Unfairness by Design? The Perceived Fairness of Digital Labor on Crowdworking Platforms | Journal of Business Ethics Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Unfairness by Design? The Perceived Fairness of Digital Labor on Crowdworking Platforms

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Based on a qualitative survey among 203 US workers active on the microwork platform Amazon Mechanical Turk, we analyze potential biases embedded in the institutional setting provided by on-demand crowdworking platforms and their effect on perceived workplace fairness. We explore the triadic relationship between employers, workers, and platform providers, focusing on the power of platform providers to design settings and processes that affect workers’ fairness perceptions. Our focus is on workers’ awareness of the new institutional setting, frames applied to the mediating platform, and a differentiated analysis of distinct fairness dimensions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 267–299). New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Adler, P. S. (2001). Market, hierarchy, and trust: The knowledge economy and the future of capitalism. Organization Science, 12(2), 215–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, D. G., & Bowie, N. E. (2003). Sweatshops and respect for persons. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(2), 221–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, D. G., & Hartman, L. P. (2005). Beyond sweatshops: Positive deviancy and global labour practices. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(3), 206–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashford, S. J., George, E., & Blatt, R. (2007). Old assumptions, new work: The opportunities and challenges of research on nonstandard employment. The Academy of Management Annals, 1, 65–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aytes, A. (2013). Return of the crowds. In T. Scholz (Ed.), Digital labor: The internet as playground and factory (pp. 79–97). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barling, J., Dupré, K. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Predicting workplace aggression and violence. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 671–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartel, C. A., Wrzesniewski, A., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (2012). Knowing where you stand: Physical isolation, perceived respect, and organizational identification among virtual employees. Organization Science, 23(3), 743–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beccerra, M., & Gupta, A. K. (1999). Trust within the organization: Integrating the trust literature with agency theory and transaction cost economics. Public Administration Quarterly, 23(2), 177–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., & Howcroft, D. (2014). Amazon Mechanical Turk and the commodification of labour. New Technology, Work and Employment, 29(3), 213–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R. J. (2000). Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 85–108). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boutang, Y. M. (2012). Cognitive capitalism. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, A. (1988). Ethics, efficiency, and the market. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budd, J. W. (2004). Employment with a human face: Balancing efficiency, equity, and voice. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burston, J., Dyer-Witheford, N., & Hearn, A. (2010). Digital labour: Workers, authors, citizens. Special Issue, Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization, 10(3/4), 214–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cefkin, M., Anya, O., Dill, S., Moore, R., Stucky, S., & Omokaro, O. (2014). Back to the future of organizational work: Crowdsourcing and digital work marketplaces. In Proceedings of the companion publication of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing (pp. 313–316). ACM.

  • Choi, S. (2011). Organizational justice and employee work attitudes: The federal case. American Review of Public Administration, 41, 185–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 3–58). Brighton: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, G. E., & Gallagher, D. G. (2004). Emerging trends in contingent work research. Journal of Management, 30(6), 959–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawshaw, J. R., Cropanzano, R., Bell, C. M., & Nadisic, T. (2013). Organizational justice: New insights from Behavioural Ethics. Human Relations, 66(7), 885–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 164–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dufur, M. J., & Feinberg, S. L. (2007). Artificially restricted labor markets and worker dignity in professional football. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 36, 505–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J. E., Roberts, L. M., & Bednar, J. (2010). Pathways for positive identity construction at work: Four types of positive identity and the building of social resources. Academy of Management Review, 35, 265–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elvira, M. M., & Graham, M. E. (2002). Not just a formality: Pay system formalization and sex-related earnings effects. Organization Science, 13(6), 601–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fish, A., & Srinivasan, R. (2011). Digital labor is the new killer app. New Media & Society, 14(1), 137–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., & Evan, W. (1990). Corporate governance: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19(4), 337–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, C., & Sevignani, S. (2013). What is digital labour? What is digital work? What’s their difference? And why do these questions matter for understanding social media? tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique, 11(2), 237–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehl, R. W. (2011). The archive and the processor: The internal logic of Web 2.0. New Media & Society, 13(8), 1228–1244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, G., McGahan, A. M., & Prabhu, J. (2012). Innovation for inclusive growth: Towards a theoretical framework and a research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 49(4), 661–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, M. L., Suri, S., Ali, S. S., & Kulkarni, D. (2016, February). The crowd is a collaborative network. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computing (pp. 134–147). ACM.

  • Gregg, M. (2011). Work’s intimacy. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, R. (2001). Dignity at work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hollister, M. (2011). Employment stability in the U.S. labor market: Rhetoric versus reality. Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 305–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtz, B. C., & Harold, C. M. (2013). Interpersonal justice and deviance: The moderating effects of interpersonal justice values and justice orientation. Journal of Management, 39(2), 339–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horton, J., & Chilton, L. (2010). The labor economics of paid crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM conference on electronic commerce (pp. 209–218).

  • Howe, J. (2008). Crowdsourcing: How the power of the crowd is driving the future of business. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ipeirotis, P. (2010). Demographics of Mechanical Turk. CeDER working papers no. CeDER-10-01.

  • Irani, L. (2013). The cultural work of microwork. New Media & Society. doi:10.1177/1461444813511926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irani, L., & Silberman, M. S. (2013). Turkopticon: Interrupting worker invisibility in Amazon Mechanical Turk. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 611–620).

  • Irani, L. C., & Silberman, M. (2016). Stories we tell about labor: Turkopticon and the trouble with design. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 4573–4586).

  • Kim, S. E., & Rubianty, D. (2011). Perceived fairness of performance appraisals in federal government: Does it matter? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31, 329–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingsley, S. C., Gray, M. L., & Suri, S. (2015). Accounting for market frictions and power asymmetries in online labor markets. Policy & Internet, 7(4), 383–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kittur, A., Chi, E. H., & Suh, B. (2008). Crowdsourcing user studies with Mechanical Turk. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 453–456).

  • Kittur, A., Nickerson, J., Bernstein, M. S., Gerber, E., Shaw, A., Zimmerman, J. et al. (2013). The future of crowd work. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 1301–1318).

  • Kleemann, F., Voß, G. G., & Rieder, K. (2008). Un(der)paid innovators: The commercial utilization of consumer work through crowdsourcing. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 4(1), 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kneese, T., & Rosenblat, A. (2014). Understanding fair labor practices in a networked age. Open Society Foundations’ Future of Work Commissioned Research Papers.

  • Koehn, D., & Wilbratte, B. (2012). A defense of a Thomistic concept of the just price. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(3), 503–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kücklich, J. (2005). Precarious playbour: Modders and the digital games industry. Fibreculture, 5(1).

  • Leana, C. R., Mittal, V., & Stiehl, E. (2012). Organizational behavior and the working poor. Organization Science, 23(3), 888–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehdonvirta, V., & Ernkvist, M. (2011). Knowledge map of the virtual economy. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • LeRoy, M. H., & Feuille, P. (2002). When is cost an unlawful barrier to alternative dispute resolution? The ever green tree of mandatory employment arbitration. UCLA Law Review, 50(1), 143–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. G. Gergen, M. S. Greenbers, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York, NY: Plenum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lindlof, T. R. (1995). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, C., & James, S. (2008). Too much pressure? Retail power and occupational health and safety in the food processing industry. Work, Employment & Society, 22(4), 713–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, K. (2011). Blue-collar discourses of workplace dignity: Using outgroup comparisons to construct positive identities. Management Communication Quarterly, 25(2), 353–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, R., & Forde, C. (2009). The rhetoric of the ‘good worker’ versus the realities of the employers’ use and experience of migrant workers. Work, Employment & Society, 23(1), 142–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maitland, I. (1996). The great non-debate over international sweatshops. In T. L. Beau Champ & N. E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (6th ed., pp. 593–605). Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, C. (2004). Wrongful beneficence: Exploitation and third world sweatshops. Journal of Social Philosophy, 35(319–3), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noteboom, B. (1996). Trust, opportunism and governance: A process and control model. Organization Studies, 17(6), 985–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(1), 129–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postigo, H. (2003). From pong to planet quake: Post-industrial transitions from leisure to work. Information Communication & Society, 6(4), 593–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, M., & Hamilton, J. (2014). Picking on vulnerable migrants: Precarity and the mushroom industry in Northern Ireland. Work, Employment & Society, 28(3), 390–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, A. J., & Bederson, B. B. (2011, May). Human computation: A survey and taxonomy of a growing field. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1403–1412). ACM.

  • Rainie, L., & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: The new social operating system. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rieder, K., & Voß, G. G. (2010). The working customer–an emerging new type of consumer. Psychology of Everyday Activity, 3(2), 2–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenblat, A., & Stark, L. (2015). Uber’s drivers: Information asymmetries and control in dynamic work. Available at SSRN 2686227.

  • Ross, J., Irani, L., Silberman, M., Zaldivar, A., & Tomlinson, B. (2010). Who are the crowdworkers?: Shifting demographics in mechanical turk. In CHI’10 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2863–2872).

  • Rubin, E. V. (2009). The role of procedural justice in public personnel management: Empirical results from the Department of Defense. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 125–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, E. V. (2011). Exploring the link between procedural fairness and union membership in the federal government. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31, 128–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salehi, N., Irani, L. C., Bernstein, M. S., Alkhatib, A., Ogbe, E., & Milland, K. (2015). We are dynamo: Overcoming stalling and friction in collective action for crowd workers. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1621–1630). ACM.

  • Scholz, T. (2013). Introduction: Why does digital labor matter now? In T. Scholz (Ed.), Digital labor: The internet as playground and factory (pp. 1–9). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silberman, M., Irani, L., & Ross, J. (2010). Ethics and tactics of professional crowdwork. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students, 17(2), 39–43.

  • Snyder, J. C. (2008). Needs exploitation. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 11(4), 389–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soule, S. A. (2012). Social movements and markets, industries, and firms. Organization Studies, 33(12), 1715–1733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Standing, G. (2011). The precariat: The new dangerous class. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terranova, T. (2000). Free labor: Producing culture for the digital economy. Social Text, 18(2), 33–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Buren, H. J., III, & Greenwood, M. (2008). Enhancing employee voice: Are voluntary employer–employee partnerships enough? Journal of Business Ethics, 81(1), 209–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wertheimer, A. (1996). Exploitation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. American Journal of Sociology, 87(3), 548–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witt, J. F. (2000). Rethinking the nineteenth-century employment contract, again. Law and History Review, 18(3), 627–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yen, H., Hsu, S., & Huang, C.-Y. (2011). Good soldiers on the Web: Understanding the drivers of participation in online communities of consumption. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15(4), 89–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwolinski, M. (2007). Sweatshops, choice, and exploitation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(4), 689–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nordic Centre for Internet and Society, Norwegian Business School (BI), Nydalsveien 37, 0442, Oslo, Norway

    Christian Fieseler & Eliane Bucher

  2. Institute of Communication and Media Studies, University of Leipzig, Burgstrasse 21, 04109, Leipzig, Germany

    Christian Pieter Hoffmann

Authors
  1. Christian Fieseler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eliane Bucher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christian Pieter Hoffmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Fieseler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fieseler, C., Bucher, E. & Hoffmann, C.P. Unfairness by Design? The Perceived Fairness of Digital Labor on Crowdworking Platforms. J Bus Ethics 156, 987–1005 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3607-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3607-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation