Legal Expert Breaks Down Social Security Scheme Differences Between JD and Meituan

by Posted on

JD and Meituan are locked in a fierce battle for the food delivery market, with the most striking point of contention being the dispute over riders’ social security. On 19 February 2025, JD took the lead by announcing it would pay the “Five Insurances and one Housing Fund” for full-time riders; Meituan and Ele.me subsequently announced they would also provide social security for their riders. On 21 April, JD published an article subtly mocking Meituan, citing issues such as “failure to pay social security”, “forcing riders to choose one platform over another”, “ghost delivery”, and “algorithmic exploitation”. On the same day, Meituan responded: “Rather than spreading rumours to drive traffic, it would be better to honour your promises.” On 13 May, five departments, including the State Administration for Market Regulation, jointly summoned platform companies including JD, Meituan, and Ele.me to address prominent issues in current food delivery industry competition.

● JD and Meituan have been actively clashing through their respective promotional channels, attracting the public to watch the drama unfold. Source: Screenshot from WeChat official account
As two giants clash, with both sides openly fighting and the state stepping in to mediate, the workforce is naturally content to watch the drama. However, while public opinion and corporate PR rhetoric are reaching a fever pitch, two riders who are brothers-in-law at a delivery station in Zaozhuang, Shandong, have died one after the other from sudden death due to exhaustion. Such tragedies force us to move beyond mere spectatorship and engage in a more serious discussion and reflection on the urgent issues that truly affect the survival and interests of riders.

I. JD vs Meituan: A “World of Difference” in Social Security Schemes

JD’s scheme is as follows: “Pay the Five Insurances and one Housing Fund for full-time JD delivery riders, and provide accident and health insurance for part-time riders”, while also covering the costs that the rider would normally contribute personally. Meituan’s scheme involves subsidising “flexible employment” insurance for riders: “For riders whose monthly income reaches the lower limit of the relevant payment base in their place of employment, and who have met this condition for three of the last six months, Meituan will subsidise 50% of the costs based on that payment base.”

● Currently, the Meituan social security pilots are being implemented in two districts: Quanzhou in Fujian and Nantong in Jiangsu. Source: Meituan official WeChat account

So, where exactly is the difference between the two?

Firstly, it comes down to whether an employment relationship is recognised. JD’s scheme recognises that an employment relationship exists between full-time riders and the platform; Meituan’s scheme avoids the issue of employment relationships: supporting full-time riders in paying for flexible employment insurance is effectively a denial of an employment relationship between the full-time rider and the platform.

One should not underestimate the importance of an employment relationship. Having one means the rider can “get” more money, such as economic compensation upon termination of employment, paid annual leave, double penalties for unpaid wages, normal salary payments during company shutdowns, increased income through Housing Provident Fund withdrawals, and unemployment benefits…

Secondly, the number of insurance types included in the two schemes differs, leading to different levels of protection. JD’s “Five Insurances and one Housing Fund” include old-age, medical (including maternity), unemployment, work-related injury, and the Housing Provident Fund. Meituan’s subsidised flexible employment insurance only covers basic insurance—old-age and medical.

Thirdly, the personal cost to the rider differs. In reality, the cost of social security for flexible employment is not less than that paid by corporate employees. Taking Quanzhou, Fujian—where Meituan is running a pilot—as an example: in April 2025, with a payment base of 5,000 yuan, the personal costs for a rider with a monthly salary of 5,000 yuan to be covered as an employee versus as a flexible worker are as follows:

As can be seen from the table above, under these assumed conditions, in JD’s scheme, the “Five Insurances and one Housing Fund” cost the rider only 775 yuan. Furthermore, considering that the personal contribution to the Housing Provident Fund can be withdrawn as personal income, the actual monthly social security cost to the rider is only 525 yuan. Under Meituan’s scheme, however, a full-time rider paying only old-age and medical insurance faces a monthly cost of 1,500 yuan.

Finally, there is the matter of benefits.

Firstly, it is obvious that JD’s employee social security scheme covers more types of insurance, allowing riders to enjoy additional work-related injury and unemployment benefits compared to Meituan’s scheme.

Secondly, the difference in pension benefits could be tenfold or more. In JD’s scheme, the personal burden on the rider is lower, making it more likely they can maintain payments over the long term and eventually enjoy the urban employee pension. In Meituan’s scheme, the personal burden is heavy, making it difficult to persist for 15 years; riders are more likely to opt out or have gaps in payment, eventually transferring into the urban and rural resident insurance.

According to statistics from scholars, the monthly pension received by urban corporate employees in China is 30.23 times that of urban and rural residents. For example, in 2017, while the monthly pension for urban and rural residents was around 120 yuan, the monthly pension for urban employees was approximately 3,627.6 yuan.

Therefore, overall, compared to Meituan’s scheme, JD’s scheme recognises the employment relationship, has lower payment costs, provides more insurance coverage, and increases rider income through Housing Provident Fund withdrawals, offering far better value for money.

Comparing the two, for a full-time rider, the difference between JD and Meituan’s schemes can be described as a “world of difference”!

II. How do riders view social security payments?

Before the social security schemes of JD and Meituan were carefully scrutinised, a voice claiming to “represent” riders had already emerged online: the idea that food delivery riders do not actually want to pay into social security. Indeed, the topic of social security should not become a weapon in a corporate war; the voices of the riders should be heard more clearly. However, their true thoughts on social security payments, and the reasons behind them, are actually very specific and complex.

● During street interviews, some delivery riders expressed concerns that “the cost will ultimately be borne by the workers,” fearing that social security contributions would reduce their take-home pay. Others felt that such contributions would make their jobs more secure, while some believed it would at least make accessing medical care easier than before. Image source: Screenshot from “Lai Dian Cai Jing Fan Er” video

“It’s a safety net; of course I want it.” This was the response from Xiao Bao, an 18-year-old who has spent six months working for Meituan Crowdsourcing, after learning that JD.com intends to provide the “five insurances and one housing fund” for its riders free of charge. He believes that if he had to pay several hundred yuan a month out of his own pocket, he would have to compare the wages offered by both Meituan and JD.com. “If the pay is similar and social security is included, I’ll work for JD.” However, Xiao Bao quickly followed up with a question: “I might not do this as a career long-term; will I still be able to use the benefits later?” Having not finished high school, he does not fully understand the specifics of social security policy.

Xiao Li, 35, has been delivering food in Beijing since 2018 and is currently a dedicated Meituan rider. Because his order volume is high, his income is relatively strong. However, since 2019, the per-order rate has dropped significantly. To maintain a high income now, he rarely takes a day off, working at least 12 hours a day. He is not opposed to social security and considers it a good thing, but his local hub has yet to provide any updates.

Lao Jia, 45, is also a dedicated Meituan rider who has just completed his first year. With extensive life experience, he holds a more nuanced view. He previously rose from a frontline worker to a workshop director at a state-owned factory, and after being made redundant, worked as a SF Express courier before being dismissed for a mistake. “When I’m old and can’t work anymore, I’ll have to rely on a pension. The social security JD provides might not be as generous as that of public institutions, but having nothing at all means having no security.” He understands that social security is a personal safeguard, making it a prerequisite for any job he seeks. Why, then, did he join Meituan? “I was cheated!” he laughed helplessly. “The online recruitment ad said riders could get social security after three months, but it’s still not been provided.” Currently, however, delivery work is one of the few options with a decent income. Both Lao Jia and his wife work in Beijing, and with money tight, they have no choice but to make do for now.

“Those factory workers or people with professional security have sick leave or time to rest—things we wouldn’t dare dream of. That’s a luxury. Not just to survive, but to actually enjoy life—that’s the luxury,” sighed Lao Li, a 59-year-old Ele.me rider. “JD’s ‘five insurances and one housing fund’ is even more of a luxury. I’m nearly 60; I can’t join that team anymore. It would be wonderful if everyone had it; I think it’s an incredibly generous benefit for us.”

● Regardless of age, delivery riders spend their days weaving through the city in a blur of activity. Some have neither the time nor the opportunity to understand the “cumbersome” social security policies; others, even while knowing its importance, are forced by the pressures of reality to settle for less. Photography: Zhou Pinglang
While they may call it a “luxury,” these rights and benefits are exactly what many delivery riders crave. Upon closer look, we found that the factors causing rider anxiety generally fall into two categories: first, policies exist, but communication is lacking. For instance, the state already has clear solutions regarding the transfer of social security and the criteria for receiving benefits. The riders’ concerns stem from a lack of understanding, caused by poor explanation and promotion from government departments and participating companies, rather than a failure of the policies themselves. The second category involves inherent flaws in the social security system, such as the design of individual contributions, which indeed reduces the basic take-home pay of workers and places a heavy burden on them, as well as imbalances in pension benefits. However, the correct response to these problems is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but to encourage discussion and reform systemic failings so that all workers can enjoy fairer social security treatment.

We must not forget the fundamental purpose of social security: to replace individual risk-bearing. The modern social security system was forged by workers who suffered from industrial accidents, unemployment, illness, and old age during the early stages of industrialisation, leaving them unable to earn a living. It was first established by law in Germany, where the labour movement was most developed. On 10 June 1907, US President Roosevelt mentioned in a speech that work that caused accidents was “done for the employer, and therefore ultimately for the public; to let the employed worker and his wife and children bear the entire loss is an unacceptable injustice.” This advocacy led to a transformation of US law, replacing 19th-century common law with a government-mandated insurance system.

China’s Constitution stipulates that “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China have the right to receive material assistance from the state and society in old age, in sickness or in the event of loss of ability to work.” In other words, workers who have contributed their lives—or even their health—to social construction should be provided with the basic material conditions for survival and recovery when they can no longer work for a wage.

III. Would Paying Social Security for Riders Make Meituan Loss-Making?

The fundamental purpose of social security seems easy to understand in modern society, yet Meituan has made it the norm for companies not to provide these contributions for their workers. Even within the discussions on social security sparked by JD.com, several articles still argue that Meituan’s failure to provide social security for riders is based on “rational” economic factors—namely, that Meituan is effectively unable to bear the cost. Regarding the cost issue, a widely cited claim in the media is that Meituan’s (03690.HK) financial reports show that in 2023, delivery service revenue was 82.19 billion yuan. Although this accounted for 40% of Meituan’s total core local commerce revenue, delivery-related costs reached 90.74 billion yuan. With 21.9 billion instant delivery transactions in 2023, this implies that Meituan lost 0.39 yuan on every single delivery.

The grievance Meituan wishes to publicise is this: if I’m already losing money without paying social security for riders, wouldn’t paying it lead to bankruptcy?

But is this truly the case?

Looking closely at Meituan’s financial reports, we discover that the “delivery service revenue” cited by Meituan is not equivalent to the total revenue of the food delivery business. In other words, the overall revenue from the food delivery business is far higher than 82.19 billion yuan.

This is because delivery service revenue consists primarily of the delivery fees paid jointly by consumers and merchants for each transaction. However, merchants pay Meituan far more than just the “fulfilment service fee” (the merchant’s portion of the delivery cost); they also pay “commissions” that the platform requires for the merchant to conduct food delivery business.

● Revenue, costs, and profitability of Meituan’s various business segments for the full year 2023. Image source: Screenshot from “Meituan 2023 Financial Report”

In fact, prior to 2021, Meituan grouped “fulfilment service fees” and “commissions” together under the term “platform service fees,” meaning that even Meituan itself implicitly acknowledged that both were revenues generated by the food delivery business.

● Comparison of Meituan’s merchant service fee collection models before and after the 2021 fee structure reform. Image source: Meituan official website
Perhaps in an attempt to counter public criticism regarding the excessive commission rates charged to catering merchants, Meituan implemented a rate reform in 2021. This narrowed the definition of ‘commission’—previously the total fees charged to merchants—to merely ‘technical service fees’, while ‘delivery fees’ were stripped out as a separate category. Consequently, the commission rate miraculously plummeted from over 20% to just 6% odd. This semantic game also acted as a ‘smoke screen’ for the media and the public, leading them to mistakenly equate delivery service revenue with the total revenue of the food delivery business. By ignoring the existence of commissions, the delivery business was framed as a ‘loss-making’ venture. In reality, if commissions are included, along with the fees merchants pay for increased visibility through platform search rankings (part of Meituan’s ‘online marketing services’ revenue), the overall food delivery business is naturally profitable. This is to say nothing of the immense user stickiness and traffic that food delivery brings to the entire platform—benefits that cannot be reduced to simple delivery revenue.

Consequently, claiming that Meituan’s food delivery business is loss-making is simply factually incorrect and cannot serve as a justification for failing to provide social security.

Furthermore, *Southern Weekly* once conducted a calculation in a report, suggesting that if Meituan provided social security for 10 million riders, costs would increase by 21.6 billion yuan. Given that Meituan’s total profit for 2023 was 23.25 billion yuan, this would imply there are still ‘legitimate’ economic reasons for its resistance.

However, a closer reading of Meituan’s financial reports reveals that a substantial portion of its overall profit is diverted into investments in new business segments, such as Xiaoxiang Supermarket, Meituan Instashopping, and Meituan Select, with the aim of further market expansion. Between 2021 and 2023, these new businesses recorded losses of 38.4 billion, 28.4 billion, and 20.2 billion yuan, respectively. Despite these ongoing losses, Meituan has not slowed its expansion. By 2024, losses in these new segments narrowed to 7.3 billion yuan, suggesting the expansion strategy is beginning to bear fruit.

Additionally, R&D for new technologies, such as drones and autonomous delivery vehicles, is a primary area of capital investment; in 2024, Meituan’s R&D expenditure reached 21.1 billion yuan.

These sums are surely more than enough to cover the 21.6 billion yuan cost of social security contributions. In fact, this proves the opposite truth: the expansion of Meituan’s ‘business-technology’ empire has been built upon the sacrifice of the riders’ rightful social security entitlements.

IV.Will providing social security for riders become the norm?

On 24 February 2025, addressing the widespread concern among riders that contributing to social security would reduce their take-home pay, JD officially announced once again that it would bear the full cost of the “five insurances and one housing fund” for delivery riders. While this may appear to be an act of generosity beyond legal obligations, Karl Marx had already explained in his *Critique of the Gotha Programme* that in a future society, “reserve funds or insurance funds to cover accidents, natural disasters, etc.” and “funds for those who have lost their capacity to work” should be drawn from the total social surplus product—that is, from corporate profits. In other words, the cost of social security for all workers in society should be fully funded by corporate profits, rather than being deducted from employees’ wages.

●Source: Screenshot from the “National Laws and Regulations Database” website
The *Labour Insurance Regulations of the People’s Republic of China*, promulgated in 1951, put this principle into practice. Such a system design is fully capable of resolving the primary concern of riders regarding social security contributions: the fear that paying into the system reduces their actual income and lowers their wages. Therefore, if JD truly bears the total social security costs for full-time riders, this scheme itself is certainly worth encouraging. However, we must ask: is this a temporary state arising from corporate competition breaking an industry monopoly, or is it a sustainable new norm?

Several business reports have analysed that the continuous expansion of the two commercial empires, Meituan and JD, has led to an increasing intersection and overlap of their operations within the instant retail market. It is against this competitive backdrop that the issue of social security contributions for riders has seen new developments.

“Crowdsource Boy Xiaoyu”, a Bilibili content creator and Ele.me rider, observed that since JD Food entered the competition, treatment of riders has noticeably improved. There are more incentive schemes, and in adverse weather, riders not only receive subsidies but also benefit from extended delivery windows—something that was “unprecedented” in the past.

However, we must not forget that in 2015, when Baidu Waimai, Koubei Waimai, and Ele.me were still competing fiercely with Meituan, the per-delivery rates and subsidies for riders across all platforms were far superior to what they are now; all of which vanished once Meituan achieved its monopoly.

Will history repeat itself? We need to observe these current changes continuously and cautiously. At the very least, it has for now broken the “norm” where platforms felt no need to provide social security for riders. We can use this opportunity to reflect on what kind of social security model is truly needed for riders, and indeed, for wage earners in a broader sense.

References
“Notice of the Fujian Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security, the Fujian Provincial Department of Finance, and the Fujian Provincial Tax Service of the State Taxation Administration on Adjusting the Upper and Lower Limits of the 2024 Basic Pension Insurance Contribution Base for Employees” (Min Ren She Wen [2024] No. 76); “Notice of the Fujian Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security, the Fujian Provincial Department of Finance, and the Fujian Provincial Tax Service of the State Taxation Administration on the Announcement of the 2024 Calculation Base for Urban Employee Basic Pension Insurance and Other Related Matters” (Min Ren She Wen [2024] No. 139); “Notice of the Fujian Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security, the Fujian Provincial Department of Finance, and the Fujian Provincial Tax Service of the State Taxation Administration on Adjusting the Lower Limit of the 2024 Basic Pension Insurance Contribution Base for Corporate Employees” (Min Ren She Wen [2023] No. 160); “Notice of the Fujian Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security, the Fujian Provincial Department of Finance, and the Fujian Provincial Tax Service of the State Taxation Administration on Adjusting the Upper and Lower Limits of the 2024 Work-Related Injury Insurance Contribution Base” (Min Ren She Wen [2024] No. 81); “Notice of the Fujian Provincial Healthcare Security Administration on Adjusting the Upper and Lower Limits of the 2024 Employee Medical Insurance Contribution Base” (Min Yi Bao [2024] No. 53); “Notice of the General Office of the Fujian Provincial People’s Government on Printing and Distributing the Comprehensive Work Plan for Reducing Social Insurance Contribution Rates in Fujian Province” (Min Zheng Ban [2019] No. 29); “Notice of the Fujian Provincial Medical Insurance Fund Centre on Adjusting the Maximum and Minimum Contribution Wage Bases for 2021 and Other Related Work” (Min Yi Bao Zhong Xin Wen [2021] No. 44)

“Notice of the Fujian Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security, the Fujian Provincial Department of Finance, and the Fujian Provincial Tax Service of the State Taxation Administration on Issues Concerning Unemployment Insurance and Work-Related Injury Insurance Rate Policies” (Min Ren She Wen [2023] No. 48)

“Notice on Adjusting Work-Related Injury Insurance Rate Policies” (Ren She Bu Fa [2015] No. 71); “Notice of the Fujian Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security, the Fujian Provincial Department of Finance, and the Fujian Provincial Tax Service of the State Taxation Administration on Issues Concerning Unemployment Insurance and Work-Related Injury Insurance Rate Policies” (Min Ren She Wen [2023] No. 48); “Implementation Opinions on the Provincial Integration of Work-Related Injury Insurance in Fujian Province”. According to findings, registration authorities classify platform delivery riders under the residential service industry, with a work-related injury insurance rate of 0.4%.

“Quanzhou Housing Provident Fund Management Regulations”

Edward Palmer (Sweden), Wang Xinmei, Zhan Peng, “Public Pensions for Urban-Rural Integration in China: Constructing a Virtuous Cycle Between Employee Insurance and Resident Insurance”, *Social Security Review*, 15 January 2022, Vol. 6, No. 1

Yang Yan-sui, Qiu Yan, “40 Years of Reform and Opening-up: From ‘Retirement Pay’ to ‘Pensions'”, *China Human Resources and Social Security*, 2018, Issue 12.

John Fabian Witt (USA), translated by Tian Lei, 1st Edition, March 2016, *The Republic of Accidents: Disabled Workers, Poor Widows, and the Remaking of American Law*, China University of Political Science and Law Press.

Yang Yan-sui, Qiu Yan, “40 Years of Reform and Opening-up: From ‘Retirement Pay’ to ‘Pensions'”, *China Human Resources and Social Security*, 2018, Issue 12.

(Meituan MEITUAN “Meituan to Subsidise Pension Insurance for Riders, Pilot Starts Today”)

“The disparity in treatment between government institutions and enterprises within employee insurance in China is 2.27 times”. Edward Palmer (Sweden), Wang Xinmei, Zhan Peng, “Public Pensions for Urban-Rural Integration in China: Constructing a Virtuous Cycle Between Employee Insurance and Resident Insurance”, *Social Security Review*, 15 January 2022, Vol. 6, No. 1

Meituan Financial Reports 2021-2024, https://www.meituan.com/investor/reports

What is the actual commission rate of Meituan Waimai? https://www.meituan.com/news/NN241225051008799

How much overlap is there between Meituan and JD? | Narrowcast Weekly https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/tDlqxcDnBz9DVbnjemztdw

Foodthink Author
Hao Zhengxin
Lawyer at Beijing Guannan Law Firm, specialising in labour disputes. He has represented clients in cases such as the Muyuan employee sudden death case and has participated in research regarding occupational injury protection for workers in new forms of employment.

 

 

Editor: Yu Yang

 

Published by Foodthink