by Gabriël van Rosmalen — PhD Candidate in European Law & Political Philosophy (Utrecht University), exploring the position of platform workers
This blog post is based on a chapter by Van Rosmalen in the forthcoming ( spring 2025) edited volume Governing the Digital Society (Amsterdam University Press)
This blog is produced as a part of the Reshaping Work Fellowship Programme. The opinions and views expressed in this publication are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of Reshaping Work or organisations that have supported the programme.
At the start of last year, a significant step was taken in Brussels: the European Union adopted a directive aimed at improving the position of over five million platform workers. While platforms like Uber and Deliveroo present themselves as essential to modern life, they deliberately classify their workers as self-employed to avoid providing social protections. Each member state now has two years to establish a ‘rebuttable presumption of employment,’ meaning platforms must prove that their workers are genuinely independent. While this marks progress, the directive only scratches the surface of a deeper issue: the structural power imbalance between platforms and workers. Addressing this requires more than just reclassifying workers — it demands a fundamental shift in ownership and governance.
Why the Directive falls short
The directive’s effectiveness depends on how strictly member states implement it (see previous blog for Reshaping Work). The rules’ impact was watered down during negotiations. Rather than establishing more uniform and binding EU-wide obligations, the final version allows each country to set their own criteria for classifying platform workers. While the EU mandates action, it offers flexibility on how to achieve it. Moreover, platform companies are notorious for their ability to circumvent regulations. Recent studies in cities like Berlin and Paris show that platforms such as Uber formally employ workers but undermine labour rights through subcontractors or sham arrangements. Drivers continue to face low pay, unpaid overtime, and limited social security. The platform economy’s business model thrives on shifting economic risks onto workers themselves. Stricter regulation can have unintended consequences. In the Netherlands, for example, platforms like Helpling went bankrupt, and Deliveroo exited the market when courts ruled that their workers were entitled to employment contracts. Without alternatives, workers are often pushed into the informal labour market, where conditions are even worse.
Platform cooperatives: an alternative
The EU directive seeks to rebalance power between platforms and workers but overlooks a deeper issue: platforms remain owned by private companies that prioritise profit over worker wellbeing. As political scientist James Muldoon argues in Platform Socialism (2022), regulation is merely a band-aid if the profit-maximisation drive isn’t addressed. He advocates for democratising ownership and introducing governance models where workers have a say. This underscores the need for structural change beyond merely reclassifying workers.
Platform cooperatives combine the technological capabilities of digital platforms with the traditional cooperative model, where workers are both owners and decision-makers. This gives them control over rates, working conditions, and profit distribution. Workers can choose to operate as independent contractors within a producer cooperative or as employees within a worker cooperative, offering the flexibility many platform workers value without the uncertainty of the current model. Yet, despite the alternative offered, they remain rare. Starting one faces several hurdles. In their early stages, workers may need physical spaces to meet and exchange ideas — an essential step in forming cooperatives. More critically, cooperatives struggle to attract capital. Traditional platforms easily secure millions in venture funding, promising rapid growth, while cooperatives that prioritize fair wages face scepticism from investors. Building a cooperative demands significant effort, with benefits only becoming evident over time, which can discourage workers.
Once established, cooperatives must compete against the market dominance of established platforms. Network effects make dominant platforms more attractive to customers, making it difficult for cooperatives to gain a foothold.
What can be done?
The EU has overlooked the potential of platform cooperatives in its legislation — a missed opportunity. However, local, national, and EU-level policies can play a crucial role in fostering their development and growth. Some cities, such as Amsterdam and Barcelona, are beginning to explore cooperative alternatives to platform monopolies, showing that public policy could help create the conditions for worker-owned platforms to emerge. Governments can support cooperatives through four key policy pillars:
- Economic Support: Offer loans, subsidies, and targeted procurement to cooperatives. For instance, municipalities could prioritise cooperative platforms that create social value in their tenders.
- Infrastructure: Provide physical workspaces where workers can collaborate and develop new initiatives.
- Regulation: Level the playing field by offering tax advantages to cooperatives, making their establishment more competitive in the current landscape, and limiting the monopolistic power of large platforms.
- Awareness: Launch campaigns to raise awareness of platform cooperatives among workers and consumers, and lend political support by participating in cooperatives as a government.
Platform cooperatives are not a replacement for European regulation but a valuable complement. Many countries have long-standing cooperative traditions, from farmers’ associations to energy collectives. By focusing on ownership and governance, platform cooperatives offer a sustainable way to address the structural imbalances of the gig economy. They provide a future where workers don’t just participate — they decide.