Hope Labor or Collaborative Production

What are the ethical implications?

         Nowadays collaborative production between corporations and fans, who usually follow them through social media, is becoming a common ground for companies to get ideas directly from their consumers. For Fournier (2019), “this collaboration can be an excellent way to discover new market opportunities, push product branding in new directions, or establish a presence in a completely new area.” However, who is actually carrying on all the field work here? What is the real purpose behind this type of collaboration? “Now one’s initial reaction to this process could be that it’s a corporatization of the content, exploitation of workers, or a corporation attempting to acquire content for very little cost” (Universtiy of Sydney, 2020).

         If one’s initial reaction to co-creation is framed within the University of Sydney’s primary approach, what does it really entail? “Customer co-creation refers to inviting stakeholders (usually customers) to participate in a design or problem-solving process to produce a mutually valued outcome” (Fournier, 2019). Let us take a look at three different cases where companies make use of customer co-creation and what possible ethical implications lie behind this collaborative practice.

 

Corporatization of Content

         According to the IKEA business idea (IKEA, 2019-2020), they “want ‘to offer a wide range of well-designed, functional home furnishing products at prices so low that as many people as possible will be able to afford them’.” In order to satisfy their customers’ demand for new and innovate products, IKEA launched “Co-Create IKEA,” which is “a digital platform encouraging customers to develop new products” (Fournier, 2019). If any idea for innovative pieces of furniture is favorable, “IKEA may license the technology or agree to invest in furniture products” (Fournier, 2019) based on the ideas provided by their followers in social media.

         One’s initial reaction to Co-Create IKEA’s platform is that the enterprise is intending to corporatizate content generated by their platform users. This process implemented by IKEA can be labeled as hope labor because it is an “un- or under-compensated work carried out in the present, often for experience or exposure” (Kuehn & Corrigan, 2013). Based on Fournier (2019), “designers and technically talented fans” can “gain exposure through the world’s largest furniture retailer.” From a mere ethical viewpoint, are participants in the Co-Create IKEA’s platform being financially compensated for their creative, innovative ideas? In the end, the company is the one with the revenue because of a collaborative production after the content has been corporatizated. Ideas will be materialized in furnishings and patented by IKEA.

 

Worker Exploitation

         “DEWALT is out there on the jobsite learning what works and what doesn’t so [they] can make it all work for the professional” (DeWalt, 2019). With their high quality and performance tools, DeWalt is by far ahead of many tool companies on the market. In order to know what really works on the jobsite, they “established an Insight Community for its customers to contribute product development ideas” (Fournier, 2019). Based on Fournier (2019), there are about 12,000 users encompassing “8,000 professional tradespeople, and 4,000 home users.” All these individuals are open to suggest new products and to test them.

         One’s initial reaction to DeWalt’s Insight Community is that the company is doing some sort of “workers exploitation”. This community implemented by DeWalt can also be labeled as hope labor because it “functions as a viable coping strategy for navigating the uncertainties of the contemporary labor economy, yet it does so without the risks of associated with related processes, such as ‘venture labor’” (Kuehn & Corrigan, 2013). From a mere ethical viewpoint, are participants in the Insight Community platform being financially compensated for their testing of tools in various work environments? In the end, the company is saving thousands of dollars “in research costs due to its Insight Community” (Fournier, 2019) and the feedback that is being provided by their community followers.

 

Acquisition of Content for very low cost

         “Unilever is one of the world’s largest consumer goods companies, owning over 400 well-recognized brands, including Dove, Lipton, Best Foods, and many more” (Fournier, 2019). Part of the driving forces behind the corporation, “Unilever actively looks to its customer base for product solutions” (Fournier, 2019), asking a while range of individuals for their insights, recommendations, or quick fixes. And “through its Open Innovation platform, launched in 2010, Unilever presents specific challenges to the public, encouraging individuals to submit responses for potential adoption by the company” (Fournier, 2019). Their crowdsourcing approach to acquiring content will benefit a submitter of suggestions, and this person “can be offered a commercial contract for their solution, as well as professional recognition” (Fournier, 2019).

         One’s initial reaction to Unilever’s Open Innovation platform is that the company is acquiring new content at a very low cost. This platform implemented by Unilever can also be labeled as hope labor because it “is yet another means of valorizing leisure spaces that captures digital ‘workers’ in relations not unlike those defined by traditional labor arrangements” (Kuehn & Corrigan, 2013). From a mere ethical viewpoint, are participants in the Open Innovation platform being financially compensated for their submission of solutions to the company’s predicaments? In the end, the company is saving lots of money because “now, over 60% of Unilever’s research projects involve external collaboration” (Fournier, 2019), and the company can focus on what the customers are telling them about their needs and products rather than beginning from scratch with a research team.

         What is important to understand here is that collaborative production is not wrong! These are common practices carried out by companies such as the ones used here for the sake of this ethical exercise. They are here stated as initial reactions to what these enterprises do with their stakeholders, and they do not necessarily mean that the statements made here actually represent the current state of affairs in each of the companies mentioned. From a mere ethical perspective what one can see not necessarily reflect what the collaborators feel about “working” with these companies, and they may feel more than rewarded in what each company does. Through the eyes of hope labor, something seems to be happening here because experts “critique the harnessing of users’ uncompensated productivity -their ‘free labor, for the ends of capital accumulation’” (Kuehn & Corrigan, 2013). And as stated above, many just do it for the pleasure it provides them to suggest solutions, create new products, or to test new goods.

References

DeWalt. (2019). Innovation that Matters. Recuperado el 28 de August de 2020, de My.DeWalt.Global/: https://my.dewalt.global/dewalt-dna/innovation-technology

Fournier, A. (2019, March 20). Customer Co-Creation Examples: 10 Companies Doing it Right. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from Braineet: https://www.braineet.com/blog/co-creation-examples/

IKEA. (2019-2020). The IKEA vision and business idea. Retrieved August 28, 2020, from About.IKEA.Com: https://about.ikea.com/en/who-we-are/our-roots/the-ikea-vision-and-business-idea

Kuehn, K., & Corrigan, F. (2013). Hope Labor: The Role of Employment Prospects in Online Social. The Political Economy of Communication, 9-25. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https://polecom.org/index.php/polecom/article/view/9/116

Universtiy of Sydney. (2020). ETHICAL SOCIAL MEDIA. Retrieved August 25, 2020, from FutureLearn.Com: https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/ethical-social-media/1/steps/824148

Hope Labor or Collaborative Production by Jonathan Acuña on Scribd