Impartiality by design: how platforms shape fairness in mediated gig work

A new research study by Dr Greetje Corporaal, Assistant Professor in Organisation and Digitization at Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University (RSM) and Prof. Vili Lehdonvirta of the University of Oxford reveals that dispute resolution in this ‘mediated’ world of gig or contract work hinges not just on procedure, but on marketplace structure. Their core finding is that fairness in resolving disputes is not a matter of good intentions – it’s either embedded or not in the design of the intermediaries’ marketplaces. 

A new kind of justice: marketplace ADR

The researchers introduce the concept of Marketplace ADR – Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms managed not by employers, but by the intermediaries that connect freelancers and clients in mediated labour markets. These intermediaries may be traditional staffing agencies or digital labour platforms, and they often act as third-party mediators when disagreements arise. 

“ADR usually consists of the complainant filing a grievance, a dispute handler investigating the case and offering mediation, and everyone agreeing on an outcome. But studies on ADR have almost exclusively focused on disputes in workplaces for people with standard employment conditions.” Dr Corporaal and Prof. Lehdonvirta point out that work contexts have changed enormously over the past decade or so, and mediation for gig workers needs to be studied too.

So what’s different about mediating for gig workers compared to mediating for employees? The kind of conflicts that affect gig workers happen between the intermediary and the contractors using their services, and also between contractors and clients. Bear in mind that the low value of many gigs, and the fact that the work is sometimes done in a different country to the client, and you start to understand that it’s often impractical or prohibitively expensive for workers to resolve their disputes through courts. 

Contract workers often lack access to collective mechanisms for resolving disputes and might not be able to access formal litigation under employment law, depending on which country they are in, so this is why it’s important for academic studies to examine if – and how – intermediaries are becoming third‐party mediators. But unlike courts or formal arbitration systems, these platforms are private actors with business interests of their own. The study asks: What factors influence the impartiality of marketplace ADR by labour market intermediaries?

To answer this, the team conducted a study inside two prominent US-based labour market intermediaries:

Though both intermediaries facilitate project-based work, their internal structures – and approaches to dispute handling – were fundamentally different.

BRICK: informal, ad hoc, and client-first

BRICK operates in what the researchers call a relational marketplace. Account managers develop long-term, face-to-face relationships with clients and are paid commission based on the business those clients bring in. 

When disputes arise – about personality clashes, skills, or attendance – it’s these same account managers who handle them. With no standardised process and little use of technology, cases are managed informally, often relying solely on the client’s version of events. “Do not reply [to a contractor’s complaint] until someone else has put eyeballs on it,” one senior manager advised junior staff.

This structure creates strong incentives to prioritise client satisfaction – even at the expense of fairness. Contractors are frequently removed or replaced to smooth things over, and the workers’ voices are often downplayed. 

In more serious cases involving potential legal risks, disputes are escalated to HR. But these were the minority. One former contractor summed up the problem bluntly on a review platform: “Don’t trust them. They don’t defend your rights. They never call you back.”

PLATFORM: formal, structured, and data-driven

In contrast, PLATFORM operates a transactional marketplace, where both clients and freelancers pay fees to use the system. Work is remote, projects are short-term, and matching is algorithmic. 

Here, disputes are routed through a dedicated online dispute resolution centre, where freelance agents are randomly assigned to cases and trained to follow structured procedures. These agents are paid hourly and evaluated based on caseload performance – not client retention. 

Importantly, PLATFORM has access to objective digital evidence. Dispute agents review online work diaries (capturing hours worked through screenshots and measuring keystrokes), chat logs, contract terms, and feedback histories. Because they have all this documentation, “It doesn’t become a ‘he-said, she-said’ story,” an agent explained.

While agents sympathise with workers – especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds – the system enforces neutrality through policy and technology design. “You have to have enough self-control to stick to the policy,” said one agent, “even when something feels unfair.”

The company also invites public feedback. Disputants rate their experience after each case, and concerns can be raised on PLATFORM’s community forum, fostering transparency and accountability.