Legal Expert Breaks Down the Social Security Divide Between JD and Meituan

by Posted on

The delivery market clash between JD.com and Meituan is in full swing, with the most conspicuous battleground being the strategic tug-of-war over riders’ social security. On 19 February 2025, JD.com was the first to announce it would cover the full social insurance and housing fund contributions for its full-time riders. Meituan and Ele.me shortly followed with similar commitments. On 21 April, JD.com published a post subtly criticising Meituan over issues including failure to provide social security, forcing riders into exclusive platform contracts, phantom orders, and algorithmic exploitation. Meituan fired back on the same day, retorting that rather than spreading rumours to drive traffic, JD.com ought to honour its own commitments. Then, on 13 May, the State Administration for Market Regulation, alongside four other authorities, summoned JD.com, Meituan, and Ele.me for joint regulatory talks to address the most pressing issues emerging from the current competition in the food delivery sector.

● JD.com and Meituan have been actively trading barbs across their respective promotional channels, drawing in onlookers eager to follow the drama. Image source: Screenshot from a WeChat Official Account
The clash between the two delivery giants has escalated into an open verbal feud, with regulators stepping in to mediate while workers look on, naturally keen to follow the drama. Yet, amidst the clamour of public opinion and corporate PR spin, two riders at a delivery station in Zaozhuang, Shandong—who happened to be brothers-in-law—succumbed to sudden death from extreme fatigue, one after the other. Such tragedies compel us to shift our focus from passive spectators to a more serious discussion and reflection on the urgent matters that truly affect riders’ livelihoods.

I. JD.com vs Meituan: Social Security Schemes Worlds Apart

JD.com’s proposal is straightforward: “cover the full social insurance and housing fund contributions for full-time JD delivery riders, and provide accident insurance alongside health and medical cover for part-time riders.” Crucially, JD will also absorb the cost of the portion normally paid by the riders themselves. Meituan’s approach differs significantly: it offers subsidies for riders’ “flexible employment” insurance. Specifically, “for riders whose monthly income meets the minimum contribution base in their area of employment, and who have satisfied this threshold for at least three of the past six months, Meituan will subsidise 50% of the cost, calculated against the relevant contribution base.”

●The cities currently participating in Meituan’s social security pilot are Quanzhou in Fujian Province and Nantong in Jiangsu Province. Source: Meituan’s official WeChat account

So, where do the two differ?

First, it comes down to whether an employment relationship is recognised. JD’s plan acknowledges an employment relationship between full-time riders and the platform; Meituan’s plan sidesteps the issue: encouraging full-time riders to pay for flexible employment insurance amounts to denying that an employment relationship exists between them and the platform.

Do not underestimate the significance of an employment relationship. With it, riders can legitimately claim more financial benefits, such as statutory redundancy pay, paid annual leave, double compensation for unpaid wages, wages paid during employer-initiated work stoppages, additional income from housing provident fund withdrawals, and unemployment benefits.

Secondly, the two schemes cover different types of insurance, which directly affects the level of protection. JD contributes to the standard “five insurances and one fund” package, covering pension, healthcare (including maternity), unemployment, work-related injuries, and a housing provident fund. Meituan’s subsidised flexible employment insurance, by contrast, only covers the basics: pension and healthcare.

Third, the personal costs for riders vary significantly. In reality, social insurance contributions under a flexible employment arrangement are not any cheaper than those for standard corporate employees. Taking Quanzhou in Fujian province, where Meituan ran its pilot, as an example: in April 2025, with a contribution base of 5,000 RMB, a rider earning a monthly salary of 5,000 RMB would face the following personal costs depending on whether they are classified as a regular employee or a flexible worker:

As the table above shows, under these assumed conditions, JD’s scheme requires riders to contribute just 775 RMB towards the “five insurances and one fund”. Factor in the fact that housing provident fund contributions can be withdrawn as personal income, and a rider’s effective monthly social insurance cost drops to just 525 RMB. Under Meituan’s scheme, by contrast, a full-time rider paying only for pension and healthcare still faces a monthly cost of 1,500 RMB.

Finally, let us consider the benefits themselves.

First, it is clear that JD’s corporate social insurance package covers more types of insurance. Compared with Meituan’s offering, it provides riders with additional access to work-related injury benefits and unemployment benefits.

Second, pension payouts could differ by a factor of dozens. Under JD’s scheme, the personal financial burden on riders is lighter, making long-term contributions far more sustainable and paving the way for them to eventually draw on the standard urban employee pension. Under Meituan’s scheme, the heavy personal costs make it difficult for riders to maintain consistent contributions for the required 15 years. Consequently, they are more likely to skip payments or let their coverage lapse, eventually funneling them into the urban and rural resident pension scheme.

According to academic research, the monthly pension drawn by urban corporate employees in China stands at 30.23 times that of urban and rural residents. To put this into perspective: in 2017, while the average monthly pension for residents was roughly 120 RMB, urban employees received around 3,627.60 RMB.

Overall, then, compared with Meituan’s plan, JD’s scheme recognises the employment relationship with riders, demands lower contributions, covers a broader range of insurance types, and allows housing fund withdrawals to boost take-home pay, making it significantly better value.

When measured against one another, the two schemes are worlds apart for full-time riders.

2. What do riders think about paying for social insurance?

Before the social security schemes of JD.com and Meituan have been closely scrutinised, a voice purporting to ‘speak for’ riders has already surfaced online: in truth, food delivery riders do not actually want to contribute to social security. It is true that social security should not be wielded as a weapon in commercial warfare by either side, and riders’ voices ought to be heard. Yet their genuine views on contributing to social security, and the reasons underpinning them, are in fact highly specific and complex.

● In street interviews with food delivery riders, attitudes are mixed. Some worry that contributions to social insurance will simply be deducted from their take-home pay; others believe it brings greater security to the role; and a third group notes that, at the very least, accessing medical care will become easier. Image source: screenshot from the video programme ‘A Bit of Financial Style’.

“It’s a safety net, of course I’d take it,” rider Xiao Bao said after learning that JD.com would cover the full cost of the ‘five insurances and one fund’ for delivery staff. At 18, he has only been working on a flexible contract with Meituan for six months. He reckons that if he has to contribute a few hundred yuan himself each month, he’ll need to compare the pay rates at both Meituan and JD. “If they cover the social insurance and the wages are comparable, I’ll go with JD.” But he quickly followed up with, “I’m not sure I’ll stay in delivery driving long-term anyway. Would I even be able to use those contributions down the line?” Having left school before finishing high school, he admits he doesn’t fully understand the finer details of the social insurance system.

Thirty-five-year-old Xiao Li has been delivering food in Beijing since 2018 and now works as a dedicated Meituan rider. His delivery volume is consistently high, bringing in a solid income. However, since 2019, the per-delivery rate has fallen sharply. To maintain his earnings now, he barely takes a day off all month and must be on the road for at least 12 hours a day. He doesn’t object to social insurance contributions and thinks they’re a good idea, but his local station has yet to share any news on the matter.

Forty-five-year-old Lao Jia is also a dedicated Meituan rider, having just completed his first year. With a wealth of life experience, he offers considered observations. Previously, he worked his way up from a factory floor operative to workshop supervisor at a state-owned enterprise before being made redundant. He later worked as an SF Express courier until he was dismissed for a workplace error. “When we get older and can’t work anymore, we’ll have to rely on our pensions. The social insurance JD provides might not match the pension benefits of public sector roles, but not contributing at all means having absolutely no safety net.” He knows social insurance is there to look after him, so whether a role includes it is non-negotiable when job-hunting. So why did he join Meituan in the first place? “I was just misled,” he smiled wryly. “The online advert said riders would get social insurance, but we’d have to clock three months first. Turns out, they still haven’t set it up.” Yet, delivery driving is currently one of the few ways to earn a decent wage. With both Lao Jia and his wife working in Beijing, money is always tight, so they’re just making ends meet for now.

“Factory workers and those with secure employment get sick leave or proper time off. For us, those are things we don’t even dare to dream about. That’s a luxury. It’s not just about scraping by; it’s about enjoying life. That’s a luxury.” Fifty-nine-year-old Ele.me rider Lao Li sighed. “JD’s ‘five insurances and one fund’ is an even greater luxury. At nearly sixty, I wouldn’t stand a chance of getting into that team. If only we all had it. In my view, it would be such a generous, wonderful benefit for us.”

● Regardless of age, delivery riders navigate the city streets in a relentless daily routine. Some lack the time or chance to work out the complex social insurance rules, while others, even when they understand the importance of coverage, are forced to settle for less due to the pressures of everyday life. Photography: Zhou Pinglang.
While some might dismiss them as luxuries, these rights and benefits are precisely what countless delivery riders long for. Upon investigation, we found that the factors behind riders’ concerns fall into two main categories: The first is where policies are adequate, but communication falls short. For instance, regarding matters such as the transfer of social security accounts or the eligibility criteria for benefits, the state already has clear solutions in place. Riders’ anxieties stem from a lack of awareness rather than actual systemic flaws; this is largely due to insufficient outreach and explanation by relevant government departments and participating employers. The second category concerns genuine shortcomings within the social security system itself. For example, the structure of individual contributions can indeed reduce workers’ base wages, impose excessive financial burdens, and exacerbate inequalities in pension benefits. However, when confronting these challenges, the correct response should not be to reject the system outright for fear of its flaws, but to foster open dialogue, reform entrenched inefficiencies, and ensure that all workers can benefit from a fairer social security framework.

We must not lose sight of the fundamental purpose of social security: it is designed to shield individuals from bearing personal risk. The modern social security system was pioneered by workers who, crippled by industrial accidents, unemployment, illness, and old age during the early stages of industrialisation, were left unable to earn a living. It was first codified into law in Germany, where the labour movement was particularly strong. On 10 June 1907, US President Theodore Roosevelt noted in a speech that work giving rise to accidents is “performed for the employer, and thus ultimately for the public; it is an intolerable injustice to require the hired worker, along with their spouse and children, to bear the full cost of such losses”. This principle drove a transformation in US law, replacing 19th-century common law with a state-mandated insurance system.

China’s Constitution stipulates that “citizens of the People’s Republic of China have the right to material assistance from the state and society when they are old, ill, or lose the capacity to work.” In essence, when workers who have devoted their lives to societal development—or who have been disabled in the process—can no longer labour to earn a living, society must provide them with the basic material conditions necessary for survival and recovery.

III. Would Meituan incur losses by paying social security contributions for riders?

The fundamental purpose of social security is readily understood in modern society, yet Meituan has effectively normalised the practice of employers failing to make social security contributions for their workers. Even in discussions about social security prompted by JD.com, numerous articles still argue that Meituan’s decision not to cover its delivery riders stems from “sound” economic rationale—specifically, that Meituan is simply unable to afford the cost of making these contributions. On the question of costs, one argument frequently cited by the media is this: Meituan’s (03690.HK) financial reports indicate that in 2023, revenue from delivery services totalled RMB 82.19 billion. While this accounts for 40% of its total core local commerce revenue, delivery-related costs reached RMB 90.74 billion. With Meituan processing 21.9 billion instant delivery transactions in 2023, this implies a loss of roughly RMB 0.39 for every order delivered.

The grievance Meituan wishes to convey to the public is clear: we are already operating at a loss without providing social security for riders; mandating these contributions would surely push us into bankruptcy. But is the situation truly that dire?

A closer look at Meituan’s financial statements reveals that the “delivery service revenue” referred to by Meituan is not the same as the total revenue from its food delivery business. In other words, total revenue from food delivery extends far beyond RMB 82.19 billion.

This is because delivery service revenue primarily comprises the delivery fees shared by consumers and merchants for each transaction. However, on the merchant side, payments to Meituan go far beyond the “fulfilment service fee” (the portion of delivery costs paid by the merchant). Merchants must also pay a “commission” to the platform simply for operating a food delivery service.

● Revenue, costs, and profitability across Meituan’s business segments for the full year of 2023. Source: Screenshot from Meituan’s 2023 Annual Report.

In fact, prior to 2021, Meituan classified both the “fulfilment fee” and the “commission” under the unified term “platform service fee”. By doing so, even Meituan itself implicitly treated both as revenue generated by its food delivery operations.

● A comparison of Meituan Food Delivery’s merchant service fee model before and after the 2021 fee reform. Source: Meituan’s official website.
Perhaps in response to public criticism over the high commission rates Meituan charges catering merchants, the company restructured its fee model in 2021. It narrowed the definition of “commission” from the total fees levied on merchants down to “technology service fees” alone, while stripping “delivery fees” out as a separate line item. Consequently, the commission rate magically plummeted from over twenty per cent to just above six per cent. This semantic sleight of hand also ‘inadvertently’ misled the media and the public, conflating revenue from delivery operations with the total income of the food delivery business and conveniently overlooking commissions, thereby framing the delivery sector as a “loss-making” venture. When commissions are factored in, along with the fees merchants pay for boosted search visibility on the platform (which forms part of Meituan’s “online marketing services” revenue), the company’s food delivery business is clearly profitable. This is to say nothing of the immense user retention and platform traffic generated by the delivery service—benefits that cannot simply be reduced to delivery revenue alone.

Given this, claims that Meituan’s food delivery business operates at a loss are simply unfounded and cannot justify the company’s refusal to contribute to riders’ social security.

Furthermore, a report by Southern Weekly ran the numbers: providing social security for ten million riders would add 21.6 billion yuan to Meituan’s costs. Given that the company’s net profit for 2023 stood at 23.25 billion yuan, Meituan’s reluctance to cover riders’ social security does rest on a seemingly “sound” economic rationale.

Yet a closer look at Meituan’s financial statements reveals that a substantial portion of its overall profits is funneled into new ventures—such as Xiaoxiang Supermarket, Meituan Instashopping, and Meituan Select—in pursuit of further market expansion. Between 2021 and 2023, these new initiatives posted losses of 38.4 billion, 28.4 billion, and 20.2 billion yuan respectively. Despite the sustained losses, Meituan never slowed its expansion. By 2024, losses in these new segments had narrowed to 7.3 billion yuan, signalling that the expansion strategy was beginning to bear fruit.

Moreover, research and development of emerging technologies, including drones and autonomous delivery vehicles, represents another major drain on Meituan’s capital. In 2024 alone, the company’s R&D expenditure reached 21.1 billion yuan.

These figures alone are more than sufficient to cover the projected 21.6 billion yuan cost of social security contributions. In reality, they point to a different truth: the expansion of Meituan’s “commercial-technological” empire has been built upon the sacrifice of riders’ rightful social security entitlements.

IV.Will Contributing to Riders’ Social Security Become the New Normal?

On 24 February 2025, addressing widespread concerns among delivery riders that paying into social security would reduce their take-home pay, JD officially reiterated that it would bear the full cost of social security contributions for its riders. While this may appear to be a charitable act going beyond statutory obligations, Karl Marx articulated this principle long ago in his *Critique of the Gotha Programme*. He maintained that in any progressive society, “reserve or insurance funds to cover accidents, natural disasters, and so forth,” as well as “funds set aside for those who have lost the capacity to work,” should be drawn from the total social surplus product—effectively, from corporate profits. In short, the cost of social security for the working population ought to be covered entirely by corporate profits and must never be deducted from employees’ wages.

● Source: Screenshot from the “National Laws and Regulations Database” website
The principle was already upheld in China’s *Regulations on Labour Insurance of Chinese Workers*, promulgated in 1951. A system designed in this way would entirely address delivery riders’ primary concern regarding social security contributions: namely, that bearing these costs would directly cut into their earnings and take-home pay. Therefore, should JD.com genuinely cover the full cost of statutory social security for its full-time riders, the scheme itself is certainly commendable. Yet the crucial question remains: is this merely a temporary shift brought about by competitive pressure breaking a market monopoly, or does it represent a sustainable, long-term norm?

Numerous business analyses point out that the relentless expansion of the commercial empires that are Meituan and JD.com has led to their operations increasingly converging and overlapping within the quick-commerce market. It is precisely under this heightened competitive pressure that the issue of social security contributions for delivery riders has begun to shift.

“Zhongbaozai Xiaoyu,” a Bilibili creator who works as an Ele.me delivery rider, has noted that rider conditions have noticeably improved since JD.com entered the delivery market. Incentive programmes have multiplied. Riders now receive weather-related allowances, and delivery windows are extended during severe conditions—benefits that, as he puts it, were “unheard of” in the past.

Yet we must not forget that back in 2015, when Baidu Waimai, Koudai, and Ele.me were still locked in fierce competition with Meituan, per-order rates and subsidy benefits across all platforms were significantly more generous than they are today. All of that evaporated once Meituan consolidated its market dominance.

Is history doomed to repeat itself? We must monitor these developments with sustained vigilance. For now, at least, it has certainly disrupted the entrenched expectation that platforms bear no responsibility for riders’ social security. We should seize this moment to reflect on what kind of social protection framework is truly needed—not just for delivery riders, but for platform workers and the wider workforce alike.

References
Notice on Adjusting the Upper and Lower Limits of the Contribution Base for Urban Employee Basic Pension Insurance in 2024 (Fujian Ren She Wen [2024] No. 76); Notice on Announcing the Pension Calculation Base for Urban Employee Basic Pension Insurance in 2024 and Related Matters (Fujian Ren She Wen [2024] No. 139); Notice on Adjusting the Lower Limit of the Contribution Base for Enterprise Employee Basic Pension Insurance in 2024 (Fujian Ren She Wen [2023] No. 160); Notice on Adjusting the Upper and Lower Limits of the Contribution Base for Work-Related Injury Insurance in 2024 (Fujian Ren She Wen [2024] No. 81); Notice on Adjusting the Upper and Lower Limits of the Contribution Base for Urban Employee Basic Medical Insurance in 2024 (Fujian Yi Bao [2024] No. 53) Notice on Printing and Distributing the Comprehensive Work Plan for Reducing Social Insurance Premium Rates in Fujian Province (Fujian Zheng Ban [2019] No. 29); Notice on Adjusting the Maximum and Minimum Contribution Wage Bases for 2021 and Related Matters (Fujian Yi Bao Zhong Xin Wen [2021] No. 44)

Notice on Matters Concerning the Premium Rate Policies for Unemployment Insurance and Work-Related Injury Insurance (Fujian Ren She Wen [2023] No. 48)

Notice on Adjusting the Work-Related Injury Insurance Premium Rate Policy (MoHRSS Fa [2015] No. 71); Notice on Matters Concerning the Premium Rate Policies for Unemployment Insurance and Work-Related Injury Insurance (Fujian Ren She Wen [2023] No. 48); Implementation Opinions on Provincial-Level Pooling for Work-Related Injury Insurance in Fujian Province. According to our research, the registration authorities classify platform delivery riders under the resident services sector, with a work-related injury insurance premium rate of 0.4%.

Quanzhou Municipal Housing Provident Fund Management Regulations

[Sweden] Edward Palmer, Wang Xinmei, Zhan Peng, “Integrated Urban–Rural Public Pensions in China: Building a Virtuous Cycle Between Employee and Resident Schemes”, China Social Security Review, 15 January 2022, Vol. 6, No. 1

Yang Yansui, Qiu Yan, “40 Years of Reform and Opening-Up: From ‘Retirement Pay’ to ‘Pension’”, China Human Resources and Social Security, No. 12, 2018.

John Fabian Witt (author), Tian Lei (translator), The Accidental Republic: Crippled Workers, Destitute Widows, and the Reconstruction of American Law, 1st ed., March 2016, China University of Political Science and Law Press.

Yang Yansui, Qiu Yan, “40 Years of Reform and Opening-Up: From ‘Retirement Pay’ to ‘Pension’”, China Human Resources and Social Security, No. 12, 2018.

(Meituan News: “Meituan to Subsidise Pension Insurance for Riders, Pilot Programme Launches Immediately”)

“In China, the benefit disparity within the employee pension scheme between government/public institutions and enterprises stands at 2.27 times.” [Sweden] Edward Palmer, Wang Xinmei, Zhan Peng, “Integrated Urban–Rural Public Pensions in China: Building a Virtuous Cycle Between Employee and Resident Schemes”, China Social Security Review, 15 January 2022, Vol. 6, No. 1

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

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

How Much Overlap is There Between Meituan and JD.com? | Zhibo Weekly https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/tDlqxcDnBz9DVbnjemztdw

Foodthink Author
Hao Zhengxin
Legal counsel at Guan Nan Law Firm, Beijing. Specialises in labour disputes, having previously handled cases such as the sudden death of a Muyuan employee, and contributes to research on occupational injury protection for workers in new forms of employment.

 

 

Editor: Yu Yang

 

Published by Foodthink