How Does a French Delivery Platform Overturn Global Platform Capitalism?

Foodthink Says

But beyond criticism, can we imagine an alternative platform model? What would such a platform look like? Who would own it? How would algorithms be designed and managed? Would riders still be surveilled by algorithms? Would there be a minimum wage? Would paid annual leave be available?

On 24 November, four Chinese government departments jointly launched the “Qinglang – Addressing Typical Algorithm Problems on Internet Platforms” campaign, requiring action against key issues such as blindly pursuing profit at the expense of the rights of workers in new forms of employment, using algorithms to carry out big-data price discrimination against loyal customers, and the failure of algorithms to deliver pro-social services that protect users’ legitimate rights and interests.

Foodthink hopes that by introducing CoopCycle, a French delivery platform founded in opposition to platform capitalism, readers will be inspired to imagine a brighter picture of the information society.

This article was first published in the international critical communication journal tripleC under the original title “The Transformative Potential of Platform Cooperativism: A Case Study of CoopCycle”. Foodthink has obtained the authors’ permission to translate the piece, and what follows is an abridged version.

I. Platform Capitalism vs Platform Cooperativism

Platform cooperativism, in particular, adopts an operating logic diametrically opposed to that of platform capitalism. It combines the principles of the traditional cooperative with algorithmic management, practises collective ownership of the means of production, and operates democratically on the basis of “one person, one vote”.

II. “You Can Only Earn Money by Riding a Bicycle”

The founding team was made up of activists committed to opposing the economy and organisational model of foodtech platforms such as Deliveroo. These profit-driven foodtech platforms leverage venture capital and algorithmic management, deploying a range of tactics—including data monetisation and the offloading of unemployment risk—to maximise shareholder returns. CoopCycle was born in response to this landscape, triggered by the collapse or sudden withdrawal of mainstream delivery platforms such as Take Eat Easy and Deliveroo from local markets in 2017.

The original idea behind CoopCycle came from a programmer who cloned the proprietary software of foodtech platforms, repurposed the technology, and built a digital commons designed specifically for cooperative deployment, tackling the prohibitive costs of developing a delivery app from scratch.

The CoopCycle software has been designed as an anti-capitalist model built on collective ownership of the means of production, democratic decision-making and the sharing of value among workers. Labour within the cooperative federation is paid hourly and enjoys the security of stable employment benefits, including a minimum wage, unemployment benefits, paid annual leave, sick leave, pensions and medical insurance. As they put it: “Money should not breed money. All the profits should flow to the workers—you can only earn money by riding a bicycle.”

III. We’d Rather Talk More with Our Riders

CoopCycle offers management training services to help new cooperative members in various countries become familiar with the software and its day-to-day operations. Software manuals and business plans help riders overcome the obstacles and conflicts that come with collective ownership. As one interviewee put it: “The software is our flagship; we invite cooperatives to use it. But beyond that, we also provide management training to help them develop their business models, find new restaurants and new customers—it’s a complete service package.”

Cooperatives respect and support local economic and cultural customs, unlike the parasitic nature of platform capitalism. Cooperatives adopt a horizontal organisational model, one that affords riders care and dignity and earns them friendlier treatment from customers. Unlike platforms such as Deliveroo, riders can refuse assignments without it affecting their income or contract status.

CoopCycle’s software implements neither dynamic pricing nor gamification or habit-forming design. Geolocation tracking is not used for worker surveillance or algorithmic management. CoopCycle also does not use a rating system; cooperatives prefer to follow internal qualitative processes to assess rider performance. As one manager said: “We’d rather have more conversations with our riders. What do you think makes a good job? What are you good at? What do you think is behind your doing so well? What aren’t you doing so well? Is there anything you could improve on?”

In addition, many cooperative members are staunch opponents of electric bicycles and motorcycles. By choosing the bicycle as its mode of transport, CoopCycle advocates a more ecological approach to reducing carbon emissions. However, CoopCycle’s anti-capitalist mission appears to sit at odds with partnerships with profit-driven businesses such as supermarkets, retailers and restaurants. Some companies frequently use bicycle delivery services for greenwashing. Yet legislation also obliges them to comply with sustainability guidelines, such as reducing carbon emissions as well as traffic and noise pollution. At the same time, CoopCycle’s members seek partnerships with companies that share their values of fairness and sustainability, including environmentally conscious businesses, zero-waste restaurants, family-run social enterprises, associations, hospitals and schools. Together, these institutions form a coalition of the local economy.

CoopCycle’s long-term vision is to further develop the software and specialise in political lobbying to expand the cooperative economy in France and beyond. They do not believe they can overturn the hegemony of foodtech giants overnight. Instead, they envision occupying a long-term, sustainable ecological niche in socio-economic activity, thereby posing a threat to platform capitalism.

IV. Decentralised Governance

Operating as a federation, CoopCycle balances centralisation with decentralisation. Centralisation drives the development of large-scale software (the back end), IT support, management training, skills training, collective bargaining, major commercial contracts, API integrations and political lobbying. Decentralisation, on the other hand, encompasses the self-organisation of each member cooperative, the customisation of software, and the power to determine marketing and pricing strategies independently.

Unlike Deliveroo, UberEats and Wolt, which maintain centralised control over user data, CoopCycle’s decentralised software logic means there is no central entity; instead, local cooperatives run and manage the application on their own servers or infrastructure. As a result, there is no algorithmic surveillance or control over how local cooperatives organise their work, nor is there any surveillance of riders themselves.

Moreover, this means that the data generated by platform operations is hosted on local cooperative servers. The cooperatives and their riders jointly own the platform they use to organise their work and the data produced in the process. The decentralised digital infrastructure is transparent and visible to its users.

Democratic decision-making rules encompass both centralised governance and distributed governance. The cooperative principle of “one person, one vote” applies at the federation’s annual general meeting (regardless of size or turnover, each cooperative has one vote) as well as at each member cooperative’s monthly general meeting. At the federation’s annual meeting, members discuss major decisions and plans regarding software development and institutional matters (such as organisational structure, finances and so on). At each cooperative’s monthly meeting, members discuss task allocation, rota scheduling, business models, fund distribution, points of conflict, paid and unpaid work, and more.

However, CoopCycle’s expansion into other countries has already affected the democratisation process. As one interviewee noted: “We’ve grown too large to be fully democratic. Too many cities, too many projects, not enough time left for people.” To address this issue, the federation introduced an additional administrative layer: a board of directors elected by the general meeting to represent member cooperatives. Board members manage day-to-day operations at the federation level.

V. Seeking Survival in Competition

Half of CoopCycle’s income comes from annual membership fees paid by cooperatives to the federation, amounting to approximately 2–2.5% of the added value generated by each cooperative, with a minimum of €500 per year (equivalent to CNY 3,802). After different proposals were discussed at the annual general meeting, the federation ultimately decided on this figure and put it to a vote. The relatively low rate reflects the federation’s political objective of helping cooperatives get off the ground first.

Intense competition, low prices and thin profit margins are hallmarks of the food-delivery industry. Yet during the pandemic, CoopCycle completed 100,000 deliveries and achieved a turnover of €3.5 million (equivalent to CNY 26.61 million). Some restaurants prefer to work with CoopCycle because its commission rate is lower (around 20%) compared with the 30% charged under platform capitalism. CoopCycle’s lower rates reduce prices for both restaurants and customers, thereby laying the groundwork for a democratised pricing mechanism.

They also face unfair competition: because profit-driven platforms can deploy gig workers to cut costs and have access to fundraising channels, they are able to charge extremely low prices and afford to hire more workers in order to capture a larger market share and stifle competition entirely (a winner-takes-all strategy). Platform cooperatives, by contrast, bear many additional costs because they must pay taxes and provide workers with benefits such as social security, insurance, and paid wages for sick leave and holidays. In addition, amid inflationary pressure, people are experiencing a cost-of-living crisis, and demand for food delivery is beginning to slow.

To adjust to this situation, CoopCycle has developed a last-mile express delivery service, and many cities, driven by environmental considerations, have outsourced their delivery operations to cooperatives. CoopCycle can seize this opportunity to leverage the decentralised network of local businesses and attract new customers and cooperative members.

VI. Coopyleft—Genuinely Open and Shared

Although formally registered as an association in France, CoopCycle is in practice a federation whose members are cooperatives and collective enterprises scattered across the globe. Upon registration, each member signs an informal agreement setting out the terms and conditions for member status. Membership is granted to cooperatives that formally employ workers, rather than classifying them as independent contractors, as platform capitalism does. Members gain access to CoopCycle’s full suite of services, including software, management training and skills training.

To use CoopCycle’s software code, users must obtain a Coopyleft licence—a restrictive variant of copyleft (a licensing model that is more open and shareable than conventional copyright). This licence restricts commercial use of the software to cooperatives and other qualifying entities. The federation acts as gatekeeper for the licence, enabling member cooperatives to pool technical or managerial resources, knowledge and services to reduce costs—such as platform software, mobile applications, teaching materials, marketing and legal support.

CoopCycle’s federation structure has both strengths and weaknesses. On the one hand, it has built collective bargaining power and broadened the scope of platform cooperativism as an institutional model, thereby enabling the federation’s social and economic sustainability. On the other hand, it can sometimes restrict potential members who are unable to adhere to the federation’s principles or to make appropriate flexible adjustments. Recently, the federation reached a compromise between its predominantly cycling-based European cooperatives and its motorcycle-based South American cooperatives.

In sum, whether in terms of value propositions, governance models, economic policy or technology and legal policy, CoopCycle demonstrates a platform cooperative model with transformative potential. Unlike traditional cooperatives, which struggle to scale, CoopCycle has successfully expanded internationally through political lobbying, an international legal toolkit and global coordination. The Latin American cooperatives launched in 2021, and the connections forged along the way with non-governmental organisations, trade unions, financial institutions, local authorities and other socio-economic actors, are important milestones on a roadmap toward building a global anti-capitalist bloc and an anti-hegemonic agenda.

In the future, CoopCycle could evolve into a cooperative incubator, expanding from the food-delivery sector to cross-sector supply chains and forming a broader platform cooperative ecosystem. Interestingly, we are already witnessing CoopCycle gradually moving in this direction, exploring partnerships with like-minded organisations across France.

Author(s)  

Vangelis Papadimitropoulos | Postdoctoral researcher at Panteion University, Athens. He has written extensively on democratic political theory, political economy, platform cooperation and the commons.

Haris Malamdis | Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Athens. His research interests centre on social movements, the commons, and the social and solidarity economy.

Translation: Yuyang

Editor: Tianle