Collective action and provider classification in the sharing economy

• Published date: 01 November 2018
• Date: 01 November 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12119
• Author: Christoph Lutz,Gemma Newlands,Christian Fieseler

250 New Technology, Work and Employment © 2018 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and

John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

New Technology, Work and Employment 33:3

ISSN 1468-005X

Collective action and provider classification

in the sharing economy

Gemma Newlands , Christoph Lutz and

Christian Fieseler

Conditions in the sharing economy are often favourably

designed for consumers and platforms but entail new

challenges for the labour side, such as substandard social-

security and rigid forms of algorithmic management. Since

comparatively little is known about how providers in the

sharing economy make their voices heard collectively, we

investigate their opinions and behaviours regarding collective

action and perceived solidarities. Using cluster analysis on

representative data from across 12 European countries, we

determine five distinct types of labour- activists, ranging

from those opposed to any forms of collective action to those

enthusiastic to organise and correct perceived wrongs. We

conclude by conjecturing that the still- ongoing influx of new

providers, the difficulty of organising in purely virtual settings,

combined with the narrative of voluntariness of participation

and hedonic gratifications might be responsible for the inaction

of large parts of the provider base in collectivist activities.

Keywords: collective action, informal employment,

occupational identity, online communities, sharing economy,

trade unionism.

Introduction

With an estimated 17 per cent of EU consumers having used some form of sharing

platform (Eurobarometer, 2016), the growth of the sharing economy1 has been her-

alded by some as an empowering transformation, responsible for increasing overall

market flexibility (European Commission, 2016; Horton and Zeckhauser, 2016).

However, the ‘on demand’ and disintermediated nature of commercial sharing has

Gemma Newlands (gemma.e.newlands@bi.no), Department of Communication and Culture,

Norwegian Business School BI, Oslo, Norway. Gemma Newlands is a Research Assistant at the Nordic

Centre for Internet and Society, BI Norwegian Business School (Oslo). Her research interests include

the sharing economy, digital labor, and the future of work.

Christoph Lutz (christoph.lutz@bi.no), Department of Communication and Culture, Norwegian

Business School BI, Oslo, Norway. Christoph Lutz is an Assistant Professor at the Nordic Centre

for Internet & Society, BI Norwegian Business School (Oslo). His research interests include online

participation, privacy, the sharing economy, and social robots. Christoph has published widely in top-

tier journals in this area.

Christian Fieseler (christian.fieseler@bi.no), Department of Communication and Culture, Norwegian

Business School BI, Oslo, Norway. Christian Fieseler is the director of the Nordic Centre for Internet

and Society and professor at the Department of Communication and Culture, BI Norwegian Business

School (Oslo). His current research is focused on the question how individuals and organizations adopt

to the shift brought by new, social media, and how to design participative and inclusive spaces in this

new media regime.

© 2018 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and Collective action in the sharing economy 251

John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

faced heavy criticism for its low standards of labour quality (Hill, 2015; Slee, 2015;

Aloisi, 2016; Van Doorn, 2017), particularly amongst those who provide their assets

akin to a full- time job (Böcker and Meelen, 2016; Schor and Attwood- Charles, 2017).

Moves to collectivise within this emerging labour force have already achieved some

benefits, ranging from the social benefits of engagement in online communities to the

legal achievements gained from more organised unionisation (Lee et al., 2015; Rosenblat

and Stark, 2016; Davies, 2017). However, research has only started to empirically

examine the opinions and behaviours of the providers (Huws et al., 2017; Wood et al.,

2018). Particularly, there is a lack of evidence about providers’ occupational

identification and desire to engage in collective action. Instead, current discussions on

this topic largely regard sharing economy providers as a somewhat unified group,

with an assumption of shared interests, equal involvement and shared motivations

(Scholz, 2016). Without an appreciation of the heterogeneity amongst providers in the

sharing economy, ongoing discussions about the potential for collective action by

academics, policy makers and the media are liable to both assume and encourage the

existence of a single worker solidarity, rather than appreciate the often conflicting

multitude of separate worker solidarities.

This article therefore presents a detailed exploration of the variegated nature of

collectivism and solidarity among sharing economy providers. Using data from 12

European countries, we address the following research questions: How do attitudes

about collective action and provider self-classification cluster among sharing economy providers

in Europe? What characterises distinct collective action groups in terms of their demographic

characteristics, sharing modalities and political leanings?

The results determine five distinct clusters, reflecting diverse worker attitudes

towards collective action and self- definition: moderate employment advocates, activist

employment advocates, independent collectivists, independent individualists and independent

opponents. Based on these results, this article makes two main contributions. First, it

provides a clustering of providers, displaying a diversity of opinions and behaviours

towards both self- identification and collective action. Second, by comparing the

clusters in terms of demographic characteristics, sharing modalities and political

leanings, we show the important role of contextual and technological factors in both

enabling and constraining worker solidarities.

Prior research

Working in the sharing economy

Aligning with broader labour market trends which have seen greater recourse to

informal and non- standard forms of employment (Farrell and Morris, 2017;

International Labour Office (ILO), 2015; Lehdonvirta, 2018), sharing economy providers

are considered, at least from certain legal perspectives, as independent contractors

rather than as employees of platforms (Cherry, 2016; European Commission, 2016;

Prassl and Risak, 2016; Forde et al., 2017). Classification as independent contractors is

advantageous for platforms, as it restricts their liability and negates all protections

afforded by employment laws (Rogers, 2015; Cunningham- Parmeter, 2016). Many

academics have, however, noted that workforce surveillance and control mechanisms

undercut this designation (Shapiro, 2018). Although not bound to show up for work or

accept specific tasks, providers are nevertheless required to follow strict guidelines as

to how, when and where they may offer their assets (Rosenblat and Stark, 2016; Schor

and Attwood- Charles, 2017; Van Doorn, 2017).

Regarding issues of worker classification, academic discourse has tended to take a

top- down perspective, with legal scholars in particular attempting to identify the

appropriate definition for such work (Kassan and Orsi, 2012; Carboni, 2016; Cherry,

2016; Prassl and Risak, 2016). Such contributions, while valuable additions to the

ongoing discourse, nevertheless largely ignore the element of individual