skip to main content
10.1145/3173574.3173657acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Using Stakeholder Theory to Examine Drivers' Stake in Uber

Published:19 April 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Uber is a ride-sharing platform that is part of the 'gig-economy,' where the platform supports and coordinates a labor market in which there are a large number of ephemeral, piecemeal jobs. Despite numerous efforts to understand the impacts of these platforms and their algorithms on Uber drivers, how to better serve and support drivers with these platforms remains an open challenge. In this paper, we frame Uber through the lens of Stakeholder Theory to highlight drivers' position in the workplace, which helps inform the design of a more ethical and effective platform. To this end, we analyzed Uber drivers' forum discussions about their lived experiences of working with the Uber platform. We identify and discuss the impact of the stakes that drivers have in relation to both the Uber corporation and their passengers, and look at how these stakes impact both the platform and drivers' practices.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

pn1540-file5.mp4

mp4

6.1 MB

References

  1. 2017a. Stakeholder. (2017). https: //www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stakeholderGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2017b. Stockholder. (2017). https: //www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stakeholderGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Frank W Abrams. 1951. Management's responsibilities in a complex world. Harvard Business Review 29, 3 (1951), 29--34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Russell L Ackoff. 1981. Creating the corporate future: Plan or be planned for. University of Texas Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed, Nicola J. Bidwell, Himanshu Zade, Srihari H. Muralidhar, Anupama Dhareshwar, Baneen Karachiwala, Cedrick N. Tandong, and Jacki O'Neill. 2016. Peer-to-peer in the Workplace. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference (CHI '16). ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 5063--5075. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Abbass F Alkhafaji. 1989. A stakeholder approach to corporate governance: Managing in a dynamic environment. Praeger Pub Text.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Ali Alkhatib, Michael S. Bernstein, and Margaret Levi. 2017. Examining Crowd Work and Gig Work Through The Historical Lens of Piecework. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference (CHI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4599--4616. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Silvia Ayuso, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, and Joan Enric Ricart. 2006. Using stakeholder dialogue as a source for new ideas: a dynamic capability underlying sustainable innovation. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 6, 4 (2006), 475--490.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. David Bevan and Patricia Werhane. 2010. Stakeholder theorising and the corporate-centric world. Management & Avenir 3 (2010), 127--141.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Brian K Burton and Craig P Dunn. 1996. Feminist ethics as moral grounding for stakeholder theory. Business ethics quarterly (1996), 133--147.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Chris Callison-Burch. 2014. Crowd-Workers: Aggregating Information Across Turkers To Help Them Find Higher Paying Work. In HCOMP-2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Thanakvaro Thyl De Lopez. 2001. Stakeholder management for conservation projects: a case study of Ream National Park, Cambodia. Environmental Management 28, 1 (2001), 47--60.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. William R Dill. 1975. Public participation in corporate planning Tstrategic management in a Kibitzer's world. Long Range Planning 8, 1 (1975), 57--63.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Benjamin Edelman and Michael Luca. 2014. Digital Discrimination: The Case of Airbnb.com. Harvard Business School NOM Unit Working Paper No. 14-054.. (2014). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2377353 orGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. William M Evan and R Edward Freeman. 1988. A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Alek Felstiner. 2011. Working the Crowd: Employment and Labor Law in the Crowdsourcing Industry. Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law 32, 1 (2011), 143--203.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. R Edward Freeman. 1994. The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business ethics quarterly (1994), 409--421.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. R Edward Freeman. 2010. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University press, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. R Edward Freeman, Jeffrey S Harrison, and Andrew C Wicks. 2007. Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. Yale University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. R Edward Freeman and David L Reed. 1983. Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California management review 25, 3 (1983), 88--106.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Andrew L Friedman and Samantha Miles. 2006. Stakeholders: Theory and practice. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Milton Friedman. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. Corporate ethics and corporate governance (1970), 173--178.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Mareike Glöss, Moira McGregor, and Barry Brown. 2016. Designing for labour: uber and the on-demand mobile workforce. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1632--1643. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Anikó Hannák, Claudia Wagner, David Garcia, Alan Mislove, Markus Strohmaier, and Christo Wilson. 2017. Bias in Online Freelance Marketplaces: Evidence from TaskRabbit and Fiverr. In to appear Proceedings of the 2017 CSCW Conference. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Benjamin Hanrahan, Ma Ning, and Yuan Chien Wen. 2017. The Roots of Bias on Uber. In Proceedings of 15th European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work-Exploratory Papers. European Society for Socially Embedded Technologies (EUSSET).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Benjamin V. Hanrahan, Jutta K. Willamowski, Saiganesh Swaminathan, and David B. Martin. 2015. TurkBench : Rendering the Market for Turkers. Proceedings of the ACM CHI'15 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2015), 0--3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. John Hasnas. 1998. The normative theories of business ethics: A guide for the perplexed. Business Ethics Quarterly 8, 1 (1998), 19--42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Jeff Heinfeldt and Fran Wolf. 1998. Re-engineering the business curriculum: A stakeholder paradigm. Journal of Education for Business 73, 4 (1998), 198--201.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Panagiotis G Ipeirotis. 2010. Analyzing the amazon mechanical turk marketplace. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students 17, 2 (2010), 16--21. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Lilly C Irani and M Silberman. 2013. Turkopticon: Interrupting worker invisibility in amazon mechanical turk. In Proceedings of the 2013 CHI Conference. ACM, 611--620. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Michael C Jensen. 2001. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Journal of applied corporate finance 14, 3 (2001), 8--21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Michael C Jensen and William H Meckling. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of financial economics 3, 4 (1976), 305--360.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Joseph Kasera, Jacki O'Neill, and Nicola J. Bidwell. 2016. Sociality, Tempo & Flow: Learning from Namibian Ridesharing. In Proceedings of the First African Conference on Human Computer Interaction AfriCHI'16. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 36--47. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Aniket Kittur, Jeffrey V Nickerson, Michael Bernstein, Elizabeth Gerber, Aaron Shaw, John Zimmerman, Matt Lease, and John Horton. 2013. The future of crowd work. In Proceedings of the 2013 CSCW Conference. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1301--1318. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Tamara Kneese, Alex Rosenblat, and danah boyd. 2014. Understanding Fair Labor Practices in a Networked Age. SSRN Electronic Journal (2014). http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2536619Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Evan Metsky, and Laura Dabbish. 2015. Working with Machines: The Impact of Algorithmic and Data-Driven Management on Human Workers. In Proceedings of the 2015 CHI Conference. ACM, 1603--1612. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Isabelle Maignan, OC Ferrell, and Linda Ferrell. 2005. A stakeholder model for implementing social responsibility in marketing. European Journal of Marketing 39, 9/10 (2005), 956--977.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Alexei M Marcoux. 2003. A fiduciary argument against stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly 13, 1 (2003), 1--24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Richard Marens and Andrew Wicks. 1999. Getting real: Stakeholder theory, managerial practice, and the general irrelevance of fiduciary duties owed to shareholders. Business Ethics Quarterly 9, 2 (1999), 273--293.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. David Martin, Benjamin V Hanrahan, Jacki O'Neill, and Neha Gupta. 2014. Being a Turker. In Proceedings of the 2014 CSCW Conference. ACM, 224--235. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. David Martin, Jacki O'Neill, Neha Gupta, and Benjamin V Hanrahan. 2016. Turking in a Global Labour Market. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 25, 1 (2016), 39--77. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Ronald K Mitchell, Bradley R Agle, and Donna J Wood. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of management review 22, 4 (1997), 853--886.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Mette Morsing and Majken Schultz. 2006. Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review 15, 4 (2006), 323--338.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Jacki O'Neill and David Martin. 2013. Relationship-based Business Process Crowdsourcing?. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 429--446.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Daniel E Palmer. 1999. Upping the stakes: A response to John Hasnas on the normative viability of the stockholder and stakeholder theories. Business Ethics Quarterly 9, 4 (1999), 699--706.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Robert Phillips, R Edward Freeman, and Andrew C Wicks. 2003. What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly 13, 4 (2003), 479--502.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Robert A Phillips. 1997. Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly 7, 1 (1997), 51--66.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Noopur Raval and Paul Dourish. 2016. Standing Out from the Crowd: Emotional Labor, Body Labor, and Temporal Labor in Ridesharing. In Proceedings of the 2016 CSCW Conference. ACM, 97--107. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Brishen Rogers. 2015. The Social Costs of Uber. The University of Chicago Law Review Dialogue 82, 85 (2015), 85--102.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Alex Rosenblat. 2016. Uber's Shift-y Work - Uber Screeds - Medium. (Feb 2016). https://medium.com/ uber-screeds/uber-s-shift-y-work-2665dbb58701Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Alex Rosenblat, Karen EC Levy, Solon Barocas, and Tim Hwang. 2016. Discriminating Tastes: Customer Ratings as Vehicles for Bias. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2858946. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Alex Rosenblat and Luke Stark. 2016. Algorithmic Labor and Information Asymmetries: A Case Study of Uber's Drivers. International Journal of Communication 10 (2016), 3758--3784.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Niloufar Salehi, Lilly C. Irani, Michael S. Bernstein, Ali Alkhatib, Eva Ogbe, Kristy Milland, and Clickhappier. 2015. We Are Dynamo: Overcoming Stalling and Friction in Collective Action for Crowd Workers. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1621--1630. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Maria Sillanpää. 1998. The Body Shop values report--towards integrated stakeholder auditing. Journal of Business Ethics 17, 13 (1998), 1443--1456.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Using Stakeholder Theory to Examine Drivers' Stake in Uber

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2018
      8489 pages
      ISBN:9781450356206
      DOI:10.1145/3173574

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 19 April 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate666of2,590submissions,26%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader