Gig platforms have reshaped how work is organised, accessed and governed. Traditional, investor-owned platforms such as Uber and Deliveroo have been criticised for their lack of transparency, labour protections and reliance on algorithmic management, resulting in precarious working conditions and unstable income for platform workers. In response to these common criticisms, a countermovement has emerged: platform cooperativism. Because of their collective ownership structure, where platform workers are worker-members, cooperative platforms have the potential to rebalance platform power and improve working conditions, income stability and worker autonomy. While promising in theory, there is limited empirical evidence of their practical impact on platform work. This article addresses that gap with an exploratory empirical analysis , comparing cooperative and traditional, investor-owned gig platforms across three dimensions: transparency, working conditions and quality of earnings. Based on an empirical document analysis of publicly available platform materials, the study systematically evaluates differences in platform design and practice, and verifies the hypothesis that the cooperative platforms can effectively foster greater transparency, quality of earnings and working conditions than traditional platforms. Findings suggest that the cooperative platforms offer advantages in respect of working conditions, including reduced reliance on algorithmic management and a more worker-centric use of technology. Additionally, they provide higher quality of earnings, not necessarily substantively but primarily through more predictable compensation structures. Lastly, however, while the cooperatives use clearer and more readable language, they have no consistent advantage over the traditional platforms in terms of transparency.
Verhuyck et al. (Sat,) studied this question.