Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

It’s About Distributing Rather than Sharing: Using Labor Process Theory to Probe the “Sharing” Economy

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

Abstract

The sharing economy has been examined from many angles, including the engagement of customers, the capabilities of the technological platforms, and the experiences of those who sell products or services. We focus on labor in the sharing economy. Labor has been regarded as one type of asset exchanged in the sharing economy, as part of the customer interface when services are sold, or as a party vulnerable to exploitation. We focus on labor as a position in relationship to owners of capital. While new typologies to characterize the sharing economy are emerging, we argue that a well-established framework that has been applied across historic types of work arrangements can offer a robust analysis of enduring and new labor issues. We draw upon labor process theory (LPT) from early formulations to recent applications to guide an analysis appropriate to the sharing economy. We use both central and less explored concepts from LPT (obscuring and securing surplus value, technology as control, invisibility of owners and managers, and possessive individualism) and use Uber as a case to illustrate application of the framework. By considering labor, capital, and the power dynamics between them, we draw attention to unequal exchange and distributive justice, fundamental for taking a business ethics approach to labor in the sharing economy.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackroyd, S. (2009). Labor process theory as ‘normal science’. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 21(3), 263–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackroyd, S., & Thompson, P. (1999). Organization misbehaviour. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acquier, A., Daudigeos, T., & Pinkse, J. (2017). Promises and paradoxes of the sharing economy: An organizing framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler, P. S. (2003). Towards collaborative interdependence: A century of change in the organization of work. In B. E. Kaufman, R. A. Beaumont, & R. B. Helfgott (Eds.), Industrial relations to human resources and beyond: The evolving process of employee relations management (pp. 353–399). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler, P. S. (2006). From labor process to activity theory. In P. Sawchuk, M. Elhammoumi, & A. N. Duarte (Eds.), Critical perspectives on activity: Explorations across education, work and everyday life (pp. 225–261). Cambridge University Press.

  • Adler, R. S., & Bigoness, W. J. (1992). Contemporary ethical issues in labor-management relations. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(5), 351–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Airbnb. (2017). Introducing the living wage pledge. Retrieved September 7, from https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/introducing-the-living-wage-pledge/.

  • Bain, P., & Taylor, P. (2000). Entrapped by the ‘electronic panopticon’? Worker resistance in the call centre. New Technology, Work and Employment, 15(1), 2–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 881–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, D. (2018). Disruptive entrepreneurship and dual purpose strategies: The case of Uber. Strategy Science, 3(2), 439–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J. N., & Bielby, W. T. (1980). Bringing the firms back: Stratification, segmentation, and the organization of work. American Sociological Review, 45(5), 737–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belanger, J., & Thuderoz, C. (2010). The repertoire of employee opposition. In P. Thompson & C. Smith (Eds.), Working life: Renewing labour process analysis (pp. 136–158). Houndmills: Palgrave Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 715–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R. (2014). Sharing versus pseudo-sharing in Web 2.0. The Anthropologist, 18(1), 7–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beverungen, A., Böhm, S., & Land, C. (2015). Free labour, social media, management: Challenging Marxist organization studies. Organization Studies, 36(4), 473–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böhm, S., & Land, C. (2012). The new ‘hidden abode’: Reflections on value and labour in the new economy. The Sociological Review, 60(2), 217–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours: The rise of collaborative consumption. New York: Harper Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, K., & Pargman, D. (2017). The sharing economy as the commons of the 21st century. Cambridge Journal of Regions Economy and Society, 10(2), 231–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braverman, H. (1974). Labour and monopoly capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucher, E., Fieseler, C., & Lutz, C. (2016). What’s mine is yours (for a nominal fee): Exploring the spectrum of utilitarian to altruistic motives for Internet-mediated sharing. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 316–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing consent: Changes in the labor process under monopoly capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burawoy, M. (1985). The politics of production: Factory regimes under capitalism and socialism. London: Verso Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burawoy, M. (2008). The public turn: From labor process to labor movement. Institute for Research on Labor and Employment Working Paper Series, University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from http://irle.berkeley.edu/files/2008/The-Public-Turn.pdf.

  • Callaghan, G., & Thompson, P. (2001). Edwards revisited: Technical control and call centres. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 22(1), 13–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calo, R., & Rosenblat, A. (2017). The taking economy: Uber, information, and power. Columbia Law Review, 117(6), 1623–1690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, B. X. (2017, June 21). What’s changing in Uber’s new app. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/technology/uber-gratuity-changes-what-you-need-to-know-about.html.

  • Chen, L. (2015, Dec 4). At $68 billion valuation, Uber will be bigger than GM, Ford, and Honda. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/liyanchen/2015/12/04/at-68-billion-valuation-uber-will-be-bigger-than-gm-ford-and-honda/#5c5273255858.

  • Cherry, M. A. (2016). Beyond misclassification: The digital transformation of work. Comparative Labor Law Policy Journal, 37(3), 577–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, S. (1981). Organization and control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4), 545–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, S., & Dunkerley, D. (1980). Organization. Routledge and Kegan Paul: Class and Control.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier, R., Dubal, V., & Carter, C. (2017, March). The regulation of labor platforms: the politics of the Uber economy. The Kauffman Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.brie.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Reg-of-Labor-Platforms.pdf.

  • Contu, A. (2008). Decaf resistance: On misbehavior, cynicism, and desire in liberal workplaces. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(3), 364–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramer, J., & Krueger, A. (2016). Disruptive change in the taxi business: The case of Uber. American Economic Review, 106(5), 177–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalsgaard, S. (2013). The field as a temporal entity and the challenges of the contemporary. Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale, 21, 213–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. F. (2016). Can an economy survive without corporations? Technology and robust organizational alternatives. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(2), 129–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doeringer, P. B., & Piore, M. J. (1985). Internal labor markets and manpower analysis. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, R. (1979). Contested terrain: The transformation of the workplace in the twentieth century. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenreich, B. (2002). Nickel and dimed: Undercover in low-wage USA. London: Granta. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/nickeldimedunder00ehre.

  • Eisenbrey, R., & Mishel, L. (2016, Mar 17). Uber business model does not justify a new ‘independent worker’ category. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.epi.org/publication/uber-business-model-does-not-justify-a-new-independent-worker-category/.

  • Feenberg, A. (2002). Transforming technology: Critical theory revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feuer A. (2016, February 19). Uber drivers against the app. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/nyregion/uber-drivers-up-against-the-app.html.

  • Fox, J. (2015, June 23). Uber and the not-quite-independent contractor. Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-06-23/uber-drivers-are-neither-employees-nor-contractors.

  • Frase, P. (2012). The dialectic of technology. Jacobin. Retrieved from https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/02/the-dialectic-of-technology/.

  • Frenken, K., & Schor, J. (2017). Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23, 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, L., & Smith, V. (1991). Customers’ reports: Management by customers in a changing economy. Work, Employment & Society, 5(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gandini, A. (2018). Labour process theory and the gig economy. Human Relations, Accepted author manuscript. Retrieved from https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/labour-process-theory-and-the-gig-economy(d4f8a31c-ab3a-4a16-8c7b-d056463b4419).html.

  • Gerwe, O., & Silva, R. (2018). Clarifying the sharing economy: Conceptualization, typology, antecedents, and effects. Academy of Management Perspectives. Retrieved from https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amp.2017.0010.

  • Gloss, M., McGregor, M., & Brown, B. (2016, May). Designing for labour: uber and the on-demand mobile workforce. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1632–1643). ACM.

  • Graham, M., Hjorth, I., & Lehdonvirta, V. (2017). Digital labour and development: Impacts of global digital labour platforms and the gig economy on worker livelihoods. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 23(2), 135–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M. R. (2002). Ethics and HRM: A review and conceptual analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(3), 261–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grugulis, I., & Knights, D. (2001). Preface to the special issue on the labor process debate. International Studies of Management & Organization, 30(4), Winter 2000–2001: 3–11.

  • Hall, J. V., & Krueger, A. B. (2016). An analysis of the labor market for Uber’s driver-partners in the United States. NBER Working Paper No. 22843. Retrieved from http://dataspace.princeton.edu/jspui/bitstream/88435/dsp010z708z67d/5/587.pdf.

  • Harris, J. (Oct 9 2018) Are dark kitchens the satanic mills of our era? The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/09/dark-kitchens-satanic-mills-deliveroo.

  • Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy, J., Nicholson, D., & Pekarek, A. (2017). Should we take the gig economy seriously? Labour & Industry: A Journal of the Social and Economic Relations of Work, 27(3), 232–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinrichs, H. (2013). Sharing economy: A potential new pathway to sustainability. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 22(4), 228–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: The commercialization of feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horton, J., & Zeckhauser, R. (2016). Owning, using and renting: Some simple economics of the “Sharing Economy”. NBER Working Paper Series, No. 22029. Retrieved from http://john-joseph-horton.com/papers/sharing.pdf.

  • Huet, E. (2015a, May 18). Uber tests taking even more from its drivers with 30% commission. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2015/05/18/uber-new-uberx-tiered-commission-30-percent/#2c76bf1e43f6.

  • Huet, E. (2015b, July 15). Uber test lets drivers accept new ride before finishing current one. Forbes. Retrieve from https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2015/07/15/uber-test-back-to-back-rides-lets-drivers-pick-up-before-finishing-current-ride/#62e5cb523c4d.

  • Jaros, S. (2000). Labor process theory: A commentary on the debate. International Studies of Management & Organization, 30(4), 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaros, S. (2005). Marxian Critiques of Thompson’s (1990) ‘core’ labour process theory: An evaluation and extension. Ephemera, 5(1), 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaros, S. (2010). The core theory: Critiques, defences, and advances. In P. Thompson & C. Smith (Eds.), Working life: Renewing labour process analysis (pp. 11–28). Houndmills: Palgrave Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalleberg, A., Reskin, B., & Hudson, K. (2000). Bad jobs in America: Standard and nonstandard employment relations and job quality in the United States. American Sociological Review, 65(2), 256–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalleberg, A. L. (2011). Good jobs, bad jobs: The rise of polarized and precarious employment systems in the United States, 1970s-2000s. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaltner, J. (2018). Employment status of uber and lyft drivers: Unsettlingly settled. Hastings Women’s Law Journal, 29(1), 29–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, L. F., & Krueger, A. B. (2016). The rise and nature of alternative work arrangements in the United States, 1995-2015. Princeton University and NBER Working Paper. Retrieved from https://krueger.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/akrueger/files/katz_krueger_cws_-_march_29_20165.pdf.

  • Kellogg, K. (2009). Operating room: Relational spaces and microinstitutional change in surgery. American Journal of Sociology, 115(3), 657–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knights, D., & Willmott, H. (1989). Power and subjectivity at work: From degradation to subjugation in social relations. Sociology, 23(4), 535–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kochan, T. (2013). The American jobs crisis and its implication for the future of employment policy: A call for a new jobs compact. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 66(2), 291–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuratko, D. F. (2015). Entrepreneurship: Theory, process, and practice. Boston: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lautsch, B. A., & Scully, M. A. (2007). Restructuring time: Implications of work-hours reductions for the working class. Human Relations, 60(5), 719–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehdonvirta, V. (2016). Algorithms that divide and unite: Delocalisation, identity and collective action in ‘Microwork’. In J. Flecker (Ed.), Space, place and global digital work (pp. 53–80). London: Palgrave-Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Macpherson, C. B. (1962). The political theory of possessive individualism: Hobbes to Locke. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, A., & Van Alstyne, M. (2014). The dark side of the sharing economy… and how to lighten it. Communications of the ACM, 57(11), 24–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malin, B., & Chandler, C. (2017). Free to work anxiously: Splintering precarity among drivers for Uber and Lyft. Communication, Culture & Critique, 10(2), 382–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malos, S., Lester, G. V., & Virick, M. (2018). Uber drivers and employment status in the gig economy: Should corporate social responsibility tip the scales? Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 30(4), 239–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marens, R. (2007). Returning to Rawls: Social contracting, social justice, and transcending the limitations of Locke. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(1), 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, C. (2016). The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism? Ecological Economics, 121, 149–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, R. (2017). Marxian labor process theory since Braverman. In D. M. Brennan, D. Kristjanson-Gural, C. P. Mulder, & E. K. Olsen (Eds.), Routledge handbook of Marxian economics. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishel, L. (2018, May 15). Uber and labor market: Uber drivers’ compensation, wages, and the scale of Uber and the gig economy. Research report. Economic Policy Institute, Research report. Retrieved from https://www.epi.org/files/pdf/145552.pdf.

  • Modern Times. Written and directed by Charlie Chaplin, United Artists, February 5, 1936.

  • Mohlmann, M. (2015). Collaborative consumption: Determinants of satisfaction and the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14(3), 193–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, P. (2017). The quantified self in precarity: Work, technology and what counts. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, P., & Robinson, A. (2015). The quantified self: What counts in the neoliberal workplace. New Media and Society, 18(11), 2774–2792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulholland, K. (2004). Workplace resistance in an Irish call centre: Slammin’, scammin’ smokin’ an’ leavin’. Work, Employment & Society, 18(4), 709–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newcomer, E. (2018, Nov 14). Uber revenue slows as quarterly loss surges to $1.1 Billion. Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-14/uber-revenue-slows-as-quarterly-loss-surges-to-1-1-billion.

  • O’ Connor, S. (2016, June 14). The gig economy is neither sharing nor collaborative. The Financial Times. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/8273edfe-2c9f-11e6-a18d-a96ab29e3c95.

  • Olson, E. (2016, Jan 22). Older drivers hit the road for Uber and Lyft. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/your-money/older-drivers-hit-the-road-for-uber-and-lyft.html.

  • Ovans, A. (2015, Jan 23). What is a business model? Harvard Business Review Digital Articles, 2–7. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.umb.edu/login?; http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=118648215&site=ehost-live.

  • Paules, G. (1991). Dishing it out- power and resistance among waitress in a New Jersey restaurant. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, M. A., & Jandric, P. (2018). Peer production and collective intelligence. In B. Lund & S. Arndt (Eds.), The creative university: Contemporary responses to the changing role of the university. Leiden: Publisher BRILL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peticca-Harris, A., deGama, N. & Ravishankar, M. N. (2018). Postcapitalist precarious work and those in the ‘drivers’ seat: Exploring the motivations and lived experiences of Uber drivers in Canada. Organization 1–24.

  • Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Provis, C. (2000). Ethics, deception and labor negotiation. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(2), 145–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravenelle, A. (2017). Sharing economy workers: Selling, not sharing. Cambridge Journal of Regions Economy and Society, 10(2), 281–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reischauer, G., & Mair, J. (2018). How organizations strategically govern online communities: Lessons from the sharing economy. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(3), 220–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, L. (2015). Performing the sharing economy. Geoforum, 67(C), 121–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, B. (2015). The social costs of Uber. University of Chicago Law Review Online, 82(1), Article 6.

  • Rosenblat, A., & Stark, L. (2016). Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber’s drivers. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3758–3784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, D. (1959). “Banana time”: Job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human Organization: Winter, 18(4), 158–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, D. E., & Pattison, P. (2016). Worker characterization in a gig economy viewed through an Uber centric lens. Southern Law Journal, 26(2), 297–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schatzki, T. R. (2005). Peripheral vision: The sites of organizations. Organization Studies, 26(3), 465–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheiber, N. (2017, April 2). How Uber uses psychological tricks to push its drivers’ buttons. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/02/technology/uber-drivers-psychological-tricks.html.

  • Schor, J. (2016). Debating the sharing economy. Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics, 4(3), 7–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scully, M. A. (2000). Manage your own employability: Meritocracy and the legitimation of inequality in internal labor markets and beyond. In C. R. Leana & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Relational wealth: The advantages of stability in a changing economy (pp. 199–214). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sewell, G., & Wilkinson, B. (1992). ‘Someone to watch over me’: Surveillance, discipline and the Just-in-Time labour process. Sociology, 26(2), 271–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shahani, A. (2017, June 8). Uber drivers don’t feel like their own bosses. National Public Radio. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2017/06/08/532022847/uber-drivers-dont-feel-like-their-own-bosses.

  • Shea, T. (2014). Gamification: Using gaming technology for achieving goals. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. (2017, December 14). Why can’t Uber make money? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lensherman/2017/12/14/why-cant-uber-make-money/#e104b7910ec1.

  • Shieber, J. (2017, June 20). Uber adds tipping. Tech crunch. Retrieved from https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/20/uber-adds-tipping/.

  • Solman, P. (2017, August 4). How Uber drivers game the app and force surge pricing. Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/uber-drivers-game-app-force-surge-pricing.

  • Stanford, J. (2017). The resurgence of gig work: Historical and theoretical perspectives. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 28(3), 382–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streeter, T. (2015). Steve jobs, romantic individualism, and the desire for good capitalism. International Journal of Communication, 9, 3106–3124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundararajan, A. (2016). The sharing economy the end of employment and the rise of crowd-based capitalism. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P., & Bain, P. (2003). Subterranean worksick blues: Humour as subversion in two call centers. Organization Studies, 24(9), 1487–1509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. (1989). The nature of work: An introduction to debates on the labour process. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. (2010). The capitalist labour process: Concepts and connections. Capital & Class, 34(1), 7–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P., & Ackroyd, S. (1995). All quiet on the workplace front? A critique of recent trends in British industrial sociology. Sociology, 29(4), 615–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P., & Smith, C. (2010). Debating labour process theory and the sociology of work. In P. Thompson & C. Smith (Eds.), Working life: Renewing labour process analysis (pp. 11–28). Houndmills: Palgrave Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P., & Van den Broek, D. (2010). Managerial control and workplace regimes: An introduction. Work, Employment & Society, 24(3), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P., & Vincent, S. (2010). Beyond the boundary: Labour process theory and critical realism. In P. Thompson & C. Smith (Eds.), Working life: Renewing labour process analysis (pp. 47–69). Houndmills: Palgrave Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Uber. (n.d.) Weekly promotion. Retrieved January 10, 2019, from https://www.uber.com/drive/resources/promotions/.

  • Van Alstyne, M., Parker, G. G., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Pipelines, platforms, and the new rules of strategy. Harvard Business Review: HBR, 94(4), 54–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakabayashi, D. (2018, May 23). Uber finds profits in leaving tough overseas markets. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/technology/uber-finds-profits-in-leaving-tough-overseas-markets.html.

  • Warhurst, C., Thompson, P., & Nickson, D. (2008). Labor process theory: Putting the materialism back into the meaning of service work. In M. Korczynski & C. MacDonald (Eds.), Service work: Critical Perspectives (pp. 91–112). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Youshaei, J. (2015, February 4). The Uberpreneur: How an Uber drivers makes $252,000 a year. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonyoushaei/2015/02/04/the-uberpreneur-how-an-uber-driver-makes-252000-a-year/#650040004e8e.

  • Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New York: Basic books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Ed Carberry, Alexander Kowalski, Andrea Leverentz, David Levy, Andreas Pekarek, Amanda Peticca-Harris, Christine Riordan, and members of the EGOS Sub-theme on Organization Studies and Industrial Relations for helpful comments on earlier versions. We thank Michael Etter, the Guest Editor team, and the reviewers for their insights and guidance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Management, University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 William T. Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA, USA

    Sunyu Chai & Maureen A. Scully

Authors
  1. Sunyu Chai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maureen A. Scully
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sunyu Chai.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chai, S., Scully, M.A. It’s About Distributing Rather than Sharing: Using Labor Process Theory to Probe the “Sharing” Economy. J Bus Ethics 159, 943–960 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04210-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04210-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation