Online last-mile delivery companies first appeared in Spain in 2013 and exploded with the covid-19 outbreak. Such companies deliver food from independent restaurants and from their own ghost kitchens (restaurants without a dining space). Workers in charge of the last-mile delivery (“riders”) are considered to be self-employed workers. They receive their orders through an online platform and are paid on demand when they make a delivery. On the one hand, these on-demand contractual arrangements with the workforce provide new business opportunities, such as the expansion of new digital businesses and those based on the gig economy. On the other hand, such work arrangements have been described as precarious and potentially threatening to workers’ health and safety. 

Limited quantitative data are available on the working conditions of riders in the food-delivery industry. Thus, the authors designed the eWork survey and administered it from March 31st to May 15th, 2021, to riders delivering orders for the six major last-mile food-delivery companies in Barcelona, Bilbao, Madrid, Seville, Valencia, and Zaragoza. The survey included questions related to riders’ sociodemographic variables, employment arrangements, the characteristics of the delivery process and health and safety outcomes. The data collection was conducted in person by visiting riders’ gathering locations in each city. Overall, the sample comprised 392 riders that are paid per order. In addition, twelve qualitative interviews were conducted with riders of different platforms to complement the analysis of the quantitative data.

Four respondent profiles were identified based on different degrees of work precariousness evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale in terms of earnings, job stability, and rights/protections. Specifically, when the average score given by the riders in the profile to one of these three dimensions was below the overall sample average, it was labelled as “lower” (e.g., lower earnings), indicating more precariousness. This approach resulted in the following respondent profiles: 

• Lower than average scores on all three dimensions (earnings, job stability, rights/protections), indicating very high precariousness.

• Lower than average scores on two out of three dimensions (earnings, job stability); higher than average score for the third dimension (rights/protections), indicating high precariousness. 

• Lower than average scores on one out of three dimensions (rights/protections); higher than average score for remaining two dimensions (earnings, job stability), indicating medium precariousness.

• Higher than average scores for all three dimensions (earnings, job stability, rights/protections), indicating low precariousness with respect to the three other profiles in the study.

Under a quarter (22%) of respondents fell into the low-precariousness profile. The remaining three quarters of the riders fell into one of the other profiles, presenting a troubling degree of precariousness. 

The table below shows the respondent profiles. Earnings were measured using a 5-point Likert scale considering the monthly net earnings of the workers (1: €500; 2: €500-700; 3: €700-900; 4: €900-1,100; 5: >€1,100). Job stability was approximated using a 5-point Likert scale reporting length of tenure (1: 2-3 months; 2: 3-6 months; 3: 6-12 months; 4: 12-24 months; 5: >24 months). Rights/protections were measured with a single item that captures the possibility of claiming better working conditions without reprisals. The item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 for “Not at all possible” to 5 for “To a very large extent”).

These results show that some degree of work precariousness is present in each of the group of riders identified. The literature would suggest that this might be due to the fact that most of the last-mile delivery workforce is composed of vulnerable people, such as immigrants and people with limited education, who might have reduced access to the labour market and therefore accept precarious work conditions. Our data do not bear out these predictions.

On the one hand, our data suggest the majority of riders are immigrants from America (72.2%) – especially Latin America –, Asia (6.1%), and Africa (5.1%), and only 16.6% are from Europe. On the other hand, results show that there is no statistical difference in terms of continent of origin among groups of riders with different degrees of work precariousness, and continent of origin is not linked to whether a person is in a more precarious group or a less precarious one. 

Regarding education, most respondents (64.1%) had high education levels (i.e., post-secondary, and graduate and post-graduate education). However, respondents in the least precarious group were often those with primary or secondary levels of education (40.7% of respondents in the least precarious group compared to 35.2% of respondents overall), while those with higher levels of education were often in the more precarious groups. 

This might be related to the fact that riders in the least precarious group are those that consider delivery for the platform to be their main occupation. It might also be that riders in the more precarious groups are also doing or looking for other jobs or studying at the same time. In addition, data from the qualitative interviews suggested that to receive high order volumes, riders have to be consistently available and, thus, work several continuous hours for the platform.

Finally, another statistically significant factor associated with lower precariousness was access to a motor vehicle (i.e., scooter, electric bicycle, motorbike). Of respondents with a motor vehicle, over 70% were in the least precariousness group. Qualitative interviews suggested that having a motor vehicle made it possible to deliver more orders and cover greater distances in the same amount of time, resulting in better hourly pay and a more stable order volume. 

These data show that the vulnerability of the person (as measured by continent of origin and education level) was not linked to precariousness. Rather, precariousness was associated with part-time delivery work and not having access to a motor vehicle.

Surprisingly, in terms of worker health and safety, respondents in all groups presented similar levels of fatigue and stress, regardless of precariousness (overall mean fatigue: 4.06 out of 5; overall mean stress: 2.53 out of 5). There was a slightly significant difference only in the case of lower fatigue in the least precarious group (mean of 3.77) compared to the most precarious one (mean of 4.23). Qualitative interviews revealed that similar fatigue and stress in different groups were due to different reasons. In the least precarious group, they were due to the high volume of orders to be satisfied in a limited amount of time; in contrast, in the most precarious group they were due to the low number of orders associated with lower income and higher fatigue due to using a non-motor transportation vehicle.

Taken at first glance, the results seem to indicate that work precariousness might be reduced if riders dedicate most of their time to this occupation and assume the cost of having a motor vehicle. However, for most riders, quitting other jobs or studies to become full-time delivery providers probably makes little sense in the long term. Likewise, those who do not have a motor vehicle likely cannot afford one. In any case, high levels of fatigue and stress characterise all groups, regardless of precariousness, showing that this work arrangement penalises all riders and, in the long term, may undermine the viability of the platforms. 

Regulators might be called to play an active role in establishing employment arrangements for riders and incentivising companies to avoid a short-term view of their business and consider the long-term implications of work arrangements. Spain’s “Riders’ law”, approved in September 2021, requires last-mile delivery companies to employ their riders through a formal contract including the provision of a regular salary, and workers’ rights/protections. However, so far this law has limited application, as some platform companies are trying to demonstrate the self-employed status of workers and others have decided to pay the penalties for non-compliance rather than update their arrangements with riders in accordance with the law. Given this resistance among companies, it is clear that improving conditions for riders will require a systemic approach that includes not only the riders’ but also the companies’ perspective.

CAMPBELL, I. & R. PRICE (2016): “Precarious work and precarious workers: Towards an improved conceptualisation“, The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 27(3), 314-332.

KALLEBERG, A. L. (2009): “Precarious work, insecure workers: Employment relations in transition“, American Sociological Review, 74(1), 1-22.

MENDONÇA, P., N. K. KOUGIANNOU, & I. CLARK (2022): “Informalization in gig food delivery in the UK: The case of hyper‐flexible and precarious work“, Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 1-18.

OLIAS, L. (2020). “Ya hay sentencia del Supremo sobre Glovo: los ‘riders’ son trabajadores y la empresa no es una mera intermediaria“, Eldiario.es, 30 de septiembre de 2020.

SCHOR, J. & W. ATTWOOD-CHARLES (2017): “The “sharing” economy: Labor, inequality, and social connection on for-profit platforms“, Sociology Compass, 11(8).