form the practices in society today. We have argued that the decolonial epistemic lens and the CA are applicable theories that are sensitive to deep structural issues without claiming superiority to Eurocentric epistemes. We have also suggested that decent work should not be premised on profit nor should it ignore dehumanisation, but it must be produced in an economic, political, and ideological system that facilitates a singular humanity. In this spirit, we propose several frameworks.

First, building from Eric Wolf’s argument of the singular logic of modernity/coloniality, we propose that things and events must be understood as interconnected [Reference Wolf54]. To understand social phenomena, we need to place them in a historical context. As noted by Aimé Césaire, the universal should be enriched by that which is particular [Reference Césaire and Edwards1]. For example, the historical circumstances of apartheid and dispossession in South Africa are not in isolation. The internal South African contradictions are a product of a larger global history of modernity/coloniality. Therefore, universal understandings of decent work can emerge only when this interconnectedness is recognised and history is understood as part of a broader, evolving global power structure.

Second, in the workplace, there should be awareness of its historical position. The workplace in South Africa inherits a legacy of injustices, as demonstrated in the chapter. Diversity and inclusion, without paying attention to colonial roots and structures, may be insufficient for transformative and distributary objectives. Important in this respect is the concept of conscio-hierarchality [Reference Ngwenya and Bohman55]. This concept calls for a heightened awareness of one’s social and psychological positioning within the global hierarchy of being, a construct rooted in the historical and ongoing structures of modernity/coloniality. This hierarchy stratifies individuals according to intersecting categories such as race, gender, class, sexuality, and religion, elevating the European, capitalist, patriarchal, white, and heterosexual subject as the normative ideal [Reference Maldonado-Torres49]. As an interdisciplinary intervention, conscio-hierarchality challenges dominant ways of knowing and being that underpin interpersonal, institutional, and economic relations. It is particularly relevant to contemporary discussions on well-being and decent work – as in this book – as it reveals how structural inequalities shape access to dignity, opportunity, and psychological flourishing.

From a psychological standpoint, conscio-hierarchality affirms the human subject as inherently valuable, deserving of respect and voice beyond ascribed social identities such as ‘migrant’, ‘disabled’, or ‘low-skilled worker’. This aligns with psychological frameworks that link subjective well-being to autonomy, recognition, and inclusion. However, it also highlights the limitations of individual-level interventions when systemic barriers such as racism, ableism, and economic precarity remain unaddressed.

The concept thus critiques how modern institutions, including labour markets, reproduce inequality by framing cultural and social differences through a deficit lens. It stresses that oppression is intersectional and that individuals experience exclusion and exploitation across multiple axes, such as being black, queer, working class, or undocumented. Such positionalities profoundly influence access to decent work, defined not only by fair income and safe conditions but also by respect, agency, and psychological safety in the workplace.

Conscio-hierarchality, therefore, calls for a shift in how well-being and labour are conceptualised: from individual performance and productivity to collective dignity and structural equity. It challenges dominant economic and policy discourses that overlook the historical and cultural dimensions of labour and instead privilege epistemologies that centre relationality, community, and lived experience. This includes valuing situated knowledge that speaks from the margins and challenges the universality of Western paradigms. Ultimately, by recognising and disrupting the epistemic and structural foundations of inequality, conscio-hierarchality enables more inclusive understandings of well-being and decent work, grounded in justice, contextual sensitivity, and the rehumanisation of labour.

The Relevance of the Capability Approach to Work and Employment

The capability approach (CA) is concerned with human flourishing and development and thus applies to studying the quality of life of individuals, individual well-being, social outcomes, and public policies in various occupations and countries [Reference Anand, Comim, Fennell and Anand1, Reference Fukuda-Parr, Cid-Martinez, Nissanke and Ocampo2]. In the CA, Sen offers a comprehensive framework for evaluating human well-being beyond traditional economic measures such as income or utility [Reference Sen3]. The CA emphasises what individuals are able to do and be – the capabilities and the functionings that they achieve. Measuring and studying these capabilities are essential for formulating policies that enhance human development and promote social justice, especially in the context of work. Building on Sen’s work, Nussbaum proposed a list of central human capabilities essential for a life with dignity, including life, bodily health, bodily integrity, senses, imagination, thought, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, other species, play, and control over one’s environment [Reference Nussbaum4]. These capabilities give people the freedom and opportunity to live their lives in meaningful and fulfilling ways. There is a debate between Sen and Nussbaum in which Sen’s position is that capabilities are always context- and situation-dependent and that a generally valid list of capabilities, as drawn up by Nussbaum, conflicts with this. For an extensive discussion of the debate between Sen and Nussbaum, see Robeyns [Reference Robeyns5].

Work capabilities refer to individuals’ opportunities to achieve the functioning they value in their work, such as earning a living, contributing to society, and developing skills. Understanding work capabilities, as conceptualised in the CA, across various occupations, sectors, and countries holds significant value for several reasons [Reference Bryson, O’Neil and Bryson6–Reference Zimmermann and Engelbrecht13].

First, different occupations have unique demands, resources, and contexts. Understanding the capabilities required in each occupation can help policymakers and interventionists better tailor policies and interventions to enhance employees’ capabilities. Across countries, the socio-economic, cultural, and regulatory contexts vary significantly. The CA allows appreciating these variations, ensuring that human development interventions are contextually appropriate [Reference Egdell and McQuaid8].

Second, by focusing on individuals’ capabilities, it becomes possible to identify and address inequalities in access to resources and opportunities that affect their work outcomes. This is particularly important for marginalised groups in different occupations and countries that may face systemic barriers. Understanding capabilities also helps in the design of inclusive workplaces by identifying employees’ diverse needs and aspirations across roles and regions, promoting more equitable development and well-being opportunities [Reference Dellve, Jonsson, Flisbäck, Bengtsson, Falk Erhag, Lagerlöf Nilsson, Rydberg Sterner and Skoog7, Reference Gloss, Carr, Reichman, Abdul-Nasiru and Oestereich14].

Third, the CA connects an individual’s capabilities with their well-being [Reference Barnard, Rothmann, De Beer, Lubbe and Mrayyan15–Reference Ragadu and Rothmann18]. By understanding capabilities within various work contexts, organisations and policymakers can create environments that support employees’ well-being and fulfilment. Insights into capabilities help in the design of jobs and career pathways that promote sustainable employability, ensuring that workers can thrive and remain employable throughout their careers, regardless of industry changes or geographical location.

Fourth, the nature of work is rapidly changing due to technological advancements, globalisation, and shifts in labour markets. Understanding work capabilities enables individuals and organisations to adapt by focusing on developing relevant capabilities that match the evolving demands across occupations and countries. With global migration and diverse workforces becoming common, recognising the capabilities needed in different cultural and professional contexts allows organisations to create flexible and inclusive work environments [Reference Gloss, Carr, Reichman, Abdul-Nasiru and Oestereich14]. This finding shows that capabilities include not only the individual aspects of well-being and flourishing at work but also the entitlement of the social and organisational environment to facilitate the realisation of capabilities.

Fifth, the CA emphasises individuals’ freedom to pursue the work they value. By understanding capabilities in various contexts, strategies can be developed that empower workers to have agency in their career development and job roles. Labour relations and power dynamics may vary across countries. Understanding capabilities helps create participatory environments where employees feel that they have a say in shaping their work conditions and contributing meaningfully to their workplaces.

Finally, the CA aligns well with global frameworks such as sustainable development goals [Reference Seckler and Volkert11], especially those related to decent work and economic growth. By understanding capabilities across occupations and countries, policies can be aligned with these goals, promoting sustainable and inclusive economic development. Understanding capabilities across countries also allows for comparative studies, providing valuable insights into best practices and strategies that can be adapted or scaled across regions and promoting global collaboration and development.

Global Variations in Work Capabilities

The CA has been applied to understand work capabilities in different countries, revealing disparities in income and employment opportunities. In India, individuals’ work capabilities were found to correlate with income levels [Reference Banerjee19]. In Belgium, France, and the Netherlands, institutional contexts shape work-related functioning differently for regular and self-employed workers [Reference Focacci and Pichault20]. The CA has been used to assess occupational health and safety, particularly among vulnerable workers [Reference Bernardi21], and to analyse human resource practices from an economic and human development perspective [Reference Subramanian, Miquel Verd, Vero, Zimmermann and Subramanian22]. Researchers have explored methodological challenges in operationalising the approach for cross-country comparisons [Reference Hollywood, McCarthy, Spencely and Winstone23]. Employment services in Finland have been examined for their support of immigrant women’s capabilities [Reference Steel and Jyrkinen24].

Researchers [Reference Ragadu and Rothmann18, Reference Wissing25] have criticised the tendency to focus capability assessment and development on Western, educated, industrialised, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) countries [Reference Henrich, Heine and Norenzayan26]. Work capabilities, as conceptualised in the CA, differ significantly between occupations in various socio-economic contexts, especially when comparing WEIRD and non-WEIRD countries. The criticism is unfounded. Especially in the early stages of CA research, with a strong focus on developmental economics, most research (and interventions) using CA were conducted in Africa, and to a lesser extent in Latin America. Only after the application of the CA to other domains (health, education, and social sciences) around 2000 did research interest emerge in Western countries. Moreover, there is also a large difference between autocratic and non-autocratic countries. These differences stem from variations in socio-economic structures, cultural norms, institutional frameworks, and levels of resource availability [Reference Henrich, Heine and Norenzayan26]. As noted earlier, Sen argues against a predetermined list of capabilities, suggesting that people must be asked directly about their valued beings (states) and doings (activities) [Reference Sen3].

Access to resources and opportunities may vary across countries [Reference Feng, Hu, Afshan, Irfan, Hu and Abbas27, Reference Füllemann, Brauchli, Jenny and Bauer28]. In resource-rich contexts, workers often have access to advanced tools, professional development, and supportive policies that enhance capabilities such as autonomy, learning, and well-being. In resource-constrained countries, inadequate infrastructure, limited access to training, and poor working conditions can restrict capabilities, leaving workers unable to utilise their potential or pursue valued outcomes fully.

Cultural conventions influence the perception of work competencies and capabilities [Reference Chen, Lam, Buchtel and Bond29, Reference Ryan, Boyce, Ghumman, Jundt, Schmidt and Gibby30, Reference Zou, Tam, Morris, Lee, Lau and Chiu31]. For instance, creativity and innovation may be highly valued in Western contexts, whereas collectivism and social integration are emphasised in many African and Asian contexts. Cultural norms and values complicate comparisons, as what individuals value at work (e.g., autonomy, security, or social contribution) differs across societies [Reference Nussbaum4, Reference DeJaeghere32]. Moreover, differences in personal, social, and environmental conversion factors also affect how resources translate into capabilities, making country comparisons problematic [Reference Sen3, Reference Robeyns5].

Table 13.1 shows the possible reasons for global variations in work capabilities in WEIRD and non-WEIRD countries [Reference Gloss, Carr, Reichman, Abdul-Nasiru and Oestereich14, Reference Henrich, Heine and Norenzayan26, Reference Miles33].

Various conclusions can be drawn from comparing capabilities in the WEIRD and non-WEIRD contexts. First, the CA is universally relevant but locally grounded. The strength of the CA lies in its ability to transcend cultural boundaries while remaining sensitive to local values and constraints. Second, cross-context comparisons show that capability deprivation is often the result of institutional failure rather than individual deficits. By focusing on what people are genuinely able to do and be in their work, the CA makes visible the structural injustices that persist within and across countries. Third, the CA encourages a shift from output to freedom. This perspective encourages policymakers and employers to reframe work quality beyond economic indicators towards the real opportunities workers have to flourish.

Different countries have varying levels of economic development, labour market conditions, and social infrastructure, all of which shape the opportunities available for individuals to achieve desired work outcomes [Reference Bosch-Sijtsema, Fruchter, Vartiainen and Ruohomäki34–Reference Pearce, Xin, Xu and Rao37]. The CA holds transformative promise for work in non-WEIRD countries.

Occupational Variations in Work Capabilities

Efforts to enhance work capabilities must be occupation-specific and informed by local socio-economic realities rather than adopt a one-size-fits-all model.

Research has shown that institutional support in various countries significantly affects work capabilities, particularly for regular employees compared with self-employed workers [Reference Focacci and Pichault20, Reference Van Gorp, Van der Klink, Abma, Jongen, Van Lieshout and Arnoldus38, Reference Drobnic and Guillen Rodriguez39]. Work–home tensions vary by institutional context, with job demands and autonomy playing paradoxical roles. Additionally, the institutional context significantly shapes the work capabilities of regular versus self-employed workers.

Studies have shown that job characteristics have an impact on well-being [Reference Ellorenco, Teng-Calleja, Bertulfo, Clemente and Menguito40, Reference Suppa41]. Favourable job characteristics, such as autonomy and wage justice, enhance subjective well-being, whereas work-related stressors and inequalities reduce life satisfaction. Decision-making and earning a good income are crucial in various occupations, and capabilities have a significant effect on well-being, job performance, and the intention to stay. A study conducted on the capabilities of special education teachers in Namibia [Reference Murangi, Rothmann and Nel42] revealed that all seven work capabilities identified by Van der Klink et al. [Reference Van der Klink, Bültmann, Burdorf, Schaufeli, Zijlstra and Abma12] and Abma et al. [Reference Abma, Brouwer, De Vries, Arends, Robroek and Cuijpers43] in the Netherlands were valuable. However, not all were afforded the necessary opportunities, and not all were achieved.

Table 13.2 shows a comparison between occupations in WEIRD and non-WEIRD countries [Reference Barnard, Rothmann, De Beer, Lubbe and Mrayyan15, Reference Delclos, Bright, Carson, Felknor, Mackey and Morandi44–Reference Suvedi, Ghimire and Channa48].

Comparing work capabilities across different occupations is inherently complex due to significant variation in work tasks, job design, and contextual conditions. Occupations differ in the nature of their demands, which shape the relevance of specific capabilities [Reference Bonvin and Farvaque49, Reference Robeyns50]. For example, autonomy and creativity may be central in professional roles, whereas physical integrity and income security may be more salient in manual or precarious work. Moreover, differences in job control, access to resources, and social recognition affect how capabilities are enabled or constrained [Reference Van der Klink, Bültmann, Burdorf, Schaufeli, Zijlstra and Abma12]. Even within the same occupational category, contextual factors such as organisational setting, employment status, and labour protection vary widely, influencing workers’ real freedoms to pursue valued outcomes. The role of personal, social, and environmental conversion factors further complicates comparison, as these factors mediate the extent to which occupational characteristics translate into meaningful capabilities [Reference Sen3, Reference Robeyns50]. These challenges highlight the need for a nuanced, context-sensitive approach to analysing occupational differences in work capabilities.

Case Studies: Measurement and Use of Work Capabilities in Diverse Contexts

This section focuses on work capabilities in different contexts via the same measuring instrument: the Capability Set for Work Questionnaire (CSWQ). The CSWQ, developed to measure work capabilities, is used to analyse findings regarding work capabilities in different contexts [Reference Van der Klink, Bültmann, Burdorf, Schaufeli, Zijlstra and Abma12, Reference Abma, Brouwer, De Vries, Arends, Robroek and Cuijpers43]. The CSWQ assesses seven key work-related capabilities: (a) using knowledge and skills; (b) developing new knowledge and skills; (c) being involved in important decisions; (d) building and maintaining meaningful contacts at work; (e) setting one’s own goals; (f) earning good income; and (g) contributing to something valuable. Studies have shown that the CSWQ is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring work capabilities in Jamaica [Reference Lewis, Rothmann and Van der Klink51], the Republic of South Africa (RSA) [Reference De Wet and Rothmann16, Reference Ragadu and Rothmann18, Reference Barnard, Rothmann, De Beer and Lubbe52], Namibia [Reference Murangi, Rothmann and Nel42], and the Netherlands [Reference Abma, Brouwer, De Vries, Arends, Robroek and Cuijpers43, Reference Gürbüz, Joosen, Kooij, Bakker, Van der Klink and Brouwers53]. Table 13.3 shows the percentages of work capabilities (as measured by the CSWQ) in different occupations.

Based on the results in Table 13.3, the lowest capabilities (expressed in terms of the combination of value, enablement, and achievement) were earning a good income, being involved in decision-making, and developing new knowledge and skills. In Jamaica, the lowest capabilities were earning a good income, being involved in decision-making, and contributing to something valuable. The percentages of the lowest capabilities (i.e., earning good income and being involved in decision-making) in the Namibian sample exhibited the same tendencies as those in the Dutch and Jamaican samples. Studies in South Africa have shown that the lowest capabilities in three occupations are as follows [Reference De Wet and Rothmann16, Reference Ragadu and Rothmann18, Reference Barnard, Rothmann, De Beer and Lubbe52]: earning a good income and being involved in decision-making.

The original validation study of the CSWQ in the Netherlands demonstrated significant correlations between the capability set and various work outcomes, including work ability, work performance, and sickness absence [Reference Abma, Brouwer, De Vries, Arends, Robroek and Cuijpers43]. Thus, a more comprehensive capability set is associated with better work outcomes. A capability set is a collection of options that facilitate a range of valued beings and doings, that is, opportunities in a specific context [Reference Sen3, Reference Van der Klink, Bültmann, Burdorf, Schaufeli, Zijlstra and Abma12, Reference Abma, Brouwer, De Vries, Arends, Robroek and Cuijpers43]. According to Abma et al., assessing the work-related well-being of individuals should go beyond determining whether they have particular capabilities [Reference Abma, Brouwer, De Vries, Arends, Robroek and Cuijpers43]. Instead, it requires an evaluation of the range and richness from which an individual can choose. Van der Klink et al. argued that flourishing emerges from the freedom to choose from diverse, meaningful capabilities rather than having access to isolated capabilities [Reference Van der Klink, Bültmann, Burdorf, Schaufeli, Zijlstra and Abma12].

Figure 13.1 illustrates the capability sets identified via latent class analysis of special education teachers in Namibia (Figure 13.1a) [Reference Murangi, Rothmann and Nel42], early childhood development practitioners in South Africa (Figure 13.1b) [Reference Ragadu and Rothmann18], emergency nurses in South Africa (Figure 13.1c) [Reference Barnard, Rothmann, De Beer and Lubbe52], and hospitality workers in Jamaica (Figure 13.1d) [Reference Lewis54]. Other studies confirmed that larger capability sets lead to better work and organisational outcomes [Reference De Wet and Rothmann16, Reference Abma, Brouwer, De Vries, Arends, Robroek and Cuijpers43, Reference Gürbüz, Joosen, Kooij, Bakker, Van der Klink and Brouwers53, Reference Fleuren, Lai, Gruenewald-Schmitz, Larkin and Yuan55, Reference Schriemer, Roelen, Abma, Van Rhenen, Van der Klink and Bültmann56]. However, the latter studies did not identify different capability sets through latent class analyses.

Figure 13.1

Capability sets in different occupations.

Figure 13.1a.

Special education teachers.

Figure 13.1Figure 13.1a. Long description

The Robust group maintains the highest probability scores, generally staying above 0.80, with a peak at 1.00 for the C S V capability and a notable dip at around 0.70 for E G I. The Moderate group shows more fluctuation, starting near 0.70 for U K S, dipping to its lowest point for E G I at around 0.30, and recovering slightly for C S V. The Weak group reflects the lowest probabilities, hovering near 0.00 for U K S, D K S, I I D before rising to a peak of approximately 0.22 for M R W and E G I.

Figure 13.1b.

ECDP practitioners.

Notes: UKS = using knowledge and skills; DKS = developing knowledge and skills; IID = involvement in important decisions; MRW = developing and maintaining meaningful relationships at work; SOG = setting own goals; EGI = earning a good income; CSV = contributing to something valuable.

Figure 13.1Figure 13.1b. Long description

The Robust group maintains the highest probability, starting at 1.00 for U K S, dipping to approximately 0.75 for I I D, peaking again at 1.00 for S O G, and ending at roughly 0.93 for C S V. The Knowledge or Skills group shows high probability for U K S and D K S at around 0.88 but drops significantly to 0.40 at I I D. It peaks again for M R W at around 0.60 before declining toward the end. The Weak group stays consistently low, mostly below 0.10 for U K S, D K S, I I D, peaking slightly for M R W at around 0.32, and reaching its lowest point for E G I. The Relational group starts with low probabilities at around 0.30 for U K S, D K S, and I I D, but shows a sharp increase to peak at around 1.00 for S O G, matching the Robust group at that specific capability.

Figure 13.1c.

Emergency nurses.

Figure 13.1Figure 13.1c. Long description

The Robust group maintains the highest probability, starting at around 0.90 for U K S and D K S, dipping to approximately 0.80 for I I D, reaching its peak of 1.00 for M R W and a significant dip for E G I at around 0.55. The Knowledge or Skills group shows high probability for U K S and D K S at around 0.80 but falls significantly for I I D at around 0.22 before rising again toward S O G. The weak group remains below 0.20 for U K S, D K S, and I I D, reaching its highest point of 0.30 for M R W and dipping to 0.00 for E G I and C S V.

Figure 13.1d.

Hospitality workers.

Figure 13.1Figure 13.1d. Long description

The Robust group stays mostly above 0.80, with a dip for E G I at around 0.62. The Knowledge or Skills group starts high at approximately 0.70 but trends downward toward the end, specifically for E G I. The Contributing Valuable curve starts very low at around 0.18 but shows a significant upward trend, peaking at 1.00 for C S V. The Weak group remains near or below 0.10 throughout all capabilities.

Research with early childhood development practitioners in South Africa identified four distinct capability sets: robust (33.18%), relational (19.26%), knowledge/skills (17.17%), and weak (30.39%) [Reference Ragadu and Rothmann18]. Practitioners with a robust capability set reported higher levels of decent work than those with weaker capability sets did. Research involving emergency nurses highlighted three capability sets, namely, robust (37%), knowledge/skills (34%), and weak (29%) capability sets [Reference Barnard, Rothmann, De Beer and Lubbe52]. In their study with special education teachers, Murangi et al. identified three capability sets: robust (43%), moderate (39.5%), and weak (17.5%) [Reference Murangi, Rothmann and Nel42]. Lewis reported four capability sets: robust (34.7%), contributing something valuable (5.7%), using and developing knowledge/skills (32%), and weak (28.96%) [Reference Lewis54].

Studies employing the CSWQ across various contexts have consistently shown that a more comprehensive capability set is associated with improved work outcomes, including increased well-being, job satisfaction, and performance [Reference De Wet and Rothmann16, Reference Barnard, Rothmann, De Beer and Lubbe52, Reference Lewis54, Reference Murangi, Rothmann and Nel57]. A study focusing on workers with multiple sclerosis revealed that a greater capability set was associated with better work outcomes, indicating the applicability of the questionnaire in assessing sustainable employability among individuals with chronic health conditions [Reference van Egmond, van der Hiele, de Rooij, van Gorp, Jongen and van der Klink58].

Individual Agency, Structural Constraints, and Work Capabilities

The interaction between individual agency and structural constraints significantly shapes work capabilities [Reference Subramanian, Miquel Verd, Vero, Zimmermann and Subramanian22]. While personal motivation and skills (agency) are important, external factors such as workplace policies, organisational culture, and socio-economic conditions can either enhance or limit an individual’s ability to fully realise their work ability. Structural constraints can obstruct individual agency, whereas supportive structures foster success across multiple domains.

A capability-centric approach contrasts with a resource-centric approach [Reference Van der Klink, Bültmann, Burdorf, Schaufeli, Zijlstra and Abma12]. For individuals to flourish at work, they need capabilities [Reference De Wet and Rothmann16]. Individuals also need job resources (e.g., manager support, equipment, and colleague support) to be well. However, resources only have value because of what individuals can do by converting resources into valuable capabilities [Reference Van der Klink, Bültmann, Burdorf, Schaufeli, Zijlstra and Abma12]. This is referred to as a conversion factor, which explains why people have different abilities to convert resources into capabilities [Reference Robeyns50].

Wolff and De-Shalit emphasise the importance of this dynamic, noting that a supportive environment can lead to “fertile functioning”, where success in one area creates positive spillovers in others [Reference Wolff and de-Shalit59]. Conversely, structural barriers can lead to “corrosive disadvantage”, where disadvantages in one domain negatively affect multiple areas of a person’s work and the life of the organisation. Both individual agency and structural constraints and opportunities significantly influence each other in creating work capabilities that lead to valued functioning. The success or failure of individuals in the workplace is not merely a matter of personal characteristics but is deeply intertwined with the broader systemic factors in which they operate.

Research in various occupations has shown that work capabilities are associated with social well-being [Reference Barnard, Rothmann, De Beer, Lubbe and Mrayyan15, Reference De Wet and Rothmann16, Reference Ragadu and Rothmann18]. For example, Barnard et al. reported that a lack of capabilities was associated with exhaustion and mental distance among emergency nurses in South Africa [Reference Barnard, Rothmann, De Beer and Lubbe52]. De Wet and Rothmann reported that a weak capability set was associated with poor emotional well-being (feeling good), psychological well-being (functioning well), and social well-being (fitting in) among secondary school teachers in sub-Saharan Africa [Reference De Wet and Rothmann16].

Strategies to Enhance Work Capabilities

Various strategies to enhance work capabilities can be considered. Table 13.4 provides a framework for operationalising the CA to address issues such as inequality, precarity, technological disruption, and sustainability [Reference Van der Klink, Bültmann, Burdorf, Schaufeli, Zijlstra and Abma12, Reference Gloss, Carr, Reichman, Abdul-Nasiru and Oestereich14, Reference Abma, Brouwer, De Vries, Arends, Robroek and Cuijpers43, Reference Ashford, Hall, Arango-Quiroga, Metaxas and Showalter60, Reference Fernández-Baldor, Boni, Lillo and Hueso61, Reference Steel62].

Table 13.4Interventions

Table 13.4 Long description

The table has two columns titled Variable and Intervention.

Row 1 column 1 reads. Inequality and discrimination.

Row 1 column 2 reads. Provide access to training and development programmes, particularly for marginalised groups, to ensure equal opportunities for capability development.

Implement workplace policies that combat gender, racial, and socio-economic discrimination, fostering inclusion and diversity.

Row 2 column 1 reads. Precarity in employment.

Row 2 column 2 reads. Develop social protection systems, such as unemployment insurance, pensions, and healthcare benefits, to reduce the vulnerabilities of precarious workers.

Encourage the transition of informal jobs into formal employment by supporting small enterprises, introducing labour rights for informal workers, and improving access to financial and legal resources.

Row 3 column 1 reads. Technological disruptions.

Row 3 column 2 reads. Invest in lifelong learning initiatives that enable workers to adapt to shifts in labour demand, ensuring capabilities such as adaptability and innovation.

Provide low-income and rural areas with affordable access to technology and digital literacy programmes to eradicate the digital divide.

Row 4 column 1 reads. Environmental sustainability.

Row 4 column 2 reads. Develop capabilities for employment in environmentally sustainable industries such as renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and conservation.

Equip workers with skills to adapt to climate-related challenges such as changes in agricultural practices or disaster management.

Implications for Policy and Practice

The CA is an interdisciplinary framework that helps conceptualise and assess complex issues such as poverty, inequality, justice, and well-being [Reference Robeyns50]. Its adaptability allows for application across various disciplines. The CA offers an evaluative framework that acknowledges human diversity and emphasises the importance of freedom, agency, choice, and context as its key features [Reference Javornik, Yerkes, Jansen, Yerkes, Javornik and Kurowska63]. However, adhering to its key features is essential when the CA is integrated into organisational and institutional contexts (see also Chapter 5).

As a people-centred framework, the CA emphasises that policies should prioritise expanding individuals’ capabilities rather than merely focusing on resources and utilities [Reference Gloss, Carr, Reichman, Abdul-Nasiru and Oestereich14, Reference Kimhur64]. When incorporating the CA into any organisational or institutional framework, it is essential to uphold this principle of “each person as an end” [Reference Abreu, Comim and Jones65]. Applying the CA within an organisational context shifts the focus of human resource management from the needs of the organisation to the freedom of individuals [Reference Sferrazzo and Ruffini66]. Consequently, social policies should be viewed as a means, in other words, as resources. When policies are implemented, they should focus on how individuals can use them as resources to increase their capability to lead the lives they value [Reference Biggeri and Ferrannini67].

Addressing disparities in work capabilities requires tailored interventions, including equitable policies, resource allocation, and education systems that enhance the capabilities most relevant to each context. In non-WEIRD countries, improving access to basic capabilities such as safety, fair wages, and training is essential. In WEIRD contexts, fostering more inclusive and adaptive work environments can further enhance capabilities such as innovation and collaboration.

Governments and organisations play crucial roles in fostering work capabilities when conceptualised through the CA, which emphasises providing individuals with the freedom and opportunities to achieve their valued goals. Table 13.5 summarises the interventions by governments [Reference Ashford, Hall, Arango-Quiroga, Metaxas and Showalter60, Reference Bueno68, Reference Ivanyna and Salerno69, Reference Robinson70].

Table 13.5Interventions by governments.

Table 13.5 Long description

The table has two columns titled Variable and Intervention.

Row 1 column 1 reads. Creating enabling policy frameworks.

Row 1 column 2 reads. Design and enforce policies that ensure fair wages, job security, and decent working conditions.

Invest in education and vocational training programmes to ensure that individuals can develop the capabilities necessary for the changing nature of work.

Implement social safety nets to enable workers to maintain their capabilities during economic insecurity.

Row 2 column 1 reads. Addressing structural inequalities.

Row 2 column 2 reads. Assist marginalised groups in developing their capabilities by promoting gender equality, combating discrimination, and providing access to resources.

Enhance access to essential infrastructure, including transportation and technology, particularly in underserved areas, to expand work opportunities.

Row 3 column 1 reads. Regulating workplace practices.

Row 3 column 2 reads. Enforce regulations to ensure safe, healthy, and dignified working conditions across industries.

Enact policies that encourage flexible working arrangements and reasonable working hours, enabling workers to balance professional and personal goals.

Row 4 column 1 reads. Fostering future-oriented capabilities.

Row 4 column 2 reads. Assist workers in adapting to changes in the workplace by providing access to technology and promoting digital literacy.

Table 13.6 summarises the interventions by organisations [Reference Montano, Hoven and Siegrist71, Reference Picco, Gragnano, Daghini and Miglioretti72, Reference Ropponen, Känsälä, Rantanen and Toppinen-Tanner73].

Table 13.6Interventions by organisations.

Table 13.6 Long description

The table has two columns titled Variable and Intervention.

Row 1 column 1 reads. Creating a supportive work environment.

Row 1 column 2 reads. Foster a culture that enables workers to make decisions and take ownership of their tasks, thereby enhancing their ability for self-direction.

Offer opportunities to build and expand employees’ skills.

Create environments where workers feel safe to express ideas, seek help, and take risks without fear of negative repercussions.

Row 2 column 1 reads. Aligning work with individual values.

Row 2 column 2 reads. Allow employees to shape their roles in ways that align with their interests, strengths, and values, thereby fostering meaning and satisfaction.

Provide regular, constructive feedback and recognition to support workers’ sense of accomplishment and belonging.

Row 3 column 1 reads. Align individual and organisational values.

Row 3 column 2 reads. Create conditions where people genuinely have the freedom to pursue what they find meaningful at work while supporting the organisation’s purpose.

Row 4 column 1 reads. Addressing precarity.

Row 4 column 2 reads. Ensure equitable pay and access to benefits such as healthcare, pensions, and paid leave, enabling workers to achieve economic stability.

Transition temporary or gig workers to more stable roles, where possible, enhancing their long-term capabilities.

Row 5 column 1 reads. Promoting equity and inclusion.

Row 5 column 2 reads. Develop programmes that address systemic barriers, ensuring that all workers, regardless of gender, race, or disability, have equal opportunities to thrive.

Row 6 column 1 reads. Adapting to global and local challenges.

Row 6 column 2 reads. Implement mental health initiatives and wellness programmes to safeguard emotional and social capabilities.

Enable employees with the skills and resources needed for technological advancements.

Governments and organisations should collaborate to co-develop training programmes, promote entrepreneurship, and address local labour market needs. Governments can provide tax incentives or subsidies to organisations prioritising capability development through training programmes, green jobs, or inclusivity. Both governments and organisations should support research to identify workers’ evolving needs and adapt strategies to foster work capabilities in different contexts. Governments and organisations play complementary roles in fostering work capabilities, with governments creating structural and policy foundations and organisations implementing these principles in workplace practices. By prioritising capability development, governments and organisations can address global challenges such as inequality, precarity, and the changing nature of work.

Future Research and Practice

Future research on work capabilities could include further application and expansion of the generic work capabilities set [Reference Van der Klink, Bültmann, Burdorf, Schaufeli, Zijlstra and Abma12, Reference Abma, Brouwer, De Vries, Arends, Robroek and Cuijpers43], focusing on its application across different organisational, geographic, and demographic settings. This could provide a deeper understanding of how capabilities vary in these diverse contexts. Larger, contextualised datasets are needed to explore the nuances of these capabilities in various work environments.

Research incorporating the prioritisation of specific work capabilities in the sets and how changes in their interactions affect both employee performance and well-being could provide further insights for policy and best practices in varying contexts. Understanding these shifts could offer practical insights for improving work environments and outcomes. Longitudinal mixed-methods studies are recommended to examine the long-term effects of corrosive disadvantages and fertile functioning on work capabilities. These studies could reveal how persistent inequalities or positive opportunities shape workforce dynamics.

Conclusion

Examining work capabilities in occupations and countries fosters inclusive growth, well-being, and freedom to pursue meaningful work. Tailoring policies to diverse cultural, socio-economic, and regulatory settings helps identify systemic barriers, especially those affecting marginalised groups, and address resource and opportunity inequalities. This approach fosters inclusive workplaces that cater to diverse needs, promote individual growth, and support sustainable employability.

Work capabilities are context dependent and shaped by complex interactions among personal aspirations, workplace conditions, and broader structural factors. Understanding and addressing these variations across occupations and countries are crucial for promoting decent work and fostering human flourishing. The CA provides a robust framework for evaluating these dynamics, ensuring that research and interventions remain people-centred and justice-oriented. The CA emphasises the importance of capability-enhancing work over purely productive labour [Reference Bueno68]. The approach offers insights into addressing inequalities [Reference Gloss, Carr, Reichman, Abdul-Nasiru and Oestereich14] and promoting worker well-being [Reference Miles33].

Operationalising and measuring work capabilities require context-specific indicators reflecting the opportunities and freedoms available in a particular setting [Reference Leßmann74]. Ubels et al. argued that existing instruments may not fully capture the burdens people experience while achieving their capabilities in specific contexts [Reference Ubels, Hernandez-Villafuerte and Schlander75]. The development of standardised measures across contexts risks oversimplification or misrepresentation of local realities [Reference Yap and Yu76]. Furthermore, in contexts with high power imbalances or systemic inequalities, such as in postcolonial or marginalised communities or autocratic systems, individuals may have limited freedom to pursue work capabilities due to structural barriers. This limitation can distort comparisons, as forces outside individual control may constrain capabilities.

Operationalising the CA to address global work-related challenges requires multilevel action involving governments, organisations, and individuals. By focusing on enabling environments, equitable policies, and adaptive practices, the approach can help workers achieve their full potential, reduce global inequalities, and foster sustainable and inclusive growth in the workforce. Identifying the capabilities essential for work, such as autonomy, skill development, job security, and social integration, is crucial. These capabilities may vary by occupation but should be in alignment with universal human needs and aspirations.

The results show that income is a critical factor when considering human capabilities. A key connection between work and human capabilities lies in paid work as a source of income, enabling individuals to develop their capabilities [Reference Bueno68]. While earning income is essential for most people to expand their central capabilities, the CA emphasises income itself and the degree to which it can be translated into meaningful capabilities. This perspective focuses on ensuring work environments that allow workers to exercise and enhance their capabilities. Jobs that offer little discretion limit meaningful relationships or restrict workers’ freedom to choose tasks, which can diminish their capabilities and overall well-being.

Studying work capabilities in diverse contexts underscores the need for tailored, context-sensitive interventions that expand individuals’ freedom and address structural inequalities, ultimately ensuring inclusive and sustainable development. This approach recognises how local conditions, such as labour protection, cultural conventions, and resource constraints, shape perceptions of meaningful work, essential competencies, and available opportunities. By adopting nuanced methodologies and comparative analyses, policymakers and organisations can derive best practices from varied settings, enrich our understanding of human flourishing, and refine policy reforms and institutional changes.

Applying the CA to different occupational and national contexts illuminates how income levels, institutional support, and cultural factors shape individuals’ freedom to pursue meaningful work. Research has shown that, compared with regular employment, resource availability and social policies significantly influence work-related functioning, particularly for self-employed workers. Tailoring interventions to address the structural and sociocultural conditions that promote or constrain people’s capability sets in different occupations and countries is essential.

Exploring work capabilities across occupations and countries highlights that social justice issues remain central to the CA. As more scholars and practitioners investigate the interplay between institutional contexts, cultural differences, and individual aspirations, the relevance of the CA continues to grow. By advancing measurement techniques, addressing methodological complexities, and identifying context-sensitive strategies, future studies can more effectively promote decent work and enhance the well-being of workers worldwide.

Introduction

Leadership is the process of influencing and guiding individuals or groups towards achieving shared goals and fostering motivation, collaboration, and innovation to achieve desired outcomes [Reference Northouse1]. From the perspective of the capability approach (CA), leadership refers to the process of expanding the capability sets of individuals and groups, enabling them to achieve functionings they value and supporting their well-being and agency [Reference Robeyns2, Reference Sen3]. The concept of leadership intertwined with the CA offers a comprehensive framework for enhancing organisational and individual potential.

The CA emphasises enhancing individuals’ real freedoms to pursue valued life courses, which, when applied to organisational contexts, shifts the focus from organisational needs to individual freedoms [Reference Harfield, Davy, Dawson, Mulholland, Braunack-Mayer and Brown4]. Focusing on expanding individuals’ freedoms and opportunities to achieve well-being is closely aligned with leadership styles that accentuate empowerment, autonomy, and development. Leaders create opportunities by enabling individuals and teams to develop their capabilities, ensuring an environment where they can achieve meaningful and valued outcomes, and promoting well-being, autonomy, and inclusivity. It aligns leadership practices intended to enhance human flourishing and social justice in the workplace. The CA in leadership emphasises ethical and moral reasoning, encouraging leaders to consider the broader impact of their decisions on employees and the community.

Evaluating the key concepts of the CA within the context of leadership in work and organisational settings (see Table 14.1) highlights their relevance in promoting individual and collective growth, well-being, and ethical decision-making [Reference Robeyns2, Reference Sen3, Reference Gloss, Carr, Reichman, Abdul-Nasiru and Oestereich5, Reference Van der Klink, Bültmann, Burdorf, Schaufeli, Zijlstra and Abma6].

By considering all four concepts, leaders can adopt a holistic approach that goes beyond managing performance to foster employees’ overall well-being and development. Leaders who are mindful of conversion factors and aim to enhance capabilities while respecting agency are more likely to build equitable and inclusive organisations where diverse talents and perspectives are valued. When leaders promote capabilities and functionings, they align individual aspirations with organisational goals, creating a more motivated and committed workforce that contributes to sustainable organisational success (see also Chapter 7 and the ‘Integration with Other Chapters’ section).

Leadership Models and Employee Capabilities

The following section focuses on leadership styles that relate to the CA: empowering leadership, authentic leadership, leadership as a coach, engaging leadership, and inclusive leadership.

Integration with Other Chapters

The leadership styles we have described aim to enable leaders in organisations to facilitate and promote the achievement of capabilities by employees. This is important because it shifts the focus from increasing the value of the organisation in purely financial‒economic terms to increasing value, which also includes the well-being, value realisation, and autonomy of the employee. This is complementary to the approach in Chapter 7, which focuses on managerial capabilities. In Chapter 7 (Figure 7.1, Box B), the managerial capability set is elaborated as follows: “Managerial capability set to achieve direction, stakeholder empowerment and stakeholder self-realisation.”

The basic premise is that managers have the ability and freedom (capability) to evaluate what are important capabilities for employees and the possibilities and limitations to achieve them. In Chapter 7 it is elaborated that Kulkarni refers to the following key managerial capability [Reference Kulkarni86, p. 18]: “the ability to evaluate stakeholder [employee] capabilities and provide freedom to stakeholders [employees]. This capability involves managers using their knowledge of stakeholder [employee] capabilities. For example, this knowledge may involve an understanding of not only the factors that contribute to stakeholder [employee] voice but also the impediments in implementing processes that encourage stakeholder [employee] voice.” (Kulkarni uses the term ‘stakeholder’; the term ‘[employee]’ has been added for clarification/specification.)

Implications for Research, Practice, and Policy

The CA emphasises enhancing individuals’ freedoms to live valued lives [Reference Bates, Walker and Unterhalter87]. When applied to organisational contexts, it shifts the focus from organisational needs to individual freedoms [Reference Sferrazzo and Ruffini88]. However, collective capabilities can sometimes conflict with individual capabilities, as social institutions may use coercion to override individual freedoms [Reference Godfrey-Wood and Mamani-Vargas89]. The approach has been applied to labour regulation, promoting worker well-being and participation [Reference Miles90]. In leadership, it supports the development of a democratic learning society [Reference Bates, Walker and Unterhalter87] and can help leaders cope with challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic [Reference Ramohai and Holtzhausen91]. The concept of ‘living well together’ is proposed as an extension of Sen’s approach, which considers social structures and institutions [Reference Deneulin and McGregor92]. Decent work and robust capability sets are associated with employee flourishing [Reference Ragadu and Rothmann71], whereas leadership that enables flourishing for all is identified as a pressing challenge [Reference Elkington and Upward93].

The CA has various implications for leadership. First, it emphasises the enhancement of individuals’ overall development and well-being, not just their productivity. It recognises that people have diverse aspirations and that work should be a space to grow, develop, and achieve a balanced, fulfilling life. Leaders using the CA emphasise skill development, autonomy, and the ability to engage meaningfully in work. They aim to help individuals expand their capabilities, fostering an environment where everyone can contribute to the success of the organisation while achieving personal fulfilment. The CA encourages organisations to move beyond a narrow focus on profit or output and instead promotes environments that support employees’ physical, mental, and emotional well-being.

Second, the CA values autonomy and agency, emphasising that employees should have the freedom to make choices and pursue goals that are aligned with their values and aspirations. In work and organisational settings, this translates to leadership and management practices that empower employees, giving them a sense of ownership and control over their work.

Third, the CA is grounded in principles of justice and fairness, making it particularly relevant for creating inclusive and equitable work environments. Different individuals may face different challenges and barriers (conversion factors) that affect their ability to achieve their potential. This insight helps organisations identify and address inequities related to gender, race, disability, or socio-economic status. Organisations can create more inclusive policies and practices by focusing on expanding capabilities for all employees, ensuring that everyone can develop their skills and contribute meaningfully.

Fourth, the CA helps align individual aspirations with organisational objectives by focusing on the development of capabilities that are valuable to both parties. Organisations that invest in developing employees’ capabilities often experience greater commitment to, and alignment with, organisational goals because employees see their personal growth and well-being as being directly connected to their work. This alignment can lead to greater engagement, performance, and retention levels, benefiting both the organisation and its employees.

Fifth, organisations can better prepare employees for the changing nature of work by focusing on capabilities. This approach encourages the development of a diverse skill set and promotes lifelong learning, enabling employees to adapt to new roles, technologies, and work environments. It also supports the concept of sustainable employability, ensuring that employees have the skills, resources, and opportunities they need to remain employable and fulfilled throughout their careers.

The CA provides a moral framework for leaders and managers, emphasising the importance of promoting well-being, fairness, and justice in the workplace. It encourages leaders to take a broader view of their responsibilities, considering economic outcomes and the ethical implications of their decisions for employees and the wider community. This approach can foster more ethical and socially responsible organisational cultures, which are increasingly valued in today’s globalised and interconnected society.

Finally, when organisations invest in developing capabilities and creating supportive environments, employees feel valued and supported, which enhances their engagement and productivity. Employees who experience autonomy, growth opportunities, and alignment between their personal and professional goals are more likely to be motivated, committed, and willing to go beyond expectations in their roles.

Opportunities for Future Research and Practice

Future research and practice on leadership from the perspective of the CA offer rich opportunities for exploration and innovation. Leadership development programmes can be designed and evaluated to help leaders understand and apply the principles of the CA in their practices, supported by coaching and mentoring frameworks that emphasise enabling employees to achieve their potential. Organisational policies and practices that facilitate capability development, such as flexible work arrangements and participative decision-making, can promote leadership accountability by fostering inclusive and equitable opportunities for employees. Cultivating organisational cultures that prioritise individual and collective well-being alongside performance goals is essential for creating environments where employees feel valued, respected, and empowered to contribute meaningfully.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the CA integrates diverse leadership styles, which in turn enrich the application of the CA and provides a transformative framework for leadership in organisations, emphasising the importance of promoting individual and collective well-being. These styles emphasise autonomy, participation, ethical decision-making, individualised support, and diversity, collectively fostering human flourishing and sustainable development.

By shifting the focus from performance metrics to the development of capabilities, the CA prioritises equity, autonomy, and human dignity. Leaders guided by the CA create inclusive and supportive environments that address systemic barriers, enabling employees to achieve valued functionings and align their aspirations with organisational goals. By addressing contextual factors, leaders can remove barriers, expand freedoms, and ensure equitable access to opportunities. Ultimately, the CA underscores the moral responsibility of leaders to advance social justice, promote well-being, and create workplaces that enable employees to lead meaningful and fulfilling lives while contributing to organisational success.

Introduction: Why Work Capabilities Matter Now

The capability approach (CA) shifts attention from mere resources and outputs to real freedoms: the opportunities people have to be and to do what they have reason to value in their working lives [Reference Sen1, Reference Nussbaum2]. At the start of this book, this is captured by the metaphor of the cathedral builder: every worker should have the potential to contribute to something meaningful, provided that the social, organisational, and institutional context enables them to do so [Reference Shore, Randel, Chung, Dean, Holcombe Ehrhart and Singh3]. The CA is both normative (work should enhance capabilities) and context-sensitive (what is valuable differs across people and settings). This prevents both economic reductionism and paternalistic ‘one-size-fits-all’ prescriptions, while ensuring legitimacy through public deliberation and the inclusion of marginalised voices [Reference Venkatapuram, Van der Klink and Rothmann4]. Classical contributions underline that justice in work means equality of freedoms, not just equality of resources, and that institutions have duties to protect, expand, and restore human capabilities [Reference Davis, Schoorman and Donaldson5, Reference Van Ees, Van der Klink, Van der Klink and Rothmann6].

The former chapters of this book showed that the CA, applied to work, can cope with these challenges. In this chapter, we argue that the CA is also suitable for dealing with foreseeable future challenges, such as digitalisation, globalisation, and climate change. To this end, the work environment must be revised from a capability perspective into a more egalitarian, diverse, and inclusive one.

This makes the CA a suitable framework for transforming the challenges of future developments, such as digitalisation, globalisation, and diversity, and the ecological crisis, into opportunities for increased participation in decision-making and workers’ freedoms and well-being.

Wolff and de-Shalit argue that these freedoms (capabilities and functionings) only have meaning if they are also secure in the sense of being future-proof and sustainable [Reference Wolff and De-Shalit7]. They introduce the concept of ‘secure functionings’. This refers to the stability and resilience of a person’s functionings and capability set over time – the assurance that one’s basic capabilities will not suddenly collapse or be withdrawn. It’s not enough to have capabilities at one point in time; individuals need confidence that these will be protected and sustainable.

Wolff and de-Shalit contrast secure functionings with precarious capability possession – for example, someone might currently be housed but at constant risk of eviction, or have a job but under insecure conditions [Reference Wolff and De-Shalit7].

We endorse the ideas of Wolff and de-Shalit. For current work, but certainly also for the challenges in future work described in this chapter, future security is just as important as a good current level of flourishing and well-being at work.

Framing the Future of Work through the Capability Lens

As an open and integrating framework, the CA is particularly well-suited to interpret how technological, global, and ecological transformations shape work and well-being. Chapters 1 and 2 introduced the model of sustainable employability and the seven work values – ranging from using and developing knowledge and skills, to participation in decision-making, fair income, and contributing to a greater good [Reference Shore, Randel, Chung, Dean, Holcombe Ehrhart and Singh3, Reference Van Ees, Van der Klink, Van der Klink and Rothmann6, Reference Van der Klink, Bültmann, Burdorf, Schaufeli, Zijlstra and Abma8, Reference Abma, Brouwer, De Vries, Arends, Robroek and Cuijpers9]. Chapter 8 demonstrated in a scientific way and Chapter 10 in a practical way, how strategic and inclusive human resource management (HRM) can translate these values into genuine opportunities (capability sets) at the micro, meso, and macro levels [Reference Kersten, Van Heijster, Borghouts, Van Veldhoven, Van der Klink, Van der Klink and Rothmann10, Reference Joosen, Van Casteren, Meerman, Lewis, Dollevoet, Schaapveld, Van der Klink and Rothmann11]. The CA thus provides a bridge between individual aspirations [Reference Rothmann, Ragadu, Barnard, Murangi, Van der Klink and Rothmann12], organisational governance [Reference Van Ees, Van der Klink, Van der Klink and Rothmann6, Reference Kersten, Van Heijster, Borghouts, Van Veldhoven, Van der Klink, Van der Klink and Rothmann10], and societal transitions, while identifying conversion gaps where resources do not translate into real opportunities [Reference Venkatapuram, Van der Klink and Rothmann4, Reference Van der Klink, Rothmann, Van der Klink and Rothmann13, Reference Van der Klink, Schaufeli, Bültmann, Brouwer, Abma, Burdorf, Van der Klink and Rothmann14, Reference Van der Klink, Van der Klink and Rothmann15].

Digitalisation: Skills, Autonomy, and the Changing Nature of Work

Technology, automation, and artificial intelligence (AI) are reshaping tasks, eliminating some and creating new ones [Reference Acemoglu and Restrepo16, Reference Rothmann, Greeff, Bunt, Van Niekerk, Harry and Coetzee17]. This requires the acquisition of complementary human skills rather than simply replacing them. A new form of management is needed that introduces a new dynamic of algorithmic control and a focus on fairness, depending on design and governance [Reference Kellogg, Valentine and Christin18, Reference Wood, Graham, Lehdonvirta and Hjorth19]. Remote and hybrid work have become structural, with mixed effects. On the one hand, capabilities may be at stake, such as opportunities for learning, autonomy, participation, and meaningful social relationships, as enshrined in the seven work values [Reference Van der Klink, Bültmann, Burdorf, Schaufeli, Zijlstra and Abma8, Reference Abma, Brouwer, De Vries, Arends, Robroek and Cuijpers9]. On the other hand, there are positive effects on efficient productivity from a strict financial-economic perspective when work is properly organised [Reference Barrero, Bloom and Davis20, Reference Bloom, Liang, Roberts and Ying21].

According to Oosterlaken, the CA offers a compelling framework for guiding the implementation of technology in organisations [Reference Oosterlaken22]. Technology is often promoted as a tool for development. For example, enabling farmers in low-income countries to access market prices via mobile phones and increase their incomes. Such innovations can expand human capabilities across diverse domains, including health, education, livelihoods, and democratic participation. From a CA perspective, information and communication technologies embody the ideal of creating opportunities for individuals to choose which valued ‘functionings’ to pursue.

From the perspective of the CA, technology, automation, and AI are not just passive tools. They are active ‘mediators’ that shape individuals’ experiences, actions, and sense of self [Reference Rothmann, Greeff, Bunt, Van Niekerk, Harry and Coetzee17]. For example, smartphones act as a portal through which individuals engage with others, access information, and navigate their daily lives. Technology’s power lies in its ability to either expand or restrict individuals’ capabilities – their real freedoms. Whether its impact is positive or negative depends on how it is designed and used.

Technology, automation, and AI expand capabilities and well-being in the following ways:

• Developing and maintaining meaningful relationships: Communication technologies directly expand individuals’ capability for building and maintaining meaningful contacts, especially across distances.

• Developing new knowledge and skills: Personalised education platforms directly enhance individuals’ capability to develop new knowledge and skills.

• Using knowledge and skills: Productivity tools, such as specialised software, allow individuals to better apply their professional expertise in work.

Technology, automation, and AI restrict capabilities and well-being in the following ways:

• Developing and maintaining meaningful relationships: ‘Technoference’, or the interference of technology in personal relationships, can reduce individuals’ capability for meaningful connection.

• Exposure to ‘cyberbullying’ and ‘unhealthy comparisons’ on digital platforms can harm mental health and restrict individuals’ well-being.

• Equality: The ‘digital divide’ – the gap in access to technology – can worsen inequalities and restrict opportunities for those left behind.

To genuinely expand capabilities, technology must be designed and regulated with attention to human agency and the lives people have reason to value [Reference Oosterlaken22]. A CA-informed approach would therefore prioritise the following strategies:

• Skills agenda: investing in digital literacy, transversal skills, and lifelong learning infrastructures [23].

• Value-sensitive design: ensuring participatory processes that involve workers in the design, implementation, and governance of digital tools [Reference Friedman, Kahn, Borning, Huldtgren, Doorn, Schuurbiers, Van de Poel and Gorman24, Reference Ehn, Schuler and Namioka25]. Within organisations, this means deploying technology, automation, and AI in ways that enhance, rather than erode, workers’ autonomy, skills, and participation.

• Autonomy-supportive organisations: monitoring not only performance but also potential capability deprivations such as loss of participation and taking measures to prevent this. Using tools like the Capability Set for Work Questionnaire (CSWQ) and structured capability dialogues [Reference Van der Klink, Schaufeli, Bültmann, Brouwer, Abma, Burdorf, Van der Klink and Rothmann14] [see Chapter 2, appendices].

By considering the strategies mentioned, technological innovation becomes a means to support socio-technical systems that foster well-being and justice, rather than merely driving efficiency or profit [Reference Rothmann, Greeff, Bunt, Van Niekerk, Harry and Coetzee17, Reference Oosterlaken22].

Globalisation: Diversity, Inequality, and Cross-Border Complexity

The CA demonstrates that globalisation creates both enabling and constraining conditions for work capabilities through migration dynamics, the dual effects of economic globalisation on job opportunities and employment security, and global-local interactions that generate new forms of work inequality based on cultural diversity, gender, and migrant status [Reference Krishnakumar and Sarti26, Reference Preibisch, Dodd and Su27, Reference Koggel28]. Researchers describe migration as both a capability and a context where work capabilities are shaped, constrained, or expanded [Reference Preibisch, Dodd and Su27, Reference Eichsteller29, Reference Gasper and Truong30]. Diversity has positive outcomes when psychological safety and inclusive practices are present, but without these conditions, diversity can create tension and inefficiency [Reference Verwijs and Russo31]. Globalisation interacts with local systems of oppression to create new forms of capability deprivation, notably for migrants and women [Reference Preibisch, Dodd and Su27, Reference Gasper and Truong30].

Inequality is a pressing challenge. Highly skilled workers and technology-intensive sectors benefit from open markets, while low-skilled or geographically immobile workers often face job insecurity and stagnant wages [Reference De Stefano32]. Platform and gig work have created new opportunities but also heightened precarity, leaving workers with few protections or benefits [Reference Anwar33]. Migration intermediaries, which facilitate cross-border labour mobility, can simultaneously empower and exploit workers by charging fees and enforcing dependency relationships [Reference Sha and Khor34]. Inequality is not only about wages but also about unequal access to education, health care, and opportunities for meaningful work. New organisational forms, such as platform work and remote teams, can broaden access to work, but can also redistribute risks and power asymmetrically [35]. Virtual, culturally diverse teams perform well when coordination, scope, and role clarity are guaranteed [Reference Hinds, Liu and Lyon36].

Cross-border complexity challenges organisations and policymakers as firms operate across jurisdictions with varying labour laws, worker protections, and cultural expectations [Reference Karacan37]. Managing global teams requires coordinating across time zones, languages, and norms about work hours and authority. Complex supply chains raise questions about how to ensure fair treatment of workers in countries with weaker labour standards. Research on “mobility injustice” highlights how cross-border commuters and migrant workers face vulnerabilities tied to legal status, documentation, and social protections [Reference Karacan37].

Diversity, inequality, and cross-border complexity are defining challenges of the globalised future of work. The CA provides a normative lens to evaluate whether work arrangements genuinely expand human freedoms rather than increase efficiency or profit [Reference Sen1, Reference Nussbaum2]. In the context of diversity, this means moving beyond demographic representation to ensure that all workers can fully participate, exercise voice, and influence decision-making. This can be achieved through culturally sensitive work design, training for cultural agility, and environments that foster psychological safety, so that diversity becomes a source of empowerment rather than marginalisation [Reference Verwijs and Russo31].

Applied to inequality, the CA reframes the issue as one of unequal freedoms, not just unequal outcomes. It calls for policies that guarantee basic capabilities for all workers – such as access to education, health, decent working conditions, and opportunities for skill development – so that individuals can pursue lives they value. Practical measures include extending social protections to gig and platform workers, supporting lifelong learning and reskilling programmes, and enforcing global labour standards across supply chains [Reference Stephens38].

For cross-border complexity, the CA emphasises the need to eliminate institutional and structural barriers that restrict workers’ actual freedoms. This could involve harmonising labour standards internationally, recognising qualifications across borders, and creating policies that protect migrant workers’ rights regardless of their legal status. Digital tools and flexible organisational practices can help workers navigate time-zone and language differences, preserving work–life balance and preventing exclusion from key decisions [Reference Sha and Khor34].

Capabilities such as participation, meaningful connections, and a fair income may be at stake. For marginalised groups, access to opportunities and conversion factors (such as language, recognition of qualifications, or safety) are critical. Chapter 8 demonstrated how inclusive HRM can address these challenges, emphasising employment security over limited job security [Reference Kersten, Van Heijster, Borghouts, Van Veldhoven, Van der Klink, Van der Klink and Rothmann10].

Possible strategies are:

• intercultural competence training and inclusive routines [Reference Deardorff39];

• inclusion by design in HR practices and governance structures [Reference Shore, Randel, Chung, Dean, Holcombe Ehrhart and Singh3]; and

• fairer organisational leadership with transparent rating systems, accessible data, and representation of workers’ voices [35].

These strategies aim to ensure that globalisation and diversity lead to empowerment, rather than marginalisation and greater inequality.

Climate Change: Sustainability, Purpose, and Transformation

The ecological crisis demands rapid decarbonisation and major sectoral shifts [40]. Zimmerman and Engelbrecht argue for a reconceptualisation of work within a normative rather than a preference-based framework [Reference Zimmermann, Noël and Schmidt41]. Preference-based frameworks are often evident in social and ecological approaches, which focus on individual choice or satisfaction. In contrast, a normative framework emphasises justice and stakeholder participation as a means to work towards socio-ecological sustainability. A capability-based definition of sustainable work integrates ecological and social sustainability with opportunities for political participation, emphasising that truly sustainable work must enable workers to shape the conditions of their labour while contributing to broader socio-ecological well-being [Reference Zimmermann and Engelbrecht42].

Conceptualising responses to climate change through the CA frames development in terms of people’s substantive freedoms rather than narrow outcomes or preferences [Reference Sen1, Reference Nussbaum2]. This perspective asks whether sustainability strategies expand or restrict stakeholders’ real opportunities to achieve valued ways of living. For instance, an organisation may succeed in reducing its carbon footprint by imposing strict productivity targets; yet, in doing so, it may undermine workers’ autonomy and well-being, effectively constraining their capabilities [Reference Holland43].

Viewing climate action through the lens of the CA reframes organisational purpose as enabling capabilities that support climate resilience and justice. The goal of business shifts from compliance or efficiency towards ‘true business sustainability’, where the organisation’s raison d’être is explicitly aligned with societal and ecological well-being [Reference Dyllick and Muff44]. Purpose becomes a vehicle for fostering collective capabilities [Reference Van Ees, Van der Klink, Van der Klink and Rothmann6], such as the capacity to deliberate about long-term climate risks, share responsibility across stakeholders, and innovate in socially just ways [Reference Schlosberg45]. Embedding participatory decision-making processes enables employees to exercise their capability for ‘practical reason’ – to choose meaningful goals – and for ‘affiliation’, to work in ways that respect the dignity of others [Reference Nussbaum2].

Organisational transformation in this context is not purely structural but normative: it seeks to broaden stakeholders’ abilities to contribute to a just transition. Key capabilities such as education, voice, and security become central, raising questions about whether organisational policies provide the knowledge, skills, and stability needed to adapt to sustainability transitions [Reference Zanoni and Janssens46]. Leadership plays a crucial role here. Caldwell et al. argue for a model of virtuous leadership grounded in character and moral purpose, which helps expand employees’ moral agency and strengthens their ability to exercise practical reason when addressing climate-related challenges [Reference Caldwell, Hasan and Smith47].

This approach also provides a bridge between social and ecological justice. Socially, it requires that climate strategies do not reduce basic capabilities – such as health or livelihood – for vulnerable groups [Reference Schlosberg45]. Ecologically, it recognises that future generations’ capabilities depend on respecting planetary boundaries today [Reference Holland43]. Success, therefore, must be measured not only in financial or ecological social governance terms, however well-intentioned the latter may be, but also in whether organisational actions secure the capability of current and future communities to live dignified lives [Reference Westley, Olsson, Folke, Homer-Dixon, Vredenburg and Loorbach48].

Finally, the CA offers practical tools for research and organisational assessment. Scholars can map relevant capabilities, drawing on the list developed by Van der Klink et al. [Reference Van der Klink, Bültmann, Burdorf, Schaufeli, Zijlstra and Abma8] and tested by Abma et al. [Reference Abma, Brouwer, De Vries, Arends, Robroek and Cuijpers9] or developing context-specific sets. Organisational practices – whether in governance, human resources, or supply chains – can then be analysed in terms of which capabilities they expand or restrict. This also opens the door for capability-sensitive metrics, such as access to green jobs, participation in decision-making, or resilience to climate shocks, providing a nuanced basis for evaluating socio-ecological transformation [Reference Westley, Olsson, Folke, Homer-Dixon, Vredenburg and Loorbach48, Reference Gehman, Treviño and Garud49].

Principles of a just transition emphasise social dialogue, decent jobs, and retraining [50]. Risks include job losses in carbon-intensive sectors, greenwashing, and moral distress when workers’ values clash with organisational practices. Capabilities at stake include agency, contribution to the common good, fair income, and participation in decision-making regarding the shaping of transitions [Reference Van der Klink, Bültmann, Burdorf, Schaufeli, Zijlstra and Abma8, Reference Abma, Brouwer, De Vries, Arends, Robroek and Cuijpers9, Reference Edmondson51].

Possible strategies are:

• Green skills and jobs: coordinated upskilling and reskilling alliances [50].

• Capability impact transparency: reporting not only on carbon reductions and sustainability aims but also on impacts on workers’ freedoms and well-being.

• Co-creation of transition pathways: engaging employees and stakeholders in planning, ensuring fairness and legitimacy [50].

These strategies aim to increase participation in decision-making about the transition and to enhance employee freedoms and well-being.

Leading for Capabilities: Resilience, Flexibility, and Inclusion

The accelerating transformations of the world of work – driven by digitalisation, demographic shifts, and global uncertainty – demand new forms of leadership that move beyond output control towards fostering human flourishing. Traditional approaches to leadership often focus on efficiency, compliance, or short-term performance, but such models risk constraining rather than enabling employees’ opportunities to thrive. The CA provides a compelling alternative: it conceptualises leadership not as the exercise of authority but as the expansion of employees’ substantive freedoms to achieve valued beings and doings [Reference Sen1, Reference Van der Klink, Bültmann, Burdorf, Schaufeli, Zijlstra and Abma8, Reference Abma, Brouwer, De Vries, Arends, Robroek and Cuijpers9].

Framing leadership through the CA shifts the central question from “how do leaders maximise productivity?” to ‘do organisational practices expand or restrict people’s real opportunities to live meaningful working lives?’ Leadership becomes an ethical practice of enabling resilience, flexibility, and inclusion, recognising that these qualities are not merely instrumental to organisational survival but intrinsic to human dignity at work.

This perspective challenges leaders to create environments of trust, participation, and openness, where individuals feel safe to speak up, take risks, and learn from failure [Reference Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon and Ziv52, Reference Morrison53]. It positions resilience not as individual toughness but as a collective capability supported by fair policies, inclusive practices, and long-term investment in skills and development [Reference Nishii54]. Flexibility, likewise, is redefined: it is not simply about adapting to external pressures but about ensuring that workers retain meaningful choice and agency amid transitions. Inclusion becomes more than representational diversity; it is the practice of supporting both belonging and uniqueness, thereby expanding the capability sets of all employees [Reference Shore, Randel, Chung, Dean, Holcombe Ehrhart and Singh3, Reference Van der Wilt, Van der Klink and Rothmann55].

Seen this way, leadership is inherently normative. It is not only about responding to disruption but about shaping workplaces that enlarge human freedom, voice, and participation in ways that foster resilience across individuals and organisations alike. By grounding leadership in the CA, the pursuit of competitive advantage is reoriented towards enabling workers to flourish while contributing to collective adaptability and justice.

In conclusion, we can say that capability achievement depends on the context. Leaders should consider using tools like the CSWQ to tailor interventions to the capabilities of employees [Reference Van der Klink, Bültmann, Burdorf, Schaufeli, Zijlstra and Abma8, Reference Abma, Brouwer, De Vries, Arends, Robroek and Cuijpers9].

Trust is an important foundation for developing capabilities. When leaders demonstrate openness, admit mistakes, and respond appreciatively to input, employees are willing to speak up, take risks, and learn from mistakes [Reference Edmondson51, Reference Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon and Ziv52]. In addition to trust, capability development also requires long-term thinking. Capabilities such as developing new knowledge and skills develop over time and require openness and balancing short-term goals with long-term indicators [Reference Peccei and Van De Voorde56].

Expanding capability sets is facilitated by inclusive leadership [Reference Shore, Randel, Chung, Dean, Holcombe Ehrhart and Singh3, Reference Nishii54], which is characterised by participation in decision-making, leading to innovation and better decisions [Reference Morrison53], and by supporting both belongingness and uniqueness. For leadership under the capability lens, it implies that psychological safety is a precondition for learning, innovation, and adaptation [Reference Edmondson51, Reference Edmondson57] and that leaders must first listen to capability concerns before structuring them into policy and strategy [Reference Van der Wilt, Van der Klink and Rothmann55, Reference Chachaa, Rothmann, Stander, Van der Klink and Rothmann58].

For the organisation, it implies that HRM serves as a capability engine: aligning strategic and inclusive HRM so that individual and organisational goals mutually reinforce each other [Reference Kersten, Van Heijster, Borghouts, Van Veldhoven, Van der Klink, Van der Klink and Rothmann10]. On the board level, stewardship-based governance emphasises long-term value and fairness rather than short-term control [Reference Davis, Schoorman and Donaldson5, Reference Van Ees, Van der Klink, Van der Klink and Rothmann6].

Actionable Strategies for Decision-Makers

Using the CA means looking beyond resources to the real freedoms people have in their lives.

Decision-makers can apply the practical strategies outlined next to expand their capabilities. The three domains that were the focus of this chapter are discussed. Furthermore, we are convinced that if organisations and leaders within those organisations apply CA in the manner we have listed, it will provide a method and strategy to cope with unforeseen changes.

It is important that this undertaking to apply the CA, as well as the “actionable strategies” elaborated next, address job security. This concept, based on the ideas and empirical findings of Wolff and de-Shalit [Reference Wolff and De-Shalit7)], was explained in the introduction to this chapter.

1. a. Digitalisation

   • Employ digital tools to support rather than control workers.

   • Conduct participatory audits of AI systems (focusing on purpose, risks, bias, contestability) [Reference Acemoglu and Restrepo16, Reference Kellogg, Valentine and Christin18, Reference Friedman, Kahn, Borning, Huldtgren, Doorn, Schuurbiers, Van de Poel and Gorman24, Reference Ehn, Schuler and Namioka25].

   • Measure capability outcomes regularly and integrate them as a goal into performance and development cycles [Reference Edmondson51].

     • Diversity and inclusion.

     • Embedding diversity as an asset, not a checkbox.

     • Institutionalise inclusive routines in teams and decision-making [Reference Kellogg, Valentine and Christin18, Reference Wood, Graham, Lehdonvirta and Hjorth19].

     • Redesign rewards and career systems for employment security and long-term capability growth [Reference Kersten, Van Heijster, Borghouts, Van Veldhoven, Van der Klink, Van der Klink and Rothmann10].

2. b. Sustainability

   • Sign just transition agreements with employees and stakeholders [50].

   • Report on both environmental and capability outcomes [40].

   • Develop robust training channels for green skills [40, 50] and ensure that sustainability becomes a shared value, not just a goal.

3. c. Co-creation

   • Involve workers in designing schedules, tasks, and digital tools [Reference Edmondson51].

   • Normalise capability-oriented conversations in HR and leadership practices [Reference Kersten, Van Heijster, Borghouts, Van Veldhoven, Van der Klink, Van der Klink and Rothmann10].

Conclusion: Supporting Human Capabilities in a Changing World

Digitalisation, globalisation, and climate change pose disruptive challenges but also create opportunities for more meaningful, sustainable work. The CA offers a powerful lens to translate these dynamics into just and empowering organisational choices. The future of work must align organisational goals with human flourishing: resilience and sustainability are about enabling systems and able people. This is expressed in the central question: do our decisions expand the real freedoms of workers to do the work and to be the persons they have reason to value?

This chapter conceptually illustrates the extension of CA to future work. It illustrates how HRM and (organisational) leadership should foster normative policies that provide a framework for addressing digitalisation, globalisation, and climate change. Research could focus on whether HRM and leadership, designed from a capabilities perspective, lead to more freedoms and well-being for workers. Longitudinal research could investigate whether the capabilities lens delivers the desired results at the work, organisational, and capabilities levels.

This chapter also concludes the book. In this book, we have attempted to demonstrate how the normative and open nature of the CA conceptually aligns it with other models. Moreover, it is suitable for assessing gaps in the acquisition of freedoms and well-being at work. This justice aspect can be strengthened by linking contributive justice to the CA.

The CA proved to be integrative not only at the conceptual level, but also at the organisational levels: at the boardroom level (corporate governance), the operational level (HRM), and the individual employee level (flourishing work). We saw that the CA can identify problems, areas for improvement, and practical solutions at these three organisational levels.

Ultimately, the CA can be applied in various contexts. A key point emerged as the universality of values. This plays a role in the (cross-)cultural perspective, the decolonial position, and leadership, but also in the (related) discussion about whether a universal conceptualisation of “decent work” is possible. We saw a solution in “a universalism enriched by every particular”. This is a statement by Césare, but it fundamentally reflects Sen’s ideas and pragmatic, situational choice for the perspective of “situation-dependent realisation”.