Skip to main content

What’s in an App? Investigating the Moral Struggles Behind a Sharing Economy Device

Abstract

In recent years, the sharing economy (SE) has attracted considerable attention, both scholarly and popular, relating to its capacity to enforce or undermine extant economic conventions. However, the process through which technological developments can effectively have this outcome of altering extant conventions on what is morally acceptable or desirable is still unclear. In this paper, we draw on the work of Boltanski and Thévenot (On justification: economies of worth. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2006) and the notion of agencement to investigate the moral and performative dimension of controversies related to the SE. The research stems from a qualitative case-based study of the controversy following Uber’s implementation in Montréal’s taxi market. We contribute to the literature on the SE through an empirical study of the moral debates entailed in the unfolding in situ of a SE device. We also add to the literature using the ‘Orders of Worth’ framework (2006) by showing how a compromise is solidified. We find that beyond discursive strategies, it is the concrete recomposition of laws, conventions, devices, persons, etc. that harmonised different definitions of the common good. Finally, we contribute to the literature on the relationship between technology, ethics, and social change by capturing the specific values that legitimise Uber, and by following their unfolding throughout a controversy.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.07.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alcadipani, R., & Hassard, J. (2010). Actor-Network Theory, organizations and critique: Towards a politics of organizing. Organization, 17(4), 419–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508410364441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 881–898. https://doi.org/10.1086/666376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 715–734. https://doi.org/10.1086/612649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boadle, A. (2018, October 20). Facebook’s WhatsApp flooded with fake news in Brazil Election.

  • Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, È. (2011). Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme [The new spirit of capitalism]. Paris: Gallimard.

  • Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (1991). De la justification: les économies de la grandeur [On justification: Economies of worth]. Paris: Gallimard.

  • Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. (trans: Porter, C.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2011). What’s mine is yours: How collaborative consumption is changing the way we live. London: Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (1998). Laws of the markets. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (2017). L’emprise des marchés : comprendre leur fonctionnement pour pouvoir les changer. Paris: La Découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cloutier, C., Gond, J.-P., & Leca, B. (2017). Justification, evaluation and critique in the study of organizations: An introduction to the volume. In Justification, evaluation and critique in the study of organizations (pp. 3–29). Emerald Publishing Limited. http://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20170000052001.

  • Dionne, K.-E., Mailhot, C., & Langley, A. (2018). Modeling the evaluation process in a public controversy. Organization Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617747918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisman, R., & Luca, M. (2016, December). Fixing discrimination in online marketplaces. Harvard Business Review.

  • Gherardi, S. (2016). To start practice theorizing anew: The contribution of the concepts of agencement and formativeness. Organization, 23(5), 680–698. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508415605174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gond, J. P., Barin Cruz, L., Raufflet, E., & Charron, M. (2016). To frack or not to frack? The interaction of justification and power in a sustainability controversy. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 330–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Introna, L. D. (2014). Otherness and the letting-be of becoming: Or, ethics beyond bifurcation. In P. R. Carlile, D. Nicolini, A. Langley, & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), How matter matters: Objects, artifacts, and materiality in organization studies (pp. 260–287). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafaye, C., & Thévenot, L. (1993). Une justification écologique? Conflits dans l’aménagement de la nature [An ecological justification? Conflicts in the management of nature]. Revue Française de Sociologie, 34(4), 495–524. https://doi.org/10.2307/3321928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamberton, C. P., & Rose, R. L. (2012). When ours is better than mine? A framework for understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.10.0368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lashinsky, A. (2017). Wild ride: Inside Uber’s quest for world domination. London: Penguin Books Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurell, C., & Sandström, C. (2017). The sharing economy in social media: Analyzing tensions between market and non-market logics. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemieux, C. (2014). The moral idealism of ordinary people as a sociological challenge: Reflections on the French reception of Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot’s “On Justification”. In S. Susen & B. S. Turner (Eds.), The spirit of Luc Boltanski: Essays on the “Pragmatic Sociology of Critique” (pp. 153–170). New York: Anthem Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mair, J., & Reischauer, G. (2017). Capturing the dynamics of the sharing economy: Institutional research on the plural forms and practices of sharing economy organizations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.023.

    Article  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. https://doi.org/10.1145/2668893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, K. (2018). Ethical implications and accountability of algorithms. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3921-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, K., & Freeman, R. E. (2004). The separation of technology and ethics in business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 353–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morozov, E. (2013). The “sharing economy undermines workers” rights (web log post). The Financial Times.

  • Murillo, D., Buckland, H., & Val, E. (2017). When the sharing economy becomes neoliberalism on steroids: Unravelling the controversies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 66–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyberg, D., Wright, C., & Kirk, J. (2017). Re-producing a neoliberal political regime: Competing justifications and dominance in disputing fracking. In Justification, evaluation and critique in the study of organizations: Contributions from French pragmatist sociology (pp. 143–171). Emerald Publishing Limited. http://doi.org/10.1108.

  • Patriotta, G., Gond, J.-P. P., & Schultz, F. (2011). Maintaining legitimacy: Controversies, orders of worth, and public justifications. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1804–1836. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00990.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Péloquin, T. (2016). La chute de la valeur des permis de taxi se confirme. La Presse.

  • Roscoe, P., & Chillas, S. (2014). The state of affairs: Critical performativity and the online dating industry. Organization, 21(6), 797–820. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508413485497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schor, J. B., & Fitzmaurice, C. J. (2015). Collaborating and Connecting: The emergence of the sharing economy. In L. A. Reisch & J. Thogersen (Eds.), Handbook on research on sustainable consumption (pp. 410–425). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, D. (2009). The sense of dissonance: Accounts of worth in economic life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Taupin, B. (2012). The more things change… Institutional maintenance as justification work in the credit rating industry. M@N@GEMENT, 15(5), 529–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomalty, R. (2014). Ours is better than your. Alternatives Journal (A\J): Canada’s Environmental Voice, 40(2), 18–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, S. M. (2017). Data capitalism: Redefining the logics of surveillance and privacy. Business and Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650317718185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whelan, G. (2018). Trust in surveillance: A reply to Etzioni. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3779-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whelan, G. (2019). Born political: A dispositive analysis of Google and copyright. Business and Society, 58(1), 42–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650317717701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whelan, G., & Gond, J.-P. (2017). Meat your enemy: Animal rights, alignment, and radical change. Journal of Management Inquiry, 26(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492616671828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mireille Mercier-Roy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the Ethical Standards of the Institutional and/or National Research Committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required. 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.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 4.

Table 4 Outline of data sources

Appendix 2

See Table 5.

Table 5 Quotations, the Worlds of Taxi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mercier-Roy, M., Mailhot, C. What’s in an App? Investigating the Moral Struggles Behind a Sharing Economy Device. J Bus Ethics 159, 977–996 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04207-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04207-7

Keywords

  • Sharing economy
  • Controversies
  • Orders of worth
  • Agencement
  • Technology