Food delivery companies are willing to let vulnerable drivers die, and are resisting safety regulations to maintain profits, Australian National University (ANU) researchers claim in a paper published this month.

According to Necrocapitalism in the Gig Economy: The Case of Platform Food Couriers in Australia, the recent deaths of several food delivery couriers in Australia have highlighted that the government’s regulation of the industry is limited, and that some companies put profits ahead of people.

The paper defines “necrocapitalism” as “a contemporary form of accumulation through which organisational structures harness the power of debilitation and death for economic gain”.

The researchers state that when five food delivery couriers – all migrants – were killed in road accidents in late 2020, food delivery companies denied responsibility, and resisted calls to implement reforms aimed at preventing future tragedies.

Earlier this year, the Sydney Morning Herald reported, the NSW Coroners Court considered a public inquiry into the deaths of four couriers – three of whom worked for Uber Eats and one for Hungry Panda. The fifth courier, a DoorDash employee, was killed in Melbourne.

According to the ANU researchers, both DoorDash and Uber Eats failed to report the deaths of one of their couriers, “evincing how couriers are arguably expendable labour for these companies”.

The ANU researchers assessed responses to the deaths of couriers. They interviewed 40 Australia-based participants on their experiences during the pandemic, including non-residents who did not have much support and needed to work. The interviews highlighted why migrants were more likely to experience the risks and insecurities of delivery driver work.

Professor Kate Henne, from the ANU School of Regulation and Global Governance, said the industry in Australia reflects a case where a worker’s life is expendable for the sake of economic gain – an issue that she believes is rife in the gig economy.

• Read also: Police-body worn cameras need checks and balances: ANU expert (25 August 2021)

“We drew on widespread reporting that shows many food delivery companies denied responsibility and resisted calls to implement reforms aimed at preventing future tragedies,” Professor Henne said.

“Our research shows the value of these workers’ labour is inextricably linked to their capacity to be injured and neglected, because they do not have basic work protections.”

During the pandemic, average customer spending on Uber Eats more than tripled from pre-pandemic levels, as the public was encouraged, and even mandated, to remain home to stay safe, the researchers noted. Despite stay-at-home orders, couriers were classified as essential workers, meaning they were not subject to movement restrictions, and could continue to deliver food to customers.

• Demand on food delivery drivers surges amid ACT lockdown (6 September 2021)

To satisfy demand, more workers became enrolled in food delivery labour, the paper stated; many of them were exposed to heightened risks over elongated shifts, including increased risk of COVID-19 exposure.

More than two-thirds of couriers feared being seriously hurt or killed while working, the paper reported. One in three couriers were injured on the job, such as fractured bones, some resulting in permanent impairment. Without financial compensation or sick leave, many couriers worked while injured to financially sustain themselves.

“Couriers come to bear the economic brunt of their injuries while platforms’ bottom line remains largely unscathed,” co-author Will Orr said.

The authors said the Commonwealth and NSW governments have framed safety as a problem that can be managed through self-regulation.

By encouraging self-regulation of the industry and individualised risk management by couriers, corporate costs are kept to a minimum, the paper stated. Government regulation is ineffective at protecting the safety of couriers; it also maintains market interests by ensuring a workforce that is “available for injury”.

“These policies are ineffective at securing the health and livelihoods of couriers,” Mr Orr said. “They contribute to the couriers’ precarity and social subordination while upholding the power of platform corporations in Australia.”

Uber Eats, Menulog, Doordash and Deliveroo are co-signatories to the National Food Delivery Safety Principles which seek to protect workers from harm.

An Uber Eats spokesperson said: “The safety of all those who use the Uber platform is fundamental, and we have accelerated our product roadmap in support of safe delivery.

“In March 2021, we launched a range of new safety initiatives aimed at helping delivery people stay safe on our roads, including the rollout of personal protective equipment, new in-app tech features and education modules which have been built specifically for the Australian market.

“Uber Eats also provides every delivery person with specialised insurance which covers accidents and injuries, as well as income support, should something go wrong while they’re on a trip. This insurance package is provided at no additional cost to driver partners/delivery people, and also includes counselling support.”

The paper also claimed that food delivery workers were exploited. Couriers are framed as “delivery partners” or “self-employed contractors” (Uber Eats), rather than as employees.

“This labour status benefits platforms,” the paper states. “They are not required to ensure government-mandated employee rights and protections, such as minimum pay, overtime pay, holiday pay, sick leave, and maternity leave.”

Platform couriers’ average hourly wage is $10.42, well below the Australian minimum wage, with an average of $322.15 of unpaid wages each week. Couriers must finance their own vehicles, helmets, regular maintenance, and worker insurance, which are legal requirements for their work, the researchers state.

“The marketisation of labour without traditional employment protections contributes to conditions in which workers are easily exploited, terminated, and replaced,” the paper stated. “In sum, workers’ legal status functions to solidify endemic economic precarity.”

The ANU report also stated that Menulog was moving towards a traditional employment model (including unfair dismissal protections and a minimum wage) – but proposed the lowest possible award rate for couriers, and would not permanently switch to an employment model without eroding employee provisions such as “unaffordable” penalty rates.

“Menulog is a pioneer in the industry in lifting conditions for couriers in Australia,” a spokesperson said.

“We are proud to be the first platform in Australia to offer employment” – the company was founded in 2006 – “and have a fantastic group of employed couriers who receive all the benefits and entitlements that come with being an employee and are incredibly engaged and proud to be employees of the organisation.

“In order to scale up the program, we have applied for a new modern award, and continue to work with relevant stakeholders on an award that is designed with the on-demand sector at its core.

“The safety of everyone operating on the platform is our absolute priority, and as the gig economy continues to evolve, we always look at ways to make further improvements for couriers.”

Menulog provides contracted couriers across the country with personal accident insurance that aims to be in line with Workers Compensation provisions, the spokesperson said.

The company also provides ongoing safety communication to couriers in multiple ways, and introduced dedicated forums to hear directly from couriers through a Courier Feedback Forum program.

“Menulog supports federal regulation, and looks forward to working with the Federal government in lifting conditions for all couriers,” the spokesperson said.

Canberra Daily also asked Hungry Panda and DoorDash for comment.

The research paper by the ANU Justice and Technoscience Lab has been published online.