Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Labor Democracy in Digitalizing Industries: Emancipating or “Sandboxing” Participation in Discourses on Technology and New Forms of Work?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Digitalization in Industry

Abstract

Democratic participation is a good example to illuminate the complex reality of digitalization in contemporary industries. Digitalization offers new ways to strengthen democratic processes in organizations. However, the concepts of democratic participation differ in concept, scope, and political entitlement. Hegemonic discourses shape their implementation according to powerful interests. This contribution analyzes the consultation process “Work 4.0” of the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs that discusses the effects of digitalization and Industrie 4.0. It shows that participation and co-determination are sandboxed in their emancipatory scope and are vehicles to sustain flexibility and agility in production and on markets. This contradicts democratic participation in an emancipatory sense and installs a deterministic reading of technology and its effects on labor processes and organizational participation.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Acatech. (2013). Recommendations for Implementing the Strategic Initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0: Securing the Future of German Manufacturing Industry. Munich. Retrieved from http://www.acatech.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Baumstruktur_nach_Website/Acatech/root/de/Material_fuer_Sonderseiten/Industrie_4.0/Final_report__Industrie_4.0_accessible.pdf.

  • Ackers, P. (2016). Experiments in Industrial Democracy: An Historical Assessment of the Leicestershire Boot and Shoe Co-operative Co-partnership Movement. Labor History, 57(4), 526–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/0023656X.2016.1239876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angermüller, J., Maingueneau, D., & Wodak, R. (2014). The Discourse Studies Reader: An Introduction. In J. Angermüller, D. Maingueneau, & R. Wodak (Eds.), The Discourse Studies Reader: Main Currents in Theory and Analysis (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansart, P. (1967). Sociologie de Proudhon. Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 408–437. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, Z., Bigo, D., Esteves, P., Guild, E., Jabri, V., Lyon, D., … Walker, R. (2014). After Snowden: Rethinking the Impact of Surveillance. International Political Sociology, 8(2), 121–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/ips.12048.

  • Benders, J., Huijgen, F., & Pekruhl, U. (2002). What Do We Know About the Incidence of Group Work (if Anything)? Personnel Review, 31(3), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480210422769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blum, C., & Zuber, C. I. (2016). Liquid Democracy: Potentials, Problems, and Perspectives. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 24(2), 162–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, R., & Holton, R. J. (2018). Technology, Innovation, Employment and Power: Does Robotics and Artificial Intelligence Really Mean Social Transformation? Journal of Sociology, 54(3), 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783317726591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buhr, D. (2015). Social Innovation Policy for Industry 4.0. Bonn. Retrieved from https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/wiso/11479.pdf.

  • Butollo, F., Jürgens, U., & Krzywdzinski, M. (2018). From Lean Production to Industrie 4.0: More Autonomy for Employees? (Discussion Paper No. SP III 2018-303). Berlin. Retrieved from https://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2018/iii18-303.pdf.

  • Carnall, C. A. (1982). Semi-Autonomous Work Groups and the Social Structure of the Organization. Journal of Management Studies, 19(3), 277–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1982.tb00109.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dörre, K. (2002). Kampf um Beteiligung: Arbeit, Partizipation und industrielle Beziehungen im flexiblen Kapitalismus. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dörre, K. (2015). Digitalisierung—neue Prosperität oder Vertiefung gesellschaftlicher Spaltungen? In H. Hirsch-Kreinsen, P. Ittermann, & J. Niehaus (Eds.), Digitalisierung industrieller Arbeit: Die Vision Industrie 4.0 und ihre sozialen Herausforderungen (pp. 269–284). Baden-Baden: Edition Sigma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eller, E. (2016). Von formalisierter Mitbestimmung zu Chancen neuer Partizipation. In Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (Ed.), Wie wir arbeiten (wollen) (Werkheft No. 02, pp. 100–101). Berlin. Retrieved from http://www.arbeitenviernull.de/fileadmin/Downloads/BMAS_Werkheft-2.pdf.

  • Ellerman, D. P. (1990). A Democratic Worker-Owned Firm: A New Model for the East and West. Boston, London, Sydney, and Wellington: Unwin Hyman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellerman, D. P. (1999). The Democratic Firm: An Argument Based on Ordinary Jurisprudence. Journal of Business Ethics, 21(2/3), 111–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellerman, D. P. (2016). Rethinking Common Versus Private Property. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 75(2), 319–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellerman, D. P. (2017). On the Labor Theory of Property: Is the Problem Distribution or Predistribution? Challenge, 60(2), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/05775132.2017.1279906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, C. S., & Long, G. (2016). Manufacturing Rate Busters: Computer Control and Social Relations in the Labour Process. Work, Employment & Society, 30(1), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017014564601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (2008). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Harlow: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. (2015). Green Paper Work 4.0: Re-imagining Work. Berlin. Retrieved from Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs Website http://www.bmas.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/PDF-Publikationen/arbeiten-4-0-green-paper.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2.

  • Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. (2017). White Paper Work 4.0: Re-imagining Work. Berlin. Retrieved from Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs Website http://www.bmas.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/PDF-Publikationen/a883-white-paper.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3.

  • Fuchs, C. (2018). Industry 4.0: The Digital German Ideology. Triple C Communication, Capitalism & Critique, 16(1), 280–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorz, A. (1999). Reclaiming Work: Beyond the Wage-Based Society. Cambridge and Malden: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gospel, H. (2011). Employee Representation and the Sustainable Company. In S. Vitols & N. Kluge (Eds.), The Sustainable Company: A New Approach to Corporate Governance (pp. 59–74). Brussels: European Trade Union Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahnel, R., & Wright, E. O. (2016). Alternatives to Capitalism: Proposals for a Democratic Economy. London and New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand, M., & Sandywell, B. (2002). E-topia as Cosmopolis or Citadel: On the Democratizing and De-democratizing Logics of the Internet, or, Toward a Critique of the New Technological Fetishism. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(1–2), 197–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans Böckler Foundation. (2015). Arbeiten 4.0 – Diskurs und Praxis in Betriebsvereinbarungen (Diskurs und Praxis in Betriebsvereinbarungen No. 14). Düsseldorf. Retrieved from http://www.arbeitenviernull.de/fileadmin/Futurale/Statements/PDFs/Hans-Boeckler-Stiftung.pdf.

  • Hans Böckler Foundation. (2016). Mitbestimmung. In Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (Ed.), Wie wir arbeiten (wollen) (Werkheft No. 02, pp. 123–124). Berlin. Retrieved from http://www.arbeitenviernull.de/fileadmin/Downloads/BMAS_Werkheft-2.pdf.

  • Heller, F. A. (1998). Organizational Participation: Myth and Reality. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, J. (2016). Schaffen neue Arbeitsformen neue Beziehungsformen? In Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (Ed.), Wie wir arbeiten (wollen) (Werkheft No. 02, pp. 62–67). Berlin. Retrieved from http://www.arbeitenviernull.de/fileadmin/Downloads/BMAS_Werkheft-2.pdf.

  • IndustriAll. (2015). Digitalisation for Equality, Participation and Cooperation in Industry: More and Better Industrial Jobs in the Digital Age (No. 66/2015). Brussels. Retrieved from http://www.industriall-europe.eu/committees/IP/PolPaper/PositionPaper_2015-02_DigitalisationOfIndustry_EN.pdf.

  • Jacobs, J. C., Kagermann, H., & Spath, D. (Eds.). (2017). Acatech Discussion. The Future of Work in the Digital Transformation: Agility, Lifelong Learning and the Role of Employers and Works Councils in Changing Times. Munich: Herbert Utz Verlag. Retrieved from http://www.acatech.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Baumstruktur_nach_Website/Acatech/root/de/Publikationen/acatech_diskutiert/acatech_DISKUSSION_HR-Kreis_engl_01.pdf.

  • Jossa, B. (2012). A System of Self-Managed Firms as a New Perspective on Marxism. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36(4), 821–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jossa, B. (2015). Historical Materialism and Democratic Firm Management. Review of Political Economy, 27(4), 645–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/09538259.2015.1072314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jossa, B. (2017). On the Advantages of a System of Labour-Managed Firms. Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity, 5(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.5947/jeod.2016.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalleberg, A. L., Nesheim, T., & Olsen, K. M. (2009). Is Participation Good or Bad for Workers? Effects of Autonomy, Consultation and Teamwork on Stress Among Workers in Norway. Acta Sociologica, 52(2), 99–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, J. L. (2004). The Limits of Organizational Democracy. Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 81–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühl, S. (2001). Über das erfolgreiche Scheitern von Gruppenarbeitsprojekten: Rezentralisierung und Rehierarchisierung in Vorreiterunternehmen der Dezentralisierung. Zeitschrift Für Soziologie, 30(3), 199–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2014). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (2nd ed.). London and New York: Verso (Original work published 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazzarato, M. (2014). Signs and Machines: Capitalism and the Production of Subjectivity. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchington, M., & Wilkinson, A. (2005). Direct Participation and Involvement. In S. Bach (Ed.), Managing Human Resources: Personnel Management in Transition (4th ed., pp. 398–423). Malden and Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marttila, T. (2015). Post-Foundational Discourse Analysis: From Political Difference to Empirical Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, P. (2015). Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future. London: Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, U. (2019). The Emergence of an Envisioned Future: Sensemaking in the Case of “Industrie 4.0” in Germany. Futures. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.03.001.

  • Moldaschl, M., & Weber, W. G. (1998). The “Three Waves” of Industrial Group Work: Historical Reflections on Current Research on Group Work. Human Relations, 51(3), 347–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Jentsch, W. (2016). Formation, Development and Current State of Industrial Democracy in Germany. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 22(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1024258915619294.

  • Pearson, C. A. L. (1992). Autonomous Workgroups: An Evaluation at an Industrial Site. Human Relations, 45(9), 905–936. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679204500903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer, S. (2017a). Industrie 4.0 in the Making—Discourse Patterns and the Rise of Digital Despotism. In K. Briken, S. Chillas, M. Krzywdzinski, & A. Marks (Eds.), The New Digital Workplace: How New Technologies Revolutionise Work (pp. 21–41). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer, S. (2017b). The Vision of “Industrie 4.0” in the Making—A Case of Future Told, Tamed, and Traded. Nanoethics, 11(1), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-016-0280-3.

  • Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2011). Discourse Analysis: Investigating Processes of Social Construction. Thousand Oaks, London, and New Delhi: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Procter, S., & Mueller, F. (2000). Teamworking: Strategy, Structure, Systems and Culture. In S. Procter & F. Mueller (Eds.), Teamworking (pp. 3–24). London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, N. (1964). The Democratic Firm. London: Fabian Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattelberger, T. (2015). Abhängiger oder souveräner Unternehmensbürger – der Mensch in der Aera der Digitalisierung. In T. Sattelberger, I. Welpe, & A. Boes (Eds.), Das demokratische Unternehmen: Neue Arbeits- und Führungskulturen im Zeitalter digitaler Wirtschaft (pp. 33–53). Freiburg and Munich: Haufe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattelberger, T., & Wagner, S. (2015). Zur Einführung – ein Gespräch mit Thomas Sattelberger. In T. Sattelberger, I. Welpe, & A. Boes (Eds.), Das demokratische Unternehmen: Neue Arbeits- und Führungskulturen im Zeitalter digitaler Wirtschaft (pp. 11–18). Freiburg and Munich: Haufe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauer, T., Elsen, S., & Garzillo, C. (2016). Cities in Transition: Social Innovation for Europe’s Urban Sustainability. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaupp, S. (2017). Vergessene Horizonte: Der kybernetische Kapitalismus und seine Alternativen. In P. Buckermann, A. Koppenburger, & S. Schaupp (Eds.), Kybernetik, Kapitalismus, Revolutionen: Emanzipatorische Perspektiven im technologischen Wandel (pp. 51–73). Münster: Unrast-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoemann, K. (2018). Digital Technology to Support the Trade Union Movement. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 6(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2018.61005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, J. (2012). Where Did Mill Go Wrong? Why the Capital-Managed Firm Rather Than the Labor-Managed Enterprise Is the Predominant Organizational Form in Market Economies. Ohio State Law Journal, 73(2), 219–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sewell, G. (2009). The Labor Process, Surveillance, and the Person in the Sight of the Organization. In S. R. Clegg & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Behavior: Volume 2: Macro Approaches (pp. 267–286). Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, and Washington: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Srnicek, N., & Williams, A. (2015). Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work. London and New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stohl, C., & Cheney, G. (2001). Participatory Processes/Paradoxical Practices: Communication and the Dilemmas of Organizational Democracy. Management Communication Quarterly, 14(3), 349–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318901143001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Lavaca Collective (Ed.). (2007). Sin patrón: Stories from Argentina’s Worker-Run Factories. Chicago: Haymarket Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Townshend, J. (2004). Laclau and Mouffe’s Hegemonic Project: The Story so Far. Political Studies, 52(2), 269–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ver.di. (2015). ver.di-Stellungnahme zum Grünbuch “Arbeiten 4.0.”. Berlin. Retrieved from ver.di website: https://www.arbeitenviernull.de/fileadmin/Futurale/Statements/PDFs/Verdi.pdf.

  • Webb, T., & Cheney, G. (2014). Worker-Owned-and-Governed Co-operatives and the Wider Co-operative Movement: Challenges and Opportunities Within and Beyond the Global Economic Crisis. In M. Parker, G. Cheney, V. Fournier, & C. Land (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Alternative Organization (pp. 64–88). London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Elena Arnold, who aided in the preparation of this contribution, and the editors for their comments, which improved my paper and argument.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany

    Yannick Kalff

Authors
  1. Yannick Kalff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yannick Kalff .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Technical University of Munich, Munich, Bayern, Germany

    Uli Meyer

  2. Technical University of Munich, Munich, Bayern, Germany

    Simon Schaupp

  3. Technical University of Munich, Munich, Bayern, Germany

    David Seibt

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kalff, Y. (2019). Labor Democracy in Digitalizing Industries: Emancipating or “Sandboxing” Participation in Discourses on Technology and New Forms of Work?. In: Meyer, U., Schaupp, S., Seibt, D. (eds) Digitalization in Industry. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28258-5_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation