IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v18y2026i8p3939-d1921142.html

Artificial Intelligence in the Labor Market: Evidence on Worker Inclusion, Exclusion, and Discrimination—A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Carlos Rouco

    (Centre for Transdisciplinary Development Studies, Intrepid Lab, Lusófona University, Campo Grande, 376, 1749-024 Lisbon, Portugal)

  • Paula Figueiredo

    (Centre for Transdisciplinary Development Studies, Intrepid Lab, Lusófona University, Campo Grande, 376, 1749-024 Lisbon, Portugal)

  • Carlos Gonçalves

    (Centre for Transdisciplinary Development Studies, Intrepid Lab, Lusófona University, Campo Grande, 376, 1749-024 Lisbon, Portugal)

  • António Costa

    (Centre for Transdisciplinary Development Studies, Intrepid Lab, Lusófona University, Campo Grande, 376, 1749-024 Lisbon, Portugal)

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in recruitment, performance management, and algorithmic work management, with potentially divergent implications for worker inclusion, exclusion, and discrimination. This systematic review synthesizes peer-reviewed evidence on (i) which AI applications in labor-market settings are linked to inclusion/exclusion outcomes, (ii) the mechanisms and contextual moderators shaping these effects, and (iii) governance and human-resource management responses proposed in the literature. Guided by PRISMA 2020, we searched Scopus and Web of Science (Title/Abstract/Keywords) for English-language journal articles published between 2015 and 2025. Nineteen studies met the eligibility criteria and were analyzed using qualitative thematic synthesis. The evidence indicates an ambivalent pattern: AI can support inclusion through assistive technologies and improved matching, but it can also exacerbate occupational polarization, digital exclusion, and discriminatory outcomes when models are trained on biased data or deployed without transparency and accountability. Outcomes depend on complementary organizational practices, workers’ access to skills, and the regulatory environment. Based on an evidence map of the included studies, we propose a hybrid governance model combining technical and organizational audits, inclusive upskilling/reskilling, participatory regulation, and responsible HR policies to align AI innovation with decent and inclusive work. Given the focused Title/Abstract/Keywords query and the small, heterogeneous corpus, the findings are interpreted as a scoped evidence map rather than an exhaustive census of all AI-and-work research. The model’s contribution lies in integrating four interdependent governance layers—technical, organizational, workforce, and regulatory—within a single labor-market framework. Accordingly, the review should be read as a focused qualitative evidence synthesis, and the proposed model as an evidence-informed conceptual framework that warrants future empirical validation.

Suggested Citation

  • Carlos Rouco & Paula Figueiredo & Carlos Gonçalves & António Costa, 2026. "Artificial Intelligence in the Labor Market: Evidence on Worker Inclusion, Exclusion, and Discrimination—A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-21, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:18:y:2026:i:8:p:3939-:d:1921142
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/18/8/3939/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/18/8/3939/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:18:y:2026:i:8:p:3939-:d:1921142. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.