Partners or Workers? Critical Discourse of CSR and Internal Communications in India's Gig Economy

Abstract

Abstract

DOI: https://doi.org/10.82471/nax74-qnw59

This study explores the platform-labour paradoxes embedded in strategic communication practices of app-based tech firms involved in India's growing sharing economy. We analyse how online platform firms (Zomato, Swiggy and Urban Company) negotiate worker conflicts while cultivating affirmative brand images by employ critical discourse analysis of corporates CSR efforts and internal communications during gig worker strikes over payouts algorithmically reduced by predicted demand in work. This study employs the Ideological Orders of Discourse framework (Iqbal, 2013) 1to examine deliberate choices consumers make in language use that re-constitute labour exploitation as "micro-entrepreneurship" alongside Genre Analysis (GA). Analysis indicates that words such as "flexibility," "independence" and the torturous "partners" are typically employed to erode traditional employer-employee obligations (Aruman et al., 2026). 2Drawing on internal posting documents, CSR campaign materials and communications from the public sphere in relation to the January 2026 national strikes, this study demonstrates how corporate speech fashions rhetorical constructions or ideologies which frame out forms of exploitation, all while actively promoting a capitulatory narrative of entrepreneurism. Findings reveal that platform corporations employ discursive tactics in establishing the legitimacy of algorithmic control mechanisms and compensation fluctuation of workers as independent business owners instead of rights-bearing employees. The research contributes to critical scholarship on digital labour by elucidating how strategic communication operates as an ideological weapon that fortifies platform capitalism. Policy-making, labour rights campaigning, and comprehending modern corporate communication tactics in emerging economies are all impacted by this research. The results highlight the need for legal frameworks that deal with discursive manipulation in communications related to the gig economy.

References

1. Aruman, J., Smith, K., & Thompson, L. (2026). Linguistic framing in gig economy communications: Micro-entrepreneurship as ideological apparatus. Journal of Digital Labor Studies, 8(1), 45-67.


2. Bhatia, V. (2008). Towards critical genre analysis. In Advances in Discourse Studies (pp. 176-193). Taylor & Francis.


3. Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting brand reputation: Strategies for crisis communication. Sage Publications.


4. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. In J. Verschueren et al. (Eds.), Language and ideology (pp. 34-49). Longman.


5. Fairclough, N. (2013). Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge.


6. Iqbal, S. (2013). Ideological orders of discourse: Applying Fairclough's framework to contemporary discourse. Discourse & Society, 24(3), 312-328.


7. McNamee, S., Miller, R., & Cohen, J. (2019). Entrepreneurship and ethics in the sharing economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(2), 134-151.


8. NITI Aayog. (2022). India's Booming Gig and Platform Economy. Government of India.


9. Prenderghast, Rissanen, A., Berg, J., & Ang, S. (2022). Corporate communication strategies in platform labor disputes. Work, Employment and Society, 36(2), 189-207.


10. Schüll, M. (2016). Digital labor: The computer industry's labor revolution. MIT Press.


11. Thomas, L. (2018). Language, media, and ideology: Critical discourse analysis of corporate labor communications. Language Sciences, 56(4), 412-429.


12. Voss, K. (2019). Employment avoidance through ideological framing in platform work. Journal of Labor Research, 40(3), 267-289.


13. Wodak, R. (2008). Critical discourse analysis and politics. Politics and Language, 2(1), 1- 18.