Control in the era of surveillance capitalism: an empirical investigation of Italian Industry 4.0 factories

Abstract

We explore the extent to which the current technological trend, dubbed Industry 4.0, might increase forms of control inside organisations, by focussing on pivotal firms in the so-called Italian Motor Valley currently embracing its adoption. We find that Industry 4.0 technologies open up great possibilities for incorporating the three forms of control identified by Orlikowski (Account Manag Inf Technol 1(1):9–42, https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-8022(91)90011-3, 1991), i.e. personal, bureaucratic, and social, into technological artefacts, often blending them together. If, on the one hand, this implies a technical and theoretical feasibility of enforcing forms of ‘Big Brother’ surveillance within the boundaries of organisations, and thereby of the workplace, on the other hand, the actual achievement of these possibilities depends on the organisational environment within which the new technologies are implemented.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    See ‘Big data meets Big Brother as China moves to rate its citizens’. Wired (online), 21 October 2017. url: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/chinese-government-social-credit-score-privacy-invasion.

References

  1. Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2003). Good visions, bad micro-management and ugly ambiguity: Contradictions of (non-)leadership in a knowledge-intensive organization. Organization Studies, 24(6), 961–988. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840603024006007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Burawoy, M. (1985). The politics of production: Factory regimes under capitalism and socialism. Brooklyn: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Carugati, A., Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, A., & Cunha, J. V. (2018). Work control and surveillance in the age of digital. In F. Cantoni & G. Mangia (Eds.), Human resource management and digitalization. New York: Routledge-Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Casilli, A. A. (2017). Digital labor studies go global: Toward a digital decolonial turn. International Journal of Communication, 11, 3934–3954.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Child, J. (2000). Managerial strategies, new technology and the labour process. In I. McLoughlin, D. Preece, & P. Dawson (Eds.), Technology, organizations and innovation: Theories, concepts and paradigms. London: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cirillo, V., Rinaldini, M., Staccioli, J., & Virgillito, M. E. (2018). ‘Workers’ intervention authority in Italian 4.0 factories: Autonomy and discretion’. LEM working papers series no. 13/2018. http://www.lem.sssup.it/WPLem/2018-13.html. Accessed 17 May 2019.

  7. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dosi, G., Nelson, R. R., & Winter Sidney, G. (2001). The nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199248540.001.0001.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dosi, G., & Virgillito, M. E. (2019). Whither the evolution of the contemporary social fabric: New technologies and old socio-economic trends. LEM working papers series no. 2/2019. http://www.lem.sssup.it/WPLem/2019-02.html. Accessed 17 May 2019.

  10. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyter.

  11. Grint, K., & Woolgar, S. (1997). The machine at work: Technology, Work and Organization. Polity.

  12. Harrison, B. (1994). Lean and mean: The changing landscape of corporate power in the age of flexibility. Basic Books.

  13. Huws, U. (2014). Labor in the global digital economy: The cybertariat comes of age. New York: Monthly Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kärreman, D., Sveningsson, S., & Alvesson, M. (2002). The return of the machine bureaucracy? - Management control in the work settings of professionals. International Studies of Management and Organization, 32(2), 70–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Knights, D., & Willmott, H. (1990). Labour process theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-20466-3.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. PublicAffairs.

  17. Noble, D. F. (1986). Forces of production: A social history of industrial automation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Orlikowski, W. J. (1991). Integrated information environment or matrix of control? The contradictory implications of information technology. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 1(1), 9–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-8022(91)90011-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Oxford English Dictionary. (2019). Control. OED Online: Oxford University Press. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/control. Accessed 17 May 2019.

  20. Pennings, J. M., & Woiceshyn, J. (1989). A typology of organizational control and its metaphors. In M. B. Bacharach & N. Ditomaso (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations. Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Roy, D. (1952). Quota restriction and goldbricking in a machine shop. American Journal of Sociology, 57(5), 427–442. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315193854-10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rubery, J., & Grimshaw, D. (2001). ICTs and employment: The problem of job quality. International Labour Review, 140(2), 165–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1564-913x.2001.tb00219.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Thompson, P. (2003). Fantasy Island: A labour process critique of the ‘age of surveillance. Surveillance and Society, 1(2), 138–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Varian, H. R. (2014). Beyond big data. Business Economics, 49(1), 27–31. https://doi.org/10.1057/be.2014.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wright, E. O. (2000). Class counts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511488917.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the editors of the special issue and one anonymous referee, Giovanni Dosi, Francesco Garibaldo, and participants to the Workshop “A new Industrial Revolution? Labour, Technology and the Automotive Industry” (2018, Pisa, Italy), for helpful comments and insightful suggestions at various stages of this work. The authors wish to thank the Claudio Sabattini Foundation (Bologna, Italy) and the Institute of Economics of Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna (Pisa, Italy) for their support during field work. Maria Enrica Virgillito acknowledges support from European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant agreement no. 822781 GROWINPRO—Growth Welfare Innovation Productivity.

Funding

H2020 Societal Challenges (Europe in a changing world - Inclusive, innovative and reflective societies) (822781).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Enrica Virgillito.

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

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moro, A., Rinaldini, M., Staccioli, J. et al. Control in the era of surveillance capitalism: an empirical investigation of Italian Industry 4.0 factories. J. Ind. Bus. Econ. 46, 347–360 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40812-019-00120-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Industry 4.0
  • Organisational change
  • Control
  • Saturation of working time

JEL Classification

  • L23
  • L6
  • M54
  • O33