Delivery: between platform losses and worker exploitation

Written on 26 November 2021 and updated on 18 July 2026

In July 2026, Uber and Delivery Hero announced an agreement: there are now three major players in the delivery sector in the West (DoorDash, which owns Deliveroo; Prosus – Just Eat; and Uber – Delivery Hero, which owns Glovo): Just Eat’s employees are covered by the National Collective Labour Agreement for Logistics, whilst the other two are covered by the Assodelivery/Ugl contract and are accused of exploiting workers.

But let’s take a step back: a brilliant article in *The Economist* from November 2021 highlighted how the nine publicly listed delivery companies (Uber, Lyft, Didi, DoorDash, Delivery Hero, Meituan, Zomato, etc.) had:

raised $100 billion in funding
grown by an average of 103 per cent over the past few years
generated revenue of $75 billion last year
the nine companies’ cumulative losses totalled $11.5 billion

The impression, looking at things from the outside, is that, in many cases, the precarious working conditions of delivery riders (the French call this ‘uberisation’) were being exploited to try to generate profits – which were taking ever longer to materialise – at the riders’ expense.

The situation in France has worsened considerably with fast-food delivery services, which have ‘industrialised’ precarious employment (Le Monde, 23 November 2021).

These articles from *The Economist* and *Il Sole 24 Ore* form the starting point for this report, which provides an overview of the evolution of food delivery from 2020 to 2026. They discuss workers and trade unions, as well as business models that influence food quality.

REGULATIONS AND TAXES

Il Sole 24 Ore

25 NOVEMBER 2021

EMPLOYMENT

Delivery riders as employees: termination now subject to collective redundancy rules

Giampiero Falasca

Delivery riders working for a digital platform must be regarded as employees, with the consequence that any termination of their employment relationship is subject to the rules on collective redundancies, should the size thresholds laid down by law be exceeded.

On this basis, the Court of Florence (overturning the decision made by a single judge) upheld the complaint lodged by Filcams-Cgil and found that a platform had engaged in anti-trade union conduct by terminating its working relationship with a significant number of cycle couriers who did not have an employment contract, without following the information procedures laid down in the National Collective Labour Agreement for the tertiary sector – which was already applied within the company to office staff – and without complying with Law 223/1991 governing collective redundancies.

This decision is set to deal a further severe blow to the model for managing delivery riders, which is centred on the use of contractual arrangements other than employment contracts, but is consistent with the most recent trends in case law.

The case dates back to October 2020, immediately after Assodelivery (a trade association representing the main platforms) signed a collective agreement with the UGL trade union to regulate the work of delivery riders employed under self-employment contracts. Following the signing of this agreement, a platform affiliated with Assodelivery wrote to the delivery riders asking them to sign a new collaboration contract as an essential condition for continuing their employment.

According to the court, this communication was anti-trade union in nature for two reasons.

Firstly, as it affected a very large number of workers, such a significant change should have been communicated to the trade unions in the manner provided for by the National Collective Labour Agreement for the tertiary sector.

Secondly, the notice is not legitimate as the workers fall under Article 2, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree 81/2015, which introduced a sort of presumption of subordination for collaborative relationships subject to the client’s organisational authority.

The court also ruled on the validity of the contract signed with UGL.

It does so in a very strict manner, arguing that certain elements suggest a lack of representativeness on the part of the trade union, which is accused of being ‘close’ to the employers’ position—a fact that would appear to emerge from certain objective data (lack of genuine negotiation, failure to consult with workers, and contract terms that essentially replicate agreements already used by the company).

In light of these factors, the Court orders the removal of the effects of the anti-trade union conduct through various measures: the company must provide the information required under the National Collective Labour Agreement for the tertiary sector, must apply Law 223/1991 in the event of the termination of employment relationships, and must cease to apply the National Collective Labour Agreement signed with UGL.

My only comment: it is strange to report on this without mentioning the name of the ‘offending’ company. But this is Italy, and everyone has a family to support.

These developments have increasingly begun to affect the large-scale retail sector as well, as many companies, such as Rewe and Carrefour, had invested in it, offering e-commerce for packaged food products as well as ready meals.

By June 2024, only three companies remained in Italy: Just Eat, Deliveroo and Glovo.

And from retail – via ‘quick commerce’ – they appear to have moved on to managing ‘dark kitchens’ for the catering sector:

Milan: what are ‘dark kitchens’? These are the ghost warehouses where food delivered by riders is prepared – places that clearly illustrate how the world of food and catering is evolving:

“The customer who has ordered sushi, pizza or fried chicken via a platform from a restaurant they know assumes it’s being prepared there: in reality, we riders go and collect it from somewhere else entirely, ina dark kitchen”…”.

According to theCorriere, there are at least six large‘dark kitchens’ [ in Milan], each run by a different catering brand. Inside these industrial warehouses, which operate behind closed gates, entry is restricted to staff working for Glovo, Deliveroo or Just Eat – the leading food delivery services.

The reason why places like these exist is easily explained: online orders often far outnumber those placed in the actual physical restaurant. As a result, restaurants struggle to keep up with all the orders and end up directing riders to a ‘secondary’ restaurant, of which the customer is unaware.

Below: delivery riders – a comparison of models. Source: Retail & Food, January–February 2023.

Rider-modelli-a-confronto-Retail-Food-gennaio-febbraio-2023

La Repubblica reports as follows:

….Glovo… remains the most aggressive platform in terms of expansion, but for this very reason it appears to be the most fragile. The 2021 financial statements, the latest available, showed a loss of 40 million against a turnover of 114, with significant doubts regarding the company’s ability to continue as a going concern. The 2022 financial statements have not been filed, but it is known that the company’s survival hangs on the financial guarantees provided by its shareholder, the multinational Delivery Hero…

….Much of the future of a food delivery service that is shifting towards quick delivery remains tied to its workers – the riders who are directed by algorithms. The major cutbacks have affected them too: whilst there were 63,000 at the end of 2021 – of whom 33,400 were ‘active’ – by the end of 2023 this figure had fallen to 25,000. The platforms seek to select the most reliable and consistent riders, and Glovo’s move in Palermo shows that not even the meagre pay they receive is secure.

However, it may be the rules governing their employment status – on which companies’ costs depend – that determine who will survive and who will prevail.

The law in Spain that forced platforms to employ them led Deliveroo to leave the country and pushed Glovo to the brink of bankruptcy.

In Italy, the same two companies continue to apply a collective agreement classifying them as self-employed, signed solely with the Ugl trade union, even though a court ruling has deemed it unlawful.

Deliveroo has not responded to *La Repubblica* on this and other points. However, the pressure on the companies appears to have eased, as demonstrated by the decision of their trade association, Assodelivery, to call off negotiations that had been reopened with the trade unions a few months ago. This is partly because the European directive on the platform economy – which promised a revolution (with riders deemed to be employees unless proven otherwise) – has been significantly watered down in its final version, leaving considerable scope for Member States to transpose it as they see fit. This is partly because a significant proportion of delivery riders appreciate the flexibility of a job organised by an algorithm, yet one that is not considered employment in the traditional sense: apart from Spain, most countries regard them as self-employed, whilst perhaps strengthening protections and pay.

The Italian paradox is that the current grey area penalises precisely those who have brought the greatest stability to delivery riders: ‘We have adopted a more responsible but also more demanding model,’ says Contini of JustEat. ‘We need to establish a set of minimum safeguards, including social security provisions, that are independent of employment status. At the moment, the various operators are operating under different rules.’

Conclusion:

The big ‘boom’ or craze for food delivery during the Covid-19 pandemic has passed; the sector is now consolidating with the elimination of unnecessary costs ( e.g. standalone warehouses for ‘quick commerce’).

For now, in terms of revenue, “the mountain seems to have given birth to a mouse”; in Italy, €1.9 billion in turnover – as at the end of June 2024 – is a drop in the ocean compared to the food sections of a supermarket [but we cannot help but wonder whether these figures are accurate, as the lack of transparency in the catering and delivery sectors suits many people just fine].

And given that food delivery overlaps with the restaurant sector, it is natural to recall what FIPE president Lino Stoppani said in 2016: “The risk is that in the city centre [of Milan] only chains or establishments offering standardised service will find a place.”

To this statement I would add: the majority of cafés and fast-food outlets use pre-cooked food, but many restaurants too – especially at lunchtime – use food that has been prepared in advance and is then simply reheated.

This trend will be exacerbated by delivery-only ‘dark kitchens’.

On the social front, I recommend reading the concluding note at the end of the article.

As can be seen in the overview below, the sector is consolidating, innovating, expanding or contracting its scope of activity:

From a business perspective, DoorDash’s marketplace figures are impressive: we’re talking about more than $100 billion in turnover ( Uber’s figures are also interesting…). In Italy, however, they seem to be struggling for various reasons, including the habits of the Italian provinces.

Then there is the social aspect: in February 2026, the investigation that had already involved Glovo was extended to Deliveroo. But also to McDonald’s, Esselunga, Burger King, Carrefour, Crai, Poke House and Kentucky Fried Chicken.

There are allegations of negligent facilitation of illegal labour recruitment .

Perhaps this should apply to all subcontracting arrangements, not just food delivery.

The article below is from *La Repubblica* and dates from 26 February 2026