How Can a French Delivery Platform Overturn Global Platform Capitalism?

Foodthink Says

Yet beyond criticism, can we imagine an alternative model of platform? What would such a platform look like? Who would be the owner? How would algorithms be designed and governed? Would riders still be monitored by algorithms? Would they be entitled to a minimum wage? Could they enjoy paid leave?

On 24 November, four Chinese government departments jointly launched a special campaign under the “Qinglang” (Clear and Bright) initiative to address typical problems with online platform algorithms, targeting key issues such as the blind pursuit of profit at the expense of workers in new forms of employment, the use of algorithms and big data to exploit loyal customers, and the failure of algorithms to provide services that uplift and benefit users, thereby infringing on their legitimate rights.

Foodthink hopes that by introducing CoopCycle, a French delivery platform that runs counter to platform capitalism, readers may be inspired to envision a brighter picture of the information society.

This article was first published in the international journal of critical communication studies tripleC under the original title “The Transformative Potential of Platform Cooperativism: A Case Study of CoopCycle”. Foodthink has obtained the author’s permission to translate the article, which is presented below in 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 marries the principles of the traditional cooperative with algorithmic management, enshrines collective ownership of the means of production, and operates democratically on the principle of “one person, one vote”.

II. “You Can Only Make Money by Riding a Bike”

The founding team was made up of activists dedicated to opposing the economic and organisational models of foodtech platforms such as Deliveroo. These profit-driven foodtech platforms use venture capital and algorithmic management to maximise shareholder returns through practices such as monetising data and transferring the risk of unemployment. In 2017, mainstream delivery platforms such as Take Eat Easy and Deliveroo either collapsed or abruptly withdrew from local markets. CoopCycle was born in response to this crisis.

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 cooperatives, aiming to solve the prohibitive cost of building a delivery app from scratch.

CoopCycle’s software is designed on an anti-capitalist model, built upon collective ownership of the means of production, democratic decision-making and the sharing of value among workers. Workers in the cooperative alliance are paid hourly and enjoy the benefits of secure employment, including a minimum wage, unemployment insurance, paid leave, sick leave, a pension and health insurance. As they put it: “Money should not breed money. All profits should flow to the workers. You can only make money by riding a bike.”

III. We Would Rather Talk More with Riders

CoopCycle provides management training services to help new cooperative members in each country familiarise themselves with the software’s features and day-to-day operations. Software manuals and business plans help riders navigate the obstacles and conflicts that come with collective ownership. As one interviewee put it: “The software is our flagship, and we invite cooperatives to use it. But after that, we also provide management training to help cooperatives develop a business model, find new restaurants, new customers – it’s a complete service package.”

The cooperatives respect and support local economic and cultural customs, in contrast to the parasitic nature of platform capitalism. They adopt a horizontal organisational model that affords riders care and dignity and earns them friendlier treatment from customers. Compared with platforms such as Deliveroo, riders can refuse assignments without it affecting their income or contractual status.

CoopCycle’s software neither implements dynamic pricing nor gamification or habit-forming design. The geolocation tracking feature is not used to monitor workers or enforce algorithmic management. CoopCycle does not use a rating system either; the cooperatives prefer to follow internal qualitative processes to assess riders’ performance. As one manager put it: “We would rather talk more with our riders. What do you think is good work? What are you good at? What do you think is the reason you do it so well? What things don’t you do well? How can we improve on those?”

Moreover, many cooperative members are staunch opponents of electric bicycles or motorcycles. By choosing the bicycle as its mode of transport, CoopCycle advocates a more ecological approach to reducing carbon emissions. Yet CoopCycle’s anti-capitalist mission would seem to conflict with its partnerships with profit-oriented businesses such as supermarkets, retailers and restaurants. Some companies frequently use cycle-delivery services as a form of “greenwashing”. Yet the law 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 to work with companies that share their values of fairness and sustainability, including environmentally friendly businesses, zero-waste restaurants, family-run social enterprises, associations, hospitals and schools – institutions that together form a local economy network.

CoopCycle’s vision for the future is to further develop the software and specialise in political advocacy to grow the cooperative economy in France and beyond. They do not believe the hegemony of the foodtech giants can be overturned overnight. Rather, they envision occupying a niche in long-term sustainable socio-economic activity, thereby posing a threat to platform capitalism.

IV. Decentralised Governance

As an alliance, CoopCycle balances centralisation and decentralisation. Centralisation drives the development of large-scale software (the backend), IT support, management training, skills training, collective bargaining, major commercial contracts, API connections and political advocacy. Decentralisation encompasses the self-organisation of each member cooperative, the customisation of software, and the right to determine one’s own marketing and pricing strategy.

Unlike Deliveroo, UberEat and Wolt, which concentrate control over user data in a single entity, CoopCycle’s decentralised software logic means there is no central body: local cooperatives run and manage applications on their own servers or infrastructure. As a result, there is no algorithmic monitoring and no control over how local cooperatives organise their work, nor any surveillance of riders themselves.

This also means that data generated by platform operations is hosted on local cooperatives’ servers; the cooperatives and their riders co-own the platforms they use to organise their work and the data produced in the process. The decentralised digital infrastructure is fully transparent and visible to its users.

The rules for democratic decision-making encompass both centralised governance and decentralised governance . The cooperative principle of “one person, one vote” applies to the alliance’s annual general meeting (each cooperative has one vote, regardless of size or turnover) as well as to each member cooperative’s monthly assembly. At the alliance’s annual general meeting, cooperative 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 assembly, members discuss task allocation, shift rosters, business models, distribution of funds, points of conflict, and paid versus unpaid work.

However, CoopCycle’s expansion into other countries has affected the democratisation process. As one interviewee put it: “We’ve become too big to be fully democratic. Too many cities, too many projects – there simply isn’t enough time left for people.” To address this, the alliance added an extra administrative layer: a board of directors, elected by the assembly, to represent the member cooperatives. Board members manage day-to-day operational processes at the alliance level.

V. Surviving in Competition

Half of CoopCycle’s revenue comes from annual contributions that cooperative members pay to the alliance, representing approximately 2–2.5% of the value added generated by each cooperative, with a minimum of €500 per year (equivalent to 3,802 yuan). After debating various proposals at the annual general meeting, the alliance ultimately settled on this figure and put it to a vote. Behind the relatively low contribution rate lies the alliance’s political goal of helping cooperatives get up and running first.

Intense competition, low prices and squeezed profit margins are hallmarks of the food-delivery industry, yet during the pandemic CoopCycle completed 100,000 deliveries with a turnover of €3.5 million (equivalent to 26,614,400 yuan). Some restaurants prefer to work with CoopCycle because its commission rate is lower (around 20%) compared with the 30% charged by platform capitalism. CoopCycle’s lower commission reduces prices for both restaurants and customers, laying the groundwork for a democratised pricing mechanism.

They also face unfair competition: by using gig workers to cut costs and having access to fundraising channels, profit-driven platforms can charge extremely low prices and afford to hire more workers, seizing a larger market share and effectively strangling competition (a winner-takes-all strategy). By contrast, platform cooperatives bear many additional costs because they must pay taxes and workers’ welfare, including social security, insurance, and paid sick and holiday leave. Moreover, amid inflationary pressures and a cost-of-living crisis, demand for food delivery is slowing.

To adapt to this, CoopCycle has ventured into last-mile rapid delivery, a service that many cities, for environmental reasons, now outsource to cooperatives. This gives CoopCycle an opportunity to leverage the decentralised network of local businesses, attracting new customers and cooperative members.

VI. Coopyleft – True Open Sharing

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

To use CoopCycle’s software code, one must obtain a Coopyleft licence – a more restrictive variant of copyleft (a licensing framework more open and sharing-oriented than copyright). This licence restricts the commercial use of the software to cooperatives and other qualifying economies. The alliance acts as a gatekeeper for the licence, enabling member cooperatives to lower costs by pooling technical and managerial resources, knowledge and services – including platform software, mobile applications, training materials, marketing, legal support, and so on.

CoopCycle’s alliance structure carries both strengths and limitations. On the one hand, it builds collective bargaining capacity and extends the reach of the platform cooperativism framework, thereby enabling the alliance to achieve sustainability on both social and economic levels. On the other hand, it can sometimes constrain prospective members who find it difficult to adhere to the alliance’s principles or to adapt with sufficient flexibility. Recently, the alliance reached a compromise between its bicycle-based European cooperatives and its motorcycle-based South American cooperatives.

In sum, whether in terms of its value proposition, governance model, economic policies, or technological and legal policies, CoopCycle presents a model of platform cooperativism with transformative potential. Unlike traditional cooperatives, which often struggle to scale, CoopCycle has expanded successfully on an international scale as an alliance through political advocacy, international legal toolkits, and global coordination. The launch of cooperatives in Latin America in 2021, and the connections forged in the process with NGOs, trade unions, financial institutions, local governments and other socio-economic actors, represent important milestones on a counter-hegemonic roadmap towards building a global anti-capitalist coalition.

In the future, CoopCycle may evolve into a cooperative incubator, expanding from food delivery into cross-sector supply chains to form a broader platform cooperativism ecosystem. Interestingly, we are already witnessing CoopCycle inching in this direction by exploring partnerships with like-minded organisations in France.

Authors  

Vangelis Papadimitropoulos | Postdoctoral researcher at Panteion University in Athens, with extensive writings 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, whose research interests centre on social movements, the commons, and the social and solidarity economy.

Translation: Yuyang

Edited by: Tianle