This qualitative study explores the conceptualisation of justice in the context of platform work, focusing on the dimensions of distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. Drawing upon in-depth interviews with platform-based food delivery couriers in Taiwan, the study extends the organisational justice theory to platform work, showing how the dimensions of justice remain highly relevant in platform work, despite its individualised work organisation and algorithm-mediated transactions. The study highlights the influence of legal categorisations on distributive justice perceptions, while uncovering how perceptions of procedural justice had been undermined in relation to task allocation, fee calculations, and the lack of voice and consultation. Furthermore, it underscores the significance of dignity, respect, transparency, and explainability in interpersonal and informational justice within the platform work context. The theoretical and empirical contributions provide insights for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers seeking to better understand and address justice concerns within the rapidly expanding platform work sector.
AdamsJS (1963) Towards an understanding of inequity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology67(5): 422–436.
2.
AryeeSBudhwarPSChenZX (2002) Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior23(3): 267–285.
3.
AryeeSWalumbwaFOMondejarR, et al. (2015) Accounting for the influence of overall justice on job performance: Integrating self-determination and social exchange theories. Journal of Management Studies52(2): 231–252.
4.
BucherT (2018) If … then: Algorithmic Power and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
BujoldAParent-RocheleauXGaudetM (2022) Opacity behind the wheel: The relationship between transparency of algorithmic management, justice perception, and intention to quit among truck drivers. Computers in Human Behavior Reports8: 100245.
6.
CameronLD (2022) “Making out” while driving: Relational and efficiency games in the gig economy. Organization Science33(1): 231–252.
7.
CantC (2019) Riding for Deliveroo: Resistance in the New Economy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
8.
ColquittJA (2001) On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology86(3): 386–400.
9.
ColquittJARodellJB (2015) Measuring justice and fairness. The Oxford Handbook of Justice in the Workplace1: 187–202.
CropanzanoRByrneZSBobocelDR, et al. (2001) Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior58(2): 164–209.
12.
CropanzanoRMitchellMS (2005) Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management31(6): 874–900.
13.
De StefanoV (2016) The rise of the ‘just-in-time workforce’: On-demand work, crowdwork, and labor protection in the ‘gig-economy’. Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal37(3): 471–504.
14.
DeWaltKMDeWaltBR (2011) Participant Observation: A Guide for Fieldworkers. Oxford: Altamira.
15.
DugganJShermanUCarberyR, et al. (2020) Algorithmic management and app-work in the gig economy: A research agenda for employment relations and HRM. Human Resource Management Journal30(1): 114–132.
16.
DunnM (2020) Making gigs work: Digital platforms, job quality and worker motivations. New Technology, Work and Employment35(2): 232–249.
17.
EisenhardtKMGraebnerME (2007) Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal50(1): 25–32.
18.
FieselerCBucherEHoffmannCP (2019) Unfairness by design? The perceived fairness of digital labor on crowdworking platforms. Journal of Business Ethics156: 987–1005.
19.
FolgerRGreenbergJ (1985) Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel systems. In: RowlandKMFerrisGR (eds) Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. vol. 3. Greenwich: JAI Press, 141–183.
20.
FrankeMPulignanoV (2023) Connecting at the edge: Cycles of commodification and labour control within food delivery platform work in Belgium. New Technology, Work and Employment38: 371–390.
21.
GaliereS (2020) When food-delivery platform workers consent to algorithmic management: A foucauldian perspective. New Technology, Work and Employment35(3): 357–370.
22.
GioiaDACorleyKGHamiltonAL (2013) Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods16(1): 15–31.
23.
GoodsCVeenABarrattT (2019) “Is your gig any good?” analysing job quality in the Australian platform-based food-delivery sector. Journal of Industrial Relations61(4): 502–527.
24.
GreenbergJCropanzanoR (1993) The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In: CropanzanoR (eds) Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource Management. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 79–103.
25.
GregoryK (2021) ‘My life is more valuable than this’: Understanding risk among on-demand food couriers in Edinburgh. Work, Employment and Society35(2): 316–331.
26.
GriesbachKReichAElliott-NegriL, et al. (2019) Algorithmic control in platform food delivery work. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World5: 1–15.
27.
HarrisCMLavelleJJMcMahanGC (2020) The effects of internal and external sources of justice on employee turnover intention and organizational citizenship behavior toward clients and workgroup members. The International Journal of Human Resource Management31(17): 2141–2164.
28.
HealyJPekarekAVromenA (2020) Sceptics or supporters? Consumers’ views of work in the gig economy. New Technology, Work and Employment35(1): 1–19.
29.
HeeksRGrahamMMungaiP, et al. (2021) Systematic evaluation of gig work against decent work standards: The development and application of the fairwork framework. The Information Society37(5): 267–286.
30.
HeilandH (2021) Controlling space, controlling labour? Contested space in food delivery gig work. New Technology, Work and Employment36(1): 1–16.
31.
HeilandH (2022) Neither timeless, nor placeless: Control of food delivery gig work via place-based working time regimes. Human Relations75(9): 1824–1848.
32.
HellwigPBuchholzVKoppS, et al. (2023) Let the user have a say-voice in automated decision-making. Computers in Human Behavior138: 107446.
33.
HoangLBlankGQuan-HaaseA (2020) The winners and the losers of the platform economy: Who participates?Information, Communication & Society23(5): 681–700.
34.
HowcroftDBergvall-KårebornB (2019) A typology of crowdwork platforms. Work, Employment and Society33(1): 21–38.
35.
HuangH (2023) Algorithmic management in food-delivery platform economy in China. New Technology, Work and Employment38: 185–205.
36.
IlsøeALarsenTPBachES (2021) Multiple jobholding in the digital platform economy: Signs of segmentation. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research27(2): 201–218.
37.
JobinALencaMVayenaE (2019) The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence1(9): 389–399.
38.
JoyceSStuartM (2021) Digitalised management, control and resistance in platform work: A labour process analysis. In: HaidarJKeuneM (eds) Work and Labour Relations in Global Platform Capitalism. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 158–184.
39.
KässiOLehdonvirtaVStephanyF (2021) How many online workers are there in the world? A data-driven assessment [version 4; peer review: 4 approved]. Open Research Europe1: 53.
40.
LangerMLandersRN (2021) The future of artificial intelligence at work: A review on effects of decision automation and augmentation on workers targeted by algorithms and third-party observers. Computers in Human Behavior123: 106878.
41.
LeeBY (2024) Neither employee nor contractor: A case study of employment relations between riders and platform-based food-delivery firms in Taiwan. Work, Employment and Society38(1): 122–139.
42.
LeeMK (2018) Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: Fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management. Big Data & Society5(1): 1–16.
43.
LeeMKJainAChaHJ, et al. (2019) Procedural justice in algorithmic fairness: Leveraging transparency and outcome control for fair algorithmic mediation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction3(CSCW): 1–26.
44.
LeeMKKusbitDMetskyE, et al. (2015) Working with machines: The impact of algorithmic and data-driven management on human workers. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: 1603–1612.
45.
LehdonvirtaV (2018) Flexibility in the gig economy: Managing time on three online piecework platforms. New Technology, Work and Employment33(1): 13–29.
46.
LeungLY (2022) ‘No South Asian riders, please’: The politics of visibilisation in platformed food delivery work during the COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong. Critical Sociology48(7-8): 1189–1203.
47.
LeventhalGS (1980) What should be done with equity theory? In: GergenKJGreenbergMSWillisRH (eds) Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research. New York: Plenum Press, 27–55.
MehmoodSAMalikMARAkhtarMS, et al. (2021) Organizational justice, psychological ownership and organizational embeddedness: A conservation of resources perspective. International Journal of Manpower42(8): 1420–1439.
50.
MilkmanRElliott-NegriLGriesbachK, et al. (2021) Gender, class, and the gig economy: The case of platform-based food delivery. Critical Sociology47(3): 357–372.
51.
MöhlmannMZalmansonLHenfridssonO, et al. (2021) Algorithmic management of work on online labor platforms: When matching meets control. MIS Quarterly45(4): 1999–2022.
52.
MyhillKRichardsJSangK (2021) Job quality, fair work and gig work: The lived experience of gig workers. The International Journal of Human Resource Management32(19): 4110–4135.
53.
NewmanDTFastNJHarmonDJ (2020) When eliminating bias isn’t fair: Algorithmic reductionism and procedural justice in human resource decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes160: 149–167.
54.
O'FarrellRMontagnierP (2020) Measuring digital platform-mediated workers. New Technology, Work and Employment35(1): 130–144.
55.
OlsenOKEidhamarAMyrsethH, et al. (2012) Psychometric properties of a four-component Norwegian organizational justice scale. Psychological Reports110(2): 571–588.
56.
ParthSBathiniDR (2021) Microtargeting control: Explicating algorithmic control and nudges in platform-mediated cab driving in India. New Technology, Work and Employment36(1): 74–93.
57.
PurcellCBrookP (2022) At least I’m my own boss! Explaining consent, coercion and resistance in platform work. Work, Employment and Society36(3): 391–406.
58.
RahmanHA (2021) The invisible cage: Workers’ reactivity to opaque algorithmic evaluations. Administrative Science Quarterly66(4): 945–988.
59.
RahmanHAValentineMA (2021) How managers maintain control through collaborative repair: Evidence from platform-mediated “gigs”. Organization Science32(5): 1300–1326.
60.
RaniUFurrerM (2021) Digital labour platforms and new forms of flexible work in developing countries: Algorithmic management of work and workers. Competition and Change25(2): 212–236.
61.
RosenblatA (2018) Uberland: How Algorithms are Rewriting the Rules of Work. Oakland: University of California Press.
62.
RuppDECropanzanoR (2002) The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes89(1): 925–946.
63.
RuppDEShapiroDLFolgerR, et al. (2017) A critical analysis of the conceptualization and measurement of organizational justice: Is it time for reassessment?Academy of Management Annals11(2): 919–959.
64.
SchorJBAttwood-CharlesWCansoyM, et al. (2020) Dependence and precarity in the platform economy. Theory and Society49(5): 833–861.
65.
SchwartzD (2018) Embedded in the crowd: Creative freelancers, crowdsourced work, and occupational community. Work and Occupations45(3): 247–282.
66.
ShapiroA (2020) Dynamic exploits: Calculative asymmetries in the on-demand economy. New Technology, Work and Employment35(2): 162–177.
67.
ThibautJWWalkerL (1975) Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
VallasSSchorJB (2020) What do platforms do? Understanding the gig economy. Annual Review of Sociology46: 273–294.
70.
Van OortM (2019) The emotional labor of surveillance: Digital control in fast fashion retail. Critical Sociology45(7–8): 1167–1179.
71.
VeenABarrattTGoodsC (2020) Platform-capital’s ‘app-etite’ for control: A labour process analysis of food-delivery work in Australia. Work, Employment and Society34(3): 388–406.
72.
WaldkirchMBucherESchouPK, et al. (2021) Controlled by the algorithm, coached by the crowd—How HRM activities take shape on digital work platforms in the gig economy. The International Journal of Human Resource Management32(12): 2643–2682.
73.
WoodAJ (2021) Algorithmic management consequences for work organisation and working conditions. JRC Working Papers Series on Labour, Education and Technology No. 2021/07.
74.
WoodAJGrahamMLehdonvirtaV, et al. (2019) Good gig, bad gig: Autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work, Employment and Society33(1): 56–75.
75.
WoodAJMartindaleNLehdonvirtaV (2023) Dynamics of contention in the gig economy: Rage against the platform, customer or state?New Technology, Work and Employment38: 330–350.
