The Transformative Potential
of Platform Cooperativism: The Case of CoopCycle
Vangelis Papadimitropoulos
Panteion University, Athens, Greece,
vagpap78@hotmail.com
Haris Malamidis
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
Greece, malamidish@soc.uoa.gr
Abstract: The paper sets out
to dissolve a contrast between traditional coop sectoral enclosure, on the one
hand, and platform coop diversity, on the other hand, which often resonates with precariousness, marginalisation, fragmentation, whitewashing
and corporatisation. To tackle traditional and platform coop discordance, the
paper draws on the model of open cooperativism introduced by Vasilis Kostakis
and Michel Bauwens, passed through the lens of
Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s discourse theory of hegemony, to weave a
narrative that seeks to unite and broaden the scope of the cooperative sector.
In doing so, the paper reviews CoopCycle as an illustrative case study of platform cooperativism. CoopCycle is a global federation of bike delivery
coops that deploys the digital commons to install workplace democracy in the
bike delivery sector. The paper aims at contributing to the understanding of
platform cooperativism, all the while embedding the
model of platform cooperativism into the counter-hegemony of open cooperativism
aiming to challenge the current hegemony of neoliberalism. The main argument
here is that the model of open cooperativism bears comparative advantages
vis-à-vis closed proprietary socio-economic models.
Keywords: platform
capitalism, platform cooperativism, CoopCycle, the commons, open cooperativism
Acknowledgement: The authors acknowledge funding from
the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation under the number 139.
1. Introduction
The development of information and communication
technologies (ICTs) in the last decades has given rise to a digital economy, encompassing
a diversity of organisational models coupled with market-oriented institutional
reforms driven by relevant state policies. There is a burgeoning literature on
the so-called “sharing” and “gig” economy, elaborating on a wide range of
definitions and conceptualisations (Belk 2009, 2014; Bock et al. 2016; Botsman
and Rogers 2010; Codagnone et al. 2016a; 2016b; Frenken 2017; Frenken and Schor
2017; Papadimitropoulos 2020, 2022; Sundararajan 2016). Whereas the “sharing”
economy refers to the deployment of online platforms to allow Internet users to
rent or exchange idle assets such as cars, bikes, rooms, and so on, the “gig”
economy represents the buying and selling of freelance labour both offline and
online. Both the “gig” and the “sharing”
economy are instances of peer production and the crowdsourcing model (Howe
2008) bootstrapped by digitisation and the Internet during the last decades.
Yet, the term “sharing
economy” is a misnomer, since it is misappropriated and misleading (Graham and
Anwar 2018; Olma 2014; Papadimitropoulos 2020; Scholz and Schneider 2016; Schor
2015; Slee 2015). The terms “sharing” and “gig” economy rather encapsulate an
Internet-enabled market economy, in which the logic of “sharing” only
loosely pertains to front-end users while the back-end
remains under centralised corporate control (Scholz 2016). The so-called
“sharing” and “gig” economy properly refer to a rent-based economy capitalising
on commercial exchange. We adhere, instead, to the term “platform
capitalism” coined by Nick Srnicek (2017) to denote a model of the digital
economy that features Internet-specific affordances dating back to the post-war
period when the original Internet was launched as a publicly-funded
military service comprising a decentralised computer architecture, packet
switching technology and networked computing to withstand a potential nuclear
attack (Smyrnaios 2018, 16-17). Since then, the surge of digitisation alongside
the economic crisis of the 1970s paved the way for industrial capitalism to mutate
via post-Fordism (Fuchs 2008, 110) into platform capitalism backed by
neoliberalism (Brown 2015) that has been attacking labour ever since, all the
while employing digital labour on the Internet for free (Fuchs 2014;
Papadimitropoulos 2020, 2022).
We review here
the case study of CoopCycle to juxtapose the model of platform capitalism with
the model of platform cooperativism (Scholz 2016) that reverses centralised
algorithmic management in favour of a decentralised Internet-enabled
cooperative economy built on traditional coop principles such as the communal
ownership of the means of production, self-management, sustainability, and the
equitable distribution of value. The main research question of this paper is
the following: What is the transformative potential of platform cooperativism
as illustrated through the case study of CoopCycle?
Admittedly,
platform cooperativism as it currently stands faces significant obstacles in
challenging platform capitalism (Frenken 2017; Fuchs 2014, 2021; Papadimitropoulos
2020, 2022; Sandoval 2020; Scholz 2016; Van Doorn 2017). We critically examine
instead the scenario of platform cοοperativism transforming into the model of
open cooperativism introduced by Vasilis Kostakis and Michel Bauwens (2014).
The model of open
cooperativism champions the mutual collaboration between civil society
organisations producing commons, ethical market entities adding exchange value
on top of the commons use value and a partner state enabling commons-based peer
production. The main argument is that ethical market entities that co-produce
or make use of the commons on conditions of reciprocity gain a competitive
advantage vis-à-vis closed economic models such as platform capitalism. Yet,
Kostakis and Bauwens’ model of open cooperativism rests on thin conceptual
and empirical foundations. It is still in a highly experimental phase
encountering the same challenges with platform cooperativism. Kostakis and
Bauwens introduce the model of open cooperativism as a counter-hegemonic
impetus unfolding within, against and beyond neoliberalism. However, there is a
lack of normative clarity when it comes to the political theorisation of the
counter-hegemony of open cooperativism. We further read Kostakis and Bauwens’ model of open
cooperativism through the lens of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's (1985)
discourse theory of hegemony to accentuate its political edge.
One major
problem of the model of open cooperativism is the capitalist cooptation of the
(digital) commons due to the openness of the licenses adopted by collectivities
producing the commons (Bauwens and Kostakis 2014; Birkinbine 2020). CoopCycle
introduces a version of a copyfair license, called CoopyLeft, that could
potentially address this problem. CoopyLeft limits the use of the software to
cooperatives and collectives that pay membership dues and comply with the
values of the social and solidarity economy. CoopCycle encourages the
production and sharing of the digital commons solely among the members of the
federation. It thus introduces a legal and organisational membrane that shields
the digital commons from capitalist cooptation, the latter being one of the
major obstacles in the sustainability of commons-based peer production.
CoopCycle also helps articulate a chain of equivalence (Laclau and Mouffe 1985)
between like-minded organisations, social enterprises, and municipalities that
make use of the commons to support a broader collaborative economy. Thus, the
case study of CoopCycle serves as an illustration of the potential transformation
of platform cooperativism into open cooperativism passed through the political
lens of Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory of hegemony.
The paper is
structured as follows: the second section introduces the CoopCycle case study.
The third section provides the theoretical framework. The fourth section
describes the methodology. The fifth section analyses the empirical findings.
The sixth section discusses the transformative potential of CoopCycle. The
seventh section concludes the paper.
2. CoopCycle: A Bike Delivery Platform Cooperative
The paper reviews CoopCycle as an illustrative case of platform cooperativism
focusing on the bike delivery sector. Established in France in September 2017,
CoopCycle carries a two-fold identity. It is a federation of more than 67 bike
delivery cooperatives spanning the globe as well as a software developer (Spier
2022). As such, it provides the institutional backbone as well as the digital
infrastructure for bike delivery e-logistics and services in the cooperative
sector.
CoopCycle emerged as a response to mainstream
platforms (Take Eat Easy, Deliveroo) going out of business or abruptly exiting
the local market, sparking the mobilisations that took place across Europe in
2017 (Dorcadie 2018; Spier 2022). The founding team of CoopCycle consisted of a
group of activists committed to fighting against the economic and political
model of foodtech platforms (CoopCycle 2021). The initial idea came from the
computer programmer behind CoopCycle, who cloned the proprietary software of
foodtech platforms to design a digital commons
deployed solely for cooperatives. The rationale was the repurposing of
technology to serve a post-capitalist alternative, given that the Internet and
social media can provide “all the ingredients necessary to build a better
democracy, a better world, which are misused right now for profit” (Means TV 2020).
As such, commons-based peer production aka the digital commons (Kostakis,
Vragoteris and Acharja, 2021) fits the case of CoopCycle to prevent “the
precarisation of the delivery profession and the capture of profits by
platforms alone” (CoopCycle 2021).
Profit-driven foodtech platforms such as Deliveroo
(Woodcock 2020) employ venture capital and algorithmic management to maximise
shareholder value by monetising data and outsourcing employment risks to
workers, the latter classified as independent contractors paid per drop.
CoopCycle addresses the prohibitive cost of getting a bespoke delivery app
designed by putting the digital commons in the service of an anti-capitalist
model anchored on the collective ownership of the means of production,
democratic decision-making, and the sharing of value among workers. Workers in
the CoopCycle federation are paid per hour and enjoy the benefits of safe
employment, including a minimum wage, unemployment benefit, paid holidays, sick
leave, pension and health insurance. As they state:
“Money should not make money. All the benefits should go to workers. You need
to ride a bike to earn money” (Riders Collective 2021).
CoopCycle caters for “the creation of an
anti-capitalist economic model based on the Commons, the development of the
CoopCycle software (UI/UX, dev, trainings, docs, aso.), political lobbying,
juridical toolbox, global coordination” (CoopCycle n.d.b). To this end, and
unlike traditional and platform cooperatives that have trouble in scaling,
CoopCycle has managed to scale globally as a federation. Early on from its
outset, CoopCycle went international, with cooperatives from France, Belgium,
Germany, and Spain becoming members of the federation (Democracy at Work 2021).
The launch of CoopCycle Latinoamérica in 2021 (Kasparian 2022) as well as the
links with NGOs, trade unions, financial institutions, local authorities, and
other actors of the social and solidarity economy are significant milestones
along the roadmap to establishing the counter-hegemony of a global
anti-capitalist block.
3. Theoretical
Framework
Platform capitalism deploys network effects on the
Internet to launch multi-sided markets fuelled by venture capital and
user-generated content aka digital labour (Fuchs 2014). Algorithmic management
turns user-generated content into Big Data to engineer a rent-based economy
based on advertising revenue (Papadimitropoulos 2020; 2022; Srnicek 2017;
Stratford 2020). Neoliberalism is the political backbone of platform capitalism
in that it promotes privatisation, market liberalisation, deregulation,
financialisation, and micro-entrepreneurship (Brown 2015; Harvey 2005). The
Californian ideology of hi-tech start-ups and the dot-com boom in the 1990s
together with the state regulating the switch of the Internet from a public
service to a marketplace allowed platform capitalism to take off (Barbrook and
Cameron 1996; Smyrnaios 2018, 41-42). The 2008 financial crisis expanded
precarisation into uberisation by incorporating swarms of the reserve army of
unemployed into platform capitalism (Srnicek 2017). Uberisation extends
precarisation into the so-called “gig” economy, where workers are classified as
independent contractors to perform gigs both offline and online (Thépot 2023).
Platform
capitalism employs a diversity of business models. Srnicek (2017) classifies
them into the following types: (1) advertising platforms, such as Google and
Facebook, which provide targeted advertising; (2) cloud platforms, such as
Amazon, which rent out cloud infrastructure and computing services; (3)
industrial platforms, most prominent in the Internet of Things sector,
manufacturing and embedding sensors and trackers in the production process and
logistics; and (4) product and lean platforms, such as Uber and Airbnb, acting
as intermediaries for customers and companies selling, buying and renting out
products and services. From a Marxist viewpoint, this classification seems to
be arbitrary as it does not distinguish between particular
commodity types. An alternative is a classification of digital capital
accumulation models that is based on commodity types (Fuchs 2020, 54).
Platform
capitalism has evolved into an Internet oligopoly, namely a few corporations
(Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Alibaba, Baidu, TikTok, etc.) that
position themselves as gatekeepers and seek to monopolise the market and
optimise through data extractivism (Smyrnaios 2018; Srnicek 2017). Others refer
to digital labour to denote the exploitation of Internet user activity (Fuchs
2014). The hegemony of the digital behemoths owes to the enormous amount of
money spent in R&D as well as in mergers and acquisitions (Smyrnaios 2018,
67). Corporations such as Google and Amazon adopt a “too big to
fail” logic despite the lack of fixed infrastructures in some cases. The
intangibility of information allows software-intensive companies more easily to
outsource and subcontract production and services.
On the
institutional level, platform capitalism manages to circumvent lawsuits related
to tax evasion, anti-competitive practices, and relevant economic scandals
(Smyrnaios 2018, 69-72). On the market level, platform capitalism is associated
with the violation of worker rights, job insecurity, discrimination, and
uberisation (Scholz 2016; Schor et al. 2016; Rosenblat 2018; van Doorn 2017).
In short, platform capitalism has been criticised for producing information and
power asymmetries, exacerbating inequalities, dismantling the welfare state,
eventually turning into an Internet oligopoly often described in terms of
techno-feudalism and surveillance capitalism (Morozov 2018; Papadimitropoulos
2020, 2022; Scholz 2016; Srnicek 2017; Smyrnaios 2018; Varoufakis 2020; Zuboff
2019).
In some
strands of literature (Fuchs 2020; de Rivera 2020), platform capitalism is not
a stand-alone and all-encompassing model but is embedded in the larger
socio-economical order of digital capitalism that represents a new stage of
capitalist development, deploying ICTs to reinforce value extraction and
capital accumulation mostly through Big Tech, financial markets, rentier
economy, and neoliberalism. Digital capitalism is a technologically updated
version of industrial capitalism in which digitisation assumes a leading role
but does not modify the system's basic class structure and power dynamics. On the
one hand, digitisation transforms industrial capitalism into an algorithmic
techno-feudalism or rentier capitalism radically altering the means and
relations of production by means of the cooptation, algorithmisation,
commodification, and colonisation of the general intellect across time and
space, which Marx could have not imagined back in his days. Authors such as
Yanis Varoufakis (2023) and Guy Standing (2016) use the terms techno-feudalism
and rentier capitalism respectively to argue for the transformation of digital
platforms into fiefdoms and rent acquisition spaces. Capitalist competition is
not strictly defined in terms of lower costs and higher levels of exploitation,
but in terms of the monopolisation of the general intellect. Even capitalists themselves
now become serfs of digital capitalism, being obliged to pass through the cloud
of techno-feudalism in order to operate (Varoufakis
2023). The same holds true for natural resources (e.g.
oil, gas, etc.), the exploitation
rate of which is set according to the rent paid to the owners of the resource
relative to its scarcity. In techno-feudalism, rent migrates from land
enclosures and industrial patents to high-tech digital algorithms driving
e-commerce, cloud services, etc. Technological change, creative
destruction, economic cycles, secular stagnation, overproduction, and the
tendency of the rate of profit to fall, among others, have been the core
drivers of constant capitalist restructuring, often employing accumulation by
dispossession to evolve from industrial capitalism, monopoly capitalism and
state capitalism to digital capitalism.
On the other
hand, information economics and, in particular, open-source
software/hardware and the digital commons update the contradictions of
capitalism between capital and labour, exchange value and use value, etc.
(Harvey 2014), by juxtaposing anew closed intellectual property rights with the
inherent openness of the commons. Closeness and openness feature as poles of
multi-class struggle between the hegemony of digital capitalism and the
counter-hegemony of post-capitalism (Dardot and Laval 2014; Dean 2009; De
Angelis 2017; Dyer-Witherford 1999; Gibson-Graham 1996; 2006; Hardt and Negri
2004). The very technical and socio-economic change that has forced capitalism
to restructure and lower costs at the expense of labour has allowed the
multiplication of labour resistance through autonomous modes of production. The
very digital labour that is being co-opted by platform capitalism on the
Internet is being used to subvert digital capitalism through decentralised
organisational models such as platform cooperatives, the digital commons, and
peer production (Bauwens et al. 2019; Fuchs 2014; Papadimitropoulos 2020; 2022;
Scholz 2016; Scholz and Schneider 2016).
Platform
cooperativism, in particular, combines the principles
of traditional cooperatives with algorithmic management to launch
Internet-enabled worker-owned cooperatives that operate based on a logic
opposed to platform capitalism (Scholz 2016; Scholz and Schneider 2016; Spier
2022; Zhu and Marjanovic 2021). Platform cooperatives apply the collective
ownership of the means of production. They are run democratically on the basis of the “one member,
one vote” principle. Their core principles extend to value distribution as
opposed to profit maximisation. Platform cooperatives pursue social, ethical and ecological goals rather than strictly commercial
ones.
There is often
analytical confusion in the literature with regards to the exact definition of
a platform cooperative and its relation to similar organisational models. This
is part due to platform cooperativism being a nascent and under-examined
organisational model, and part due to different theoretical approaches
envisaging its transformative potential. A common definition of a platform
cooperative is the following one:
“A platform
cooperative, or platform co-op, is a cooperatively owned, democratically
governed business that establishes a computing platform, and uses a website,
mobile app or a protocol to facilitate the sale of goods and services” (Calzada
2020, 8).
Scholz et al. (2021, 15) define a platform cooperative
as “worker co-ops, data co-ops, multi-stakeholder co-ops, and producer co-ops
for whom their digital business is central to their operation”. They open up the definitional scope to render the centrality of
the digital match-making business model a key distinguishing criterion of a
platform cooperative, encompassing all ecosystem actors that support the
formation and sustainability of platform cooperatives. Another plausible
definition of a platform cooperative would describe “an enterprise
that operates primarily through digital platforms for interaction or the
exchange of goods and/or services and is structured in line with the
International Cooperative Alliance Statement on the Cooperative Identity” (Mayo
2019, 20). The term is thus used to cover a wide variety of cooperative types
operating across a multitude of sectors in the platform and digital economy,
thereby portraying a diversity of organisational models.
Platform
cooperatives have not escaped criticism. Not only do these Internet-enabled
organisational models have to overcome the shortcomings of traditional
cooperatives (De Lautour and Cortese 2016; Malta et al. 2020; Mohamad et al.
2013; Puri and Walsh 2018; Restakis 2010; Simon 2019), they also encounter the
overall tendency of platform capitalism towards monopoly formation (Srnicek
2017). Scholars often rehearse the classical Marxist argument that incumbents
in the digital economy “would still have the weight of its existing data,
network effects, and financial resources to fight off any coop rival” (Srnicek
2017, 69).
The literature
commonly assigns to the cooperative economy a social and environmental function
(Zaimakis and Nikolaidis 2022). Cooperatives are often considered part of the
social and solidarity economy, operating mostly in sectors that are deemed
unprofitable by capitalist enterprises. According to the EU directive, social
enterprises cater for the provision of cultural, health, educational and
environmental services (Varvarousis and Tsitsirigkos 2019, 98). As such, the
social economy has been usually described as a third sector identified with the
civil society operating in tandem with capitalism and the state.
Traditional
coop sectoral enclosure, on the one hand, and emergent platform coop diversity,
on the other, resonate with precariousness, marginalisation, fragmentation,
whitewashing and corporatisation (Papadimitropoulos 2020; Restakis 2010).
Platform cooperativism exhibits contradictions between politics and enterprise,
democracy and the market, commons and
commercialisation, as well as activism and entrepreneurship (Sandoval 2020).
“Platform
cooperativism is proposing a bottom-up strategy of transforming platform
capitalism. It seems promising as it offers an avenue for positive critique – a
strategy of actively creating alternative realities instead of merely
criticising existing ones. Such a bottom-up strategy is particularly appealing
in times when many have lost confidence in neoliberal governments to regulate
corporate power and support projects for social change. Many examples show that
platform co-operatives can have positive impacts on their members and
communities. However, thus far they have been unable to create large-scale
structural change” (Sandoval 2020, 809).
Tensions and contradictions are detrimental to the
overall transformative potential of the cooperative sector. Trebor Scholz
(2016) himself oscillates between a moderate and a radical thesis when he
contends that it is unrealistic to anticipate that platform co-ops will
dominate capitalist markets, thus settling with a more diversified economy.
Overall, the
literature has documented three basic normative approaches of the future of
platform cooperativism vis-à-vis platform capitalism:
1.
The liberal
regulation towards an eco-friendly, social and human
digital capitalism (Codagnone et al. 2016a, 2016b; Eurofound 2018; Frenken et
al. 2020; Rani et al. 2021; UNCTAD 2019).
2.
The reformist
regulation of platform capitalism through democratisation and/or
nationalisation (Dufresne and Leterme 2021; Fuchs 2014; Graham and Shaw 2017;
Huws et al. 2017; Morozov 2018; Srnicek 2017; Stuart and Forde 2023; Varoufakis
2020).
3.
The radical
bottom-up replacement of platform capitalism with grassroots commons-based
post-capitalist organisational models aided or not by the state (Bauwens et al.
2019; Fuster and Espelt 2018; Gibson-Graham 1996, 2006; Muldoon 2022;
Papadimitropoulos 2020, 2022; Scholz 2016; van Doorn 2019; Woodcock 2020). This
tendency often comes in terms of a radical reformism that seeks to create
public service Internet platforms and platform coop/public service Internet
hybrids that challenge the power of digital capitalism and aim at replacing it
(Fuchs 2021).
The above classification covers only the most
influential authors and is overly schematic. The paper subscribes to the third
scenario, without excluding intersections with the first two projections
converging around a post-capitalist trajectory. Currently, around 547 projects
in 50 countries incorporate cooperative ownership of digital platforms[1]. Platform coops are active in
sectors as diverse as asset sharing, gig work, online markets, media and
cultural services, financial services, agro-industry, data
and software (Scholz 2016). Yet, platform coops on average are struggling to
survive the competition with platform capitalism.
Scholars and
practitioners advocate for law and policy reforms to support the flourishing of
platform cooperatives (Pentzien 2020; Scholz et al. 2021; Schneider 2021). Law
and policy recommendations, however, often do not touch upon the
commonification of the means and relations of production. The paper suggests
that the cooperative economy employs the commons to nurture an ecosystem of
cooperatives capable of challenging (platform) capitalism. The literature often
focuses on data commons and data cooperatives as vehicles of transformative
change (Calzada 2020). Yet, this is not enough. Data commons and digital
platforms of participatory democracy – i.e., Decidim[2] – need to link up with open
sustainability standards for the production of
material commons (Bauwens et al. 2019).
To tackle
traditional and platform coop discordance, the paper draws on the model of open
cooperativism introduced by Vasilis Kostakis and Michel Bauwens (2014) to align
the commons with ethical market entities and a partner state. Open cooperatives
are poised to improve on platform cooperatives, which operate on closed
proprietary licenses and, therefore, do not produce commons. Open cooperatives
apply instead open federated digital platforms, open protocols, open supply
chains, and open contributory accounting to boost a networked collaborative
economy anchored on common-pool resources from which a diverse set of agents
can draw according to their needs and contribute back according to their
capacities. The main argument here is that open cooperatives bear comparative
advantages vis-à-vis closed proprietary business models. By accessing
common-pool resources either through co-production or in exchange for a fee,
ethical market entities benefit from knowledge diffusion and innovation
spillovers as well as low production and transaction costs to produce scarcity
for the market and abundance for civil society. In partnership with an enabling
state, ethical market entities and civil society organizations make for a
multi-stakeholder interface of open cooperativism to co-produce common goods,
satisfy basic social needs, enhance social innovation, foster sustainability,
and sustain a gift economy alongside a post-capitalist market (Bauwens et al.
2019). In short, the model of open cooperativism introduces an asymmetric coopetition
vis-à-vis platform capitalism, aiming to set forth a post-capitalist ethical
and sustainable economy.
The paper
employs Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s (1985) discourse theory of hegemony to analyse the
model of open cooperativism through a chain of equivalence articulating the
discourses of “commons-based peer production”, “ethical market entities”, “sustainability” and “the partner state” around the empty signifier of “post-capitalism''. A chain of equivalence seeks to
accommodate disparate demands of collective action as well as institutional
diversity under the model of radical and plural democracy represented by a
collective subject aiming to challenge the counter-hegemony of neoliberalism.
The collective subject of radical and plural democracy juxtaposes the homo
oeconomicus of neoliberalism with the homo cooperans of post-capitalism. The
paper yet dissociates from the centralised and hierarchical tendencies of
Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory of hegemony. The goal, instead, is
to introduce a post-hegemonic version of the model of open cooperativism with
the aim to tilt centralisation towards commonification via decentralisation. To
this end, the cooperative economy is not limited to a niche of socio-economic
activity dedicated to generating social and environmental utility but is
oriented towards the creation of a broader post-capitalist economy aligned with
the normative principles of radical and plural democracy.
Research on
platform coops is relatively nascent. The paper’s objective is to contribute to the understanding of
platform cooperativism through the illustration of the CoopCycle case study,
all the while embedding the latter into a counter-hegemonic political strategy
aiming to challenge the current hegemony of platform capitalism.
4.
Methodology
The paper adopts a case study
approach (Yin 2004), since it is most suitable when exploring novel
organisational models such as platform and open cooperatives. The paper has
chosen, in particular, the CoopCycle case study, since
CoopCycle comprises more than 65 bike delivery coops globally, and therefore
prefigures a potential counter-hegemony of platform cooperativism in the bike
delivery sector.
Data
collection was based on literature review, digital ethnography, participatory
observation, and in-depth interviews. The first author participated in the
CoopCycle general assembly in September 2022 where he interviewed 10 CoopCycle
volunteers, members and coop workers from the
CoopCycle federation, including coops from the UK, Spain, Germany, Italy, and
Belgium (Appendix I, Appendix II). The interviews lasted between 30 and 60
minutes. Some were recorded on Skype and some on mobile. All interviews were transcribed
using Descript. The first author was given access to internal papers
documenting CoopCycle’s business strategy, legal entity, financial reports,
etc. We employed Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse analysis to analyse the
empirical data (Appendix III). Laclau
and Mouffe’s discourse analysis is the methodological extension of their
political theory of hegemony, applied to empirical research (Howarth 2005).
Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse analysis offers a matrix of theoretical
categories such as floating signifiers, nodal points, and discourses that help
explore novel organisational models such as platform and open cooperatives.
Discourses are precarious articulations of floating signifiers into nodal
points, the latter being privileged signifiers acting as “spider webs” of meaning. Discourses do not rest on
linguistic utterances but identify with social practices that embody affects
and articulate business models and technological artifacts. In the case of
CoopCycle, discourses, and practices were classified along four nodal points or
coding themes: value proposition, governance model, economic policy, and
tech/law policy (table 1).
5.
Analysis
of the Empirical Research’s Findings
The CoopCycle federation offers
onboarding and training services that help new coop members familiarise with
the software functions as well as with everyday coop operations. Software
manuals and business plans help riders overcome obstacles and conflicts that
come along with collective ownership. As an interviewee puts it: “The software is the flagship, in the sense that we
invite coops to deploy it. But then we offer onboarding services, we help coops
develop business models, find new restaurants, new customers […] it is a whole
package” (Interviewee 3).
|
Value proposition |
Governance model |
Economic policy |
Tech/law policy |
|
fleet
management; the digital commons; anti-capitalist economy; sustainability;
lobbying solution: the digital provision of bike-delivery e-logistics and services services: software development; onboarding and training; food delivery;
last mile economic
sustainability: cost
reduction; fair pay; the sharing of value social
sustainability: local and
ethical social economy; solidarity; care environmental
sustainability: less traffic
and noise; reduced waste and CO2 emissions |
direct democracy; assembly;
centralisation vs decentralisation federation: 67 coops
across 10 countries; 3 employees (2 developers, 1 coordinator); a board of 8
administrators; working groups decision-making process: general
annual assembly; monthly coop assembly; one coop, one vote; one member, one
vote; consent-based decision; majority voting; sociocracy decision-making tools: Slack,
Loomio centralisation: hard and
heavy software development (back-end) decentralisation: software
customisation; coop self-management; marketing, pricing strategy |
contribution;
fair pay; delivery fee; partnerships federation
revenue streams: 2,5% of the
added value of coops annual turnover (500 euros minimum annual fee);
donations; grants; awards; consulting services coop revenue
streams: delivery fee
20-30% fair pay: replace volunteer work in the federation with paid work; couriers
paid by the hour; annual profits distributed to workers partnerships: MAIF; MACIF (insurance); FACTTIC Argentina; ITDP Mexico: Programa
Rodando Juntas; Maison des Coursiers / Riders’ Shelter; CG SCOP |
federation; association;
multi-stakeholder cooperative; worker-owned cooperatives; Coopyleft license legal entity: formally a
French association, informally a federation, a
precursor to a multi-stakeholder cooperative software license: Coopyleft
license partnership agreement: associations
and collectives joining the federation commit to becoming a cooperative
within 2 years APIs: external
integration with third-party software |
Table 1: CoopCycle discourses and practices
Cooperatives in the bike delivery sector
respect customs and support local economies, unlike the parasitic nature of
platform capitalism manifested in gentrification and tax evasion (Interviewees
7 and 8). Compared to the stressful and insecure conditions that characterise
capitalist platforms (Woodcock 2020), bike delivery coops adopt horizontal
organisational models wherein riders are treated with care and dignity.
Platform coops offer humane working conditions and help workers achieve
work-life balance, something which according to our field research, encourages
riders to adopt a friendly attitude towards customers without being forced by
their employers as it is often the case in profit-driven enterprises.
By contrast to
platforms such as Deliveroo, riders can deny tasks without implications for
their income or contractual status (Spier 2022, 24-26). The CoopCycle software
does not implement dynamic pricing nor gamification/habit-forming design. The
geo-tracking function is not (ab)used for worker surveillance and algorithmic
management. CoopCycle also does not use a rating system. Coops rather follow an
internal qualitative process to assess riders’ performance. As a coop manager states:
“We prefer to
discuss with them […] If they think they are doing a good job, they will feel
better about their job. What do you think is a good job for you? What are the
things you are good at? What is the thing you are thinking you are doing so
well? What is the thing you are not doing well at all? And what is the way to
improve that? And we talk once or twice a year with third persons who are
members in Citizen Cooperatives [...] They talk with the employees about the
job and what is satisfying and unsatisfying” (Interviewee 5).
CoopCycle has
been developed by volunteers but it has now passed on
to “bike fanatics” (Interviewee 1),
with many of the coop members being hard-liners against the use of electric
bikes or motorbikes, which would enable them to serve longer distances. Opting
for bikes, CoopCycle advocates for an ecological approach in the food delivery
sector, which reduces carbon emissions.
The federation has lately expanded its activities to include cargo bike last
mile delivery within the city limits that coop members operate. Bike couriers
are said to be faster in their way to navigate themselves in the city, while
contributing to the reduction of traffic and noise pollution (Lowimpact TV 2020). In this respect, CoopCycle’s environmental dimension feeds into its value
proposition, establishing partnerships with City Councils and companies aiming
to adopt a more ecological approach and no longer risk having their trucks
stuck in traffic jams. Thus, CoopCycle fosters economic, social
and environmental sustainability for coops and local economies.
Yet, the
anti-capitalist mission of CoopCycle seemingly contradicts the collaboration
with profit-driven companies (supermarkets, retailers, restaurants). Companies
often use bike delivery services for “green washing” purposes (Borrits 2019a). But they are
also forced by law to adhere to sustainability guidelines such as reducing
carbon emissions as well as traffic and noise pollution (Interviewee 5). At the
same time, CoopCycle’s members seek to partner with companies that share the
same values such as fairness and sustainability (Interviewees 7 and 8). Eco-friendly
companies, zero-waste restaurants, family-run social enterprises, associations,
hospitals and schools, all craft an entrepreneurial coalition in the local
economy (Interviewee 8). Thus, the organisational melange of CoopCycle
illustrates a diverse ecosystem of a social and solidarity economy. CoopCycle
thus prefigures a chain of equivalence (Laclau and Mouffe 1985) linking up
diverse actors of the social and solidarity economy around a post-capitalist
counter-hegemony variously intersecting with neoliberalism and the capitalist
economy (Interviewee 7).
CoopCycle’s
future vision is to further develop the software and specialise in lobbying to
expand the cooperative economy in France and beyond (Interviewee 3). CoopCycle
members do not suggest that they can overthrow the hegemony of foodtech
behemoths overnight (Interviewees 1, 2, 3, 4). Rather, they envision occupying
a niche of socio-economic activity that may prove sustainable in the long term,
thus posing a threat for platform capitalism. They are cognizant that the
establishment of a global anti-capitalist counter-hegemony presupposes the
transformation of politics at a macro-institutional level (Borrits 2019a;
2019b).
CoopCycle departs from the centralised
association of volunteers to decentralise via the federation (Interviewee 1).
Centralisation zooms in the development of hard and heavy software (back-end),
IT support, onboarding and training, collective bargaining (insurance, group
purchasing), consultancy services sold to third-parties
(Democracy at Work 2021), new partnerships for large commercial contracts (such
as the NHS) (Lowimpact TV 2020), APIs connection and lobbying. Decentralisation
zooms out to the autonomy of each member coop to self-organise, customise the
software and decide on marketing and pricing strategies. Against the
centralised control of users' data by capitalist platforms, the CoopCycle’s
software decentralised logic means that it is self-hosted and self-administered
by the local bike delivery co-ops. The idea is to reduce the costs of the
software by sharing development and services (Spier 2022).
“Put
differently, in contrast to Deliveroo, UberEat, and Wolt, there is no central
instance of the platform. Therefore, there is no (algorithmic) monitoring and
control of how local co-ops organise their work or monitoring and control of
the couriers themselves. A further implication is that the data that is
generated by the platform’s operation is hosted on the local co-op’s platform
instance (rather than on central servers). Thus, the local co-ops and their
members (couriers) co-own the platform that they use to organise their work and
the data that is generated in the process. The decentralised infrastructure is
visible to the customers; it isn’t opaque” (Spier 2022, 18).
Democratic decision-making rules
both concentric centralised and decentralised governance. The cooperative
principle of “one member, one vote” holds both for the annual assembly of the
federation where each member coop has one vote irrespectively of size and
turnover, and for the monthly assembly of each member coop. In the annual
general assembly of the federation, coop members discuss major decisions and
the roadmap both in terms of the software development and the institution
(e.g., legal structures, finances, etc.). The federation also deploys Slack and
Loomio to facilitate ongoing discussions and decision-making (Spier 2022,
21-22). In the monthly assembly of each coop, members deliberate on task
distribution, shift planning, business model, funds allocation, points of
conflict, paid and unpaid work, among others.
However, the
expansion of CoopCycle into other countries has affected democratic processes.
As an interviewee comments: “We are becoming too big to be fully democratic. Too
many cities, too many projects, not enough time for people” (Interviewee 1). To
tackle the problem, the federation has added an extra administrative layer,
that is, a board of directors elected by the general assembly to represent
member coops. Board members manage everyday workflow at the federation level,
receiving a symbolic payment for their services.
The main source of revenue for
CoopCycle is the member coops’ annual contribution (cotisation) of approximately
2-2,5% of their added value to the federation, which cannot be less than € 500
annually. Member coops’ annual contribution approximates half of the
federation’s revenue, with the rest stemming from grants and services
(Interviewee 1). The federation settled on that amount after discussing
different proposals in the general assembly and on Slack until they finally
cast a vote on Loomio. The rationale behind the low rate was to advance the
political goal of the federation by helping coops get off the ground
(Interviewee 1). CoopCycle’s recent expansion in other countries has increased
workflow, which has led to the gradual replacement of the initial volunteer
members of the federation with paid employees (CoopCycle 2022a).
CoopCycle
specialises in food delivery, which is marked by increased competition, low prices and tight profit margin (Ahuja et al. 2021). During
the pandemic, CoopCycle reported 100,000 deliveries and € 3.5 million turnover
(Riders Collective 2021). Some restaurants steadily prefer bike delivery coops
due to their lower rates (around 20%) compared to the 30% mark-up price of
capitalist platforms (Atkinson 2021), as well as the quality of their delivery
services such as swift replies to customer calls and the sustenance of
interpersonal relationships (Interviewee 8). The lower rates of bike delivery
coops drop the prices for both restaurants and customers, thereby laying the
groundwork for democratising pricing (Interviewee 7). However, the competition
is unfair: thanks to freelancing and fundraising money, profit-driven platforms
can afford to charge extremely low prices with the only objective of completely
killing the competition (Winner Takes All strategy). They can afford to hire
more workers and capture a larger share of the market. Contrary to
profit-driven platforms, platform coops bear additional costs since they pay
taxes and workers’ benefits such as social security, insurance, sick day and holiday leave pay. One should also add inflationary
pressures where demand for fast delivery services is slowing amid the
cost-of-living crisis.
To adjust,
CoopCycle expands operations on last-mile delivery since many cities outsource
to bike delivery coops for environmental reasons (Interviewee 1). CoopCycle can
thus take advantage of decentralised networks in local commerce and attract new
clients and member coops. CoopCycle can also sell decarbonating services to
municipalities. CoopCycle, finally, intends to standardise prices for big
clients, put forward a business plan as a central filter and develop a media
strategy (CoopCycle 2022c; 2022d).
Although formally registered as a
French association, CoopCycle operates in practice as a federation whose
members are cooperatives and collectives scattered across the globe. Upon
registration, each cooperative and collective signs an informal agreement that
details the terms and conditions of membership (Riders Collective 2021).
Membership is granted to cooperatives that hire workers as employees, as
opposed to capitalist platforms that classify workers as independent
contractors. Membership is also granted to collectives that comply with the
national, EU or French criteria for the social and solidarity economy. By
signing the agreement, collectives commit to becoming a cooperative within 2
years’ time and have no less than 15% of turnover subcontracted by then
(Democracy at Work 2021). Members get access to the entire suite of CoopCycle’s
services, including the software, onboarding, training, etc. (Interviewee 3).
The CoopCycle
software’s code is licenced under a restrictive version of the copyleft license
named Coopyleft that limits the commercial use of the software to cooperatives
in which workers are employees and/or to associations that match national, EU
or French criteria for the social and solidarity economy (CoopCycle n.d.a).
Coopyleft license prevents the appropriation of the digital commons by platform
capitalism. The federation acts as the gatekeeper of the license that allows
member coops to reduce costs by pooling resources, knowledge, and services on
both technical and organisational levels, such as the platform software,
smartphone app, educational material, marketing, legal support, etc.
The
federational structure of CoopCycle evinces both strengths and weaknesses. On
the one hand, it builds collective bargaining power and broadens the
institutional scope of platform cooperativism, thereby enabling the federation’s
social and economic sustainability. On the other hand, it causes limitations
with respect to potential members that cannot acquire a proper regulatory fit
or adhere to the principles of the federation (Democracy at Work 2021). For
example, the federation reached a compromise lately between bicycle-oriented
European co-ops and motorcycle-oriented South American co-ops (Spier 2022).
To tackle
regulatory and cultural diversity, the federation is progressing into a
multi-stakeholder cooperative (SCIC[3]), which allows members from other
countries to participate. Members can include workers’ cooperatives, citizens'
co-operatives, retraining and employment schemes, CoopCycle employees, partners
(CoopCycle volunteer association) and public authorities (CoopCycle 2022a).
“Within the
multi-stakeholder cooperative some members will be the bike-delivery coops
which are the beneficiaries of the activities of the federation, the second
part is employees who work for the federation and in the third category we classify
the CoopCycle volunteers’ association which will be devoted on political
lobbying establishing partnerships with organisations and public authorities”
(Interviewee 2).
The general principles of the
multi-stakeholder cooperative are the following: dual purpose (economic
efficiency and social utility), democratic governance (one member, one vote),
limited profit (variable capital, indivisible reserves) (CoopCycle 2022a).
6. Discussion: Prefiguring the Transformative Potential
of CoopCycle
CoopCycle is a platform cooperative
that prefigures the transformative potential of an open cooperative, since it
showcases:
1. the application of the digital commons in establishing workplace democracy in the bike coop delivery sector.
2.
the introduction of a copyfair license entitled
CoopyLeft with the aim of empowering coops all the while preventing the
capitalist cooptation of the digital commons.
3.
the employment of innovative law to help coops scale
globally in the model of a multi-stakeholder cooperative, bringing together
ethical market entities, the commons and local
authorities.
CoopCycle employs discourses such
as “the digital commons'', “self-management”, “value distribution”, “socialism”, “sustainability”, “lobbying” and “multi-stakeholder cooperative” to articulate the
counter-hegemony (Laclau and Mouffe 1985) of a federated anti-capitalist
socio-economic model.
However, it is
not clear how CoopCycle’s anti-capitalist model can challenge the hegemony of
platform capitalism. Admittedly, the general assembly of 2022 stressed the need
for devising a coherent strategy going forward and set out to propose some
scenarios. As soon as the association switches into a multi-stakeholder
cooperative, CoopCycle could turn into a political organisation specialised in
lobbying. Alternatively, CoopCycle could focus on software development. Lastly,
CoopCycle could combine both lobbying and software development. At the time of
writing, the federation was discussing these scenarios on Slack (Interviewees
1, 6). Empirical research has thus far highlighted the strengths of CoopCycle,
illustrated most prominently in the software development and the federal model that allows global scaling. It is then likely
that the legal entity of a multi-stakeholder cooperative may render the
federation more inclusive, flexible, and scalable.
CoopCycle’s
model of platform cooperativism resonates variously with Kostakis and Bauwen’s
model of open cooperativism. Just as Kostakis and Bauwens place commons-based
peer production at the centre of the cooperation between ethical market
entities and a partner state, CoopCycle employs the digital commons to
establish links with multiple stakeholders (cooperatives, organisations, local
authorities). Echoing Bauwens and Kostakis’ (2014) argument for the creation of
a copyfair license to help reverse the capitalist cooptation of open-source
software, CoopCycle introduces a version of a copyfair license that limits the
use of the software to worker-owned cooperatives and collectives that are
members of the federation. CoopCycle thus represents a platform cooperative
enclosure of the commons. Perhaps that makes sense for an experimental
association which is currently evolving into a mature organisation aiming to
establish an anti-capitalist block with protective boundaries. In the future,
CoopCycle could progress into a cooperative incubator expanding from the food
delivery sector into cross-sectoral supply chains to form a broader ecosystem
of platform cooperativism. Interestingly, we are witnessing CoopCycle slowly
moving into that direction by exploring partnerships with like-minded
organisations in France (Interviewee 1). CoopCycle is also looking to join forces
with Open Food Network (Papadimitropoulos and Malamidis 2023) and expand their
operation in the Basque country.
The CoopCycle
case study can be instructive as to how to address the lack of business
knowledge and offer practical guidance on how platform cooperatives can be
formed and governed so as to reconcile the
occasionally competing interests of stakeholders in service of a cooperative’s
overarching purpose(s). The French legislative framework can be copied abroad
to create multi-stakeholder cooperatives across the globe. Multi-stakeholder
cooperatives could further align with ethical market entities and progressive
local municipalities in the model of open cooperativism that puts forth a
commons-oriented transition towards post-capitalism. Platform cooperatives
could turn into open cooperatives by applying open protocols, open supply
chains, open logistics and open value accounting to create a common pool of
resources from which ethical market entities can draw and contribute according
to their needs and capacities (Papadimitropoulos 2020, 95-96). Open
cooperatives internalise negative externalities; adopt multi-stakeholder
governance models; contribute to the creation of material and immaterial
commons; and are oriented towards a global socio-economic and political
transformation, albeit locally based (Papadimitropoulos 2020, 95). Ethical
market entities that align with open cooperatives and local authorities can
access a vast pool of material and immaterial commons on conditions of
reciprocity and thus obtain a competitive advantage over proprietary firms that
rely solely on their private R&D (Papadimitropoulos 2020, 97). The hybrid
of post-capitalist commons can advance a grassroots counter-hegemony that
proceeds in-against-beyond capitalism, clearing ways towards a new ecological,
more democratic and socially fair order (Kioupkiolis
2023). Platform cooperatives such as CoopCycle may offer a glimpse of this
future vision.
CoopCycle
prefigures a premature chain of equivalence (Laclau and Mouffe 1985) linking up
the commons, ethical market entities and progressive local administration
around the counter-hegemony of open cooperativism. Open cooperatives would fill
in the empty signifier of “plural and radical democracy” with cross-sectoral
value chains, inclusive governance models, sustainability economics and
innovative law (copyfair licenses and multi-stakeholder coops). The collective
subject of plural and radical democracy would represent a diversity of demands
and institutions embedded into the model of open cooperativism that could help
tilt the centralised, hierarchical and statist elements of Laclau and Mouffe’s hegemony towards the decentralised post-hegemony of
a commons-based post-capitalist economy. CoopCycle could thus contribute to the
counter-hegemony of radical and plural democracy vis-à-vis the current hegemony
of neoliberalism. As such, CoopCycle showcases a platform cooperative model of
eco-techno-social innovation with transformative potential going forward.
That said,
this paper offers only a glimpse of the transformative potential of open
cooperativism passed through the political lens of Laclau and Mouffe’s
counter-hegemony of radical and plural democracy. Future research needs to dive
deep into the three-zoned structure of the model of open cooperativism –
ethical market entities, the civil society and partner state – and examine each
component separately as well as their integration into an organic chain of
equivalence that could ignite systemic change. Both theoretical and empirical
work is sine qua non on all fronts.
7. Conclusions
The paper set out to dissolve a
contrast between traditional coop sectoral enclosure, on the one hand, and
emergent platform coop diversity, on the other hand. The paper drew on the
model of open cooperativism introduced by Kostakis and Bauwens and passed
through the political lens of Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory of hegemony
to weave a narrative that seeks to unite and broaden the scope of the
cooperative sector. In doing so, the paper reviewed CoopCycle as an
illustrative case study of platform cooperativism operating in the bike
delivery sector. We applied Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse analysis to examine
the discourses and practices of CoopCycle, classified along four nodal
points/coding themes: value proposition, governance model, economic policy,
tech/law policy. CoopCycle is a dynamic case of platform cooperativism,
currently expanding across the globe both at institutional and operational
level. CoopCycle bears a transformative potential that can enhance the
counter-hegemony of post-capitalism against the current hegemony of
neoliberalism. The paper suggests that platform cooperatives turn into open
cooperatives by applying open protocols, open and cross-sectoral value chains,
open logistics and open value accounting to create a common pool of resources
from which actors can draw and contribute according to their needs and
capacities. The hybrid of post-capitalist commons can challenge capitalism on
the grounds of a more democratic, ecological, and fair socio-economic order.
Platform cooperatives such as CoopCycle may offer a glimpse of this future
vision.
Ahuja, Kabir, Vishwa
Chandra, Victoria Lord, and Curtis Peens. 2021. Ordering in: The Rapid
Evolution of Food Delivery. McKinsey & Company. Accessed
March 29, 2023. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/technology-media-and-telecommunications/our-insights/ordering-in-the-rapid-evolution-of-food-delivery
Barbrook Richard and
Andy Cameron. 1996. The Californian Ideology. Science as
Culture 6(1): 44-72. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1080/09505439609526455
Bauwens, Michel and
Vasilis Kostakis. 2014. From the Communism of Capital to Capital for the
Commons: Towards an Open Co-operativism. tripleC: Communication Capitalism
& Critique 12 (1): 356-361. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v12i1.561
Bauwens, Michel,
Vasilis Kostakis and Alex Pazaitis. 2019. Peer to
Peer: The Commons Manifesto. London: University of Westminster Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16997/book33
Belk, Russell. 2014.
Sharing Versus Pseudo-Sharing in Web 2.0. Anthropologist 18 (1): 7.23.
DOI: http://doi.org10.1080/09720073.2014.11891518
Belk, Russell. 2009.
Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research 36 (5): 715-734. DOI: http://doi.org10.1086/612649
Birkinbine,
Benjamin. 2020. Incorporating the Digital Commons.
Corporate Involvement in Free and Open-Source Software. UK: University of
Westminster Press. DOI: http://doi.org/10.16997/book39
Bock, Anne-Katrin,
Laurent Bontoux, Susana Figueiredo do Nascimento, and Alice Szczepanikova.
2016. The Future of the EU Collaborative
Economy – Using Scenarios to Explore Future Implications for Employment. EUR 28051 EN. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2760/354417
Boltanski, Luc and Ève Chiapello. (2005) The New Spirit of Capitalism. London and New
York: Verso.
Botsman, Rachel and
Roo Rogers. 2010. What’s Mine is Yours: How
Collaborative Consumption is Changing the Way We Live. New York: Harper
Business.
Brown, Wendy. 2015. Undoing the
Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution. New York: Zone
Books.
Calzada, Igor. 2020.
Platform and Data Co-operatives Amidst European Pandemic Citizenship. Sustainability, 12 (20): 8309.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208309
Codagnone,
Cristiano, Fabienne Abadie and Federico Biagi. 2016a. The Future of
Work in the ‘Sharing Economy’. Market Efficiencies and Equitable Opportunities
or Unfair Precarisation? Joint Research
Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. EUR 27913 EN. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2791/431485
Codagnone,
Cristiano, Federico Biagi and Fabienne Abadie. 2016b. The Passions
and the Interests: Unpacking the ‘Sharing Economy’. Joint Research
Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. EUR 27914 EN. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2791/474555
Dardot, Pierre and
Christian Laval. 2014. Commun: Essais sur la révolution au
XXIe siècle. Paris: La Découverte.
De Angelis, Massimo.
2017. Omnia Sunt Communia. On the Commons
and the Transformation to Postcapitalism. London: Zed Books.
De Lautour, Vassili
Joannidès, and Corinne Cortese. 2016. Cooperatives: Governance and Accountability Systems for a Better World? Journal of
Accounting and Organisational Change 12 (1): 1-9.
DOI: http://doi.org10.1108/JAOC-03-2015-0033
De
Rivera, Javier. 2020. A Guide to Understanding and Combatting Digital
Capitalism. tripleC: Communication Capitalism & Critique 18 (2):
725-743. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v18i2.1173
Dean, Jodi. 2009. Democracy and
Other Neoliberal Fantasies. Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Dufresne, Anne and
Leterme Cédric. 2021. App Workers United. The Struggle
for Rights in the Gig Economy. Brussels:
GUE/NGL-The Left in the European Parliament. Accessed July 7, 2023. https://left.eu/content/uploads/2021/02/Study_EMPL2-v2-App.pdf
Dyer-Witheford,
Nick. 1999. Cyber-Marx: Cycles and Circuits of Struggle
in High-Technology Capitalism. Urbana, IL:
University of Illinois Press.
Eurofound (2018) Employment and
Working Conditions of Selected Types of Platform Work. Publications
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Accessed July 7, 2023. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/field_ef_document/ef18001en.pdf
Frenken, Koen.
(2017) Political Economies and Environmental Futures
for the Sharing Economy. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society. A 375: 20160367. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0367
Frenken, Koen and
Juliet Schor. 2017. Putting the Sharing Economy
into Perspective. Environmental Innovation and
Societal Transitions 23: 3-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.01.003
Frenken, Koen,
Arnoud van Waes, Peter Pelzer, Magda Smink and Rinie van
Est. 2020. Safeguarding Public Interests in the Platform Economy. Policy &
Internet 12 (5): 400-425. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.217
Fuchs, Christian. 2021. The Digital Commons and the Digital Public
Sphere: How to Advance Digital Democracy Today. Westminster Papers in
Communication and Culture 16 (1): 9-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16997/wpcc.917
Fuchs, Christian. 2020. Marxism: Karl Marx’s Fifteen Key Concepts for
Cultural and Com-munication Studies. New York: Routledge.
Fuchs, Christian. 2014. Digital Labour and Marx. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Fuchs, Christian. 2008. Internet and Society: Social Theory in the
Information Age. New York: Routledge.
Fuster, Mayo Moreli,
Bruno Carballa Smichowski, Guido Smorto, Ricard Espelt, Paola Imperatore, Manel
Rebordosa, Marc Rocas, Natalia Rodriguez, Enric Senabre and Marco Ciurcina. 2017. Multidisciplinary Framework on Commons Collaborative Economy. Report for DECODE
project. Accessed July 7, 2023. https://decodeproject.eu/publications/multidisciplinary-framework-commons-collaborative-economy
Gibson-Graham,
Julie Katherine. 2006. A Postcapitalist Politics. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Gibson-Graham, Julie Katherine.
1996. The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Graham, Mark and Anwar Mohammad
Amir. 2018. Two Models for a Fairer
Sharing Economy. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Law
of the Sharing Economy, edited by Nestor
M. Davidson, Michèle Finck and John J. Infranca, 328-340. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Graham, Mark and Joe
Shaw, eds. 2017. Towards a Fairer Gig Economy. Meatspace Press.
Accessed July 7, 2023. http://www.relats.org/documentos/FT.SIND.GU.UNIgigeconomy.pdf
Hardt, Michael and
Antonio Negri. 2004. Multitude: War and Democracy in the
Age of Empire. London: Penguin.
Harvey, David. 2014. Seventeen Contradictions and the End of
Capitalism. UK: Profile Books.
Harvey, David. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford:
Oxford.
Howe, Jeff. 2008. Crowdsourcing:
Why the Power of the Crowd is Driving the Future of Business. New York: Crown Business
Huws, Ursula., Neil
H. Spencer, Dag S. Syrdal, and Kaire Holts. 2018. Work in the
European Gig Economy: Research Results from the UK, Sweden, Germany, Austria,
The Netherlands, Switzerland and Italy. FEPS, UNI Europa,
University of Hertfordshire. Accessed July 7, 2023. https://uhra.herts.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/2299/19922/Huws_U._Spencer_N.H._Syrdal_D.S._Holt_K._2017_.pdf
Kioupkiolis,
Alexandros. 2023. Common Hegemony,
Populism, and the New Municipalism. Democratic Alter-Politics and
Transformative Strategies. New York: Routledge.
Kostakis, Vasilis
and Bauwens Michel. 2014. Network Society
and Future Scenarios for a Collaborative Economy. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Kostakis, Vasilis, Vangelis Vragoteris and Indra Lal Acharja. 2021. Can Peer Production Democratize Technology and Society? A Critical Review of the Critiques. Futures 131 (No Issue Available) 102760. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102760
Laclau, Ernesto and
Chantal Mouffe. 1985. Hegemony and
Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso.
Malta, Mariana
Curado, Ana Maria Bandeira, Rui Bertuzi, Conceição Castro, Deolinda Meira,
Denise Pereira, Inês Pereira, Isabel Vieira and Brízida Tomé.
2020. A Framework for
Cooperatives’ Transparency- A linked data approach. Congreso
Internacional de Investigadores en Economía Social y Cooperativa. Accessed July
7, 2023. http://ciriec.es/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/COMUN-087-T16-CURADO-BANDEIRA-et-al-ok.pdf
Mayo, Ed. 2019. Digital Democracy? Options for the International Cooperative Alliance to
Advance Platform Coops. International
Co-operative Alliance. Accessed July 7, 2023. https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/2020-11/annex_1_-_digital_democracy_discussion_paper_-_en.pdf
Mohamad,
Maslinawati, Intan Waheedah Othman, and Arun Mohamed. 2013. Accountability Issues and
Challenges: The Scenario for Malaysian Cooperative Movement. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International
Journal of Economics and Management Engineering 7 (6): 1503-1508. DOI: http://doi.org10.31580/jei.v6i4.1096
Morozov, Evgeny. 2018. From Airbnb to City Bikes, the ‘Sharing Economy’ Has Been Seized
by Big Money. The Guardian. Accessed July 7,
2023. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/27/airbnb-city-bikes-sharing-economy-big-money
Muldoon, James.
2022. Platform Socialism. London: Pluto
Press.
Olma, Sebastian.
2014. Never Mind the
Sharing Economy: Here’s Platform Capitalism. Institute of
Network Cultures. Accessed July 7, 2023. http://networkcultures.org/mycreativity/2014/10/16/never-mind-the-sharing-economy-heres-platform-capitalism/
Papadimitropoulos,
Vangelis. 2022. Blockchain and the
Commons. London: Routledge.
Papadimitropoulos,
Vangelis. 2020. The Commons:
Economic Alternatives in the Digital Age. London: Westminster
Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16997/book46
Papadimitropoulos,
Vangelis and Haris Malamidis. 2023. Prefiguring the Counter-Hegemony of Open
Cooperativism: the case of Open Food Network. Journal of Rural Studies Volume 101, 103067,
ISSN 0743-0167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.103067
Pentzien, Jonas.
2020. The Politics of
Platform Cooperativism. Institute for the Cooperative
Digital Economy. Accessed July 7, 2023. https://ia801701.us.archive.org/10/items/jonas-pentzien-single-web_202012/Jonas%20Pentzien_single_web.pdf
Puri, Drona Lal and John Walsh. 2018. Impact of Good Governance on Performance of
Cooperatives in Nepal. Management and Marketing XVI (2): 206-222. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:169141022
Rani, Uma, Rishabh Kumar Dhir, Marianne Furrer, Nóra Gőbel, Angeliki Moraiti,
Sean Cooney, and Alberto Coddou Mc Manus. 2021. World
Employment and Social Outlook: the Role of Digital
Labour Platforms in Transforming the World of Work. Geneva: ILO.
Accessed July 7, 2023. https://www.ilo.org/global/research/global-reports/weso/2021/WCMS_771749/lang--en/index.htm
Restakis, John.
2010. Humanising the Economy: Co-operatives
in the Age of Capital. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.
Rosenblat, Alex.
2018. Uberland: How Algorithms are
Rewriting the Rules of Work. Oakland, CA:
University of California Press.
Sandoval, Marisol.
2020. Entrepreneurial Activism? Platform
Cooperativism Between Subversion and Co-optation. Critical Sociology Vol. 46(6)
801–817. DOI: http://doi.org10.1177/0896920519870577
Schneider, Nathan.
2021. Enabling Community-Owned Platforms: A Proposal
for a Tech New Deal. In Regulating Big Tech: Policy
Responses to Digital Dominance, edited by Martin
Moore and DamianTambini, 74-97. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scholz, Trebor.
2016. Platform Cooperativism. Challenging
the Corporate Sharing Economy. New York: Rosa
Luxemburg Stiftung.
Scholz, Trebor and
Nathan Schneider, eds. 2016. Ours to Hack and to Own. The Rise
of Platform Cooperativism, a New Vision for the Future of Work and a Fairer
Internet. New York: Or Books.
Scholz, Trebor,
Morshed Mannan, Joans Pentzien, and Hal Plotkin. 2021. Policies for
Cooperative Ownership in the Digital Economy. Los Angeles, CA:
Berggruen Institute. Accessed July 7, 2023. https://www.berggruen.org/ideas/articles/policies-for-cooperative-ownership-in-the-digital-economy/
Schor, B. Juliet
2015. Getting Sharing Right. Contexts 14 (1): 14-15. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1536504214567860
Schor, B. Juliet,
Connor Fitzmaurice, Lindsey B. Carfagna, Will Attwood-Charles, and Emilie
Dubois Poteat. 2016. Paradoxes of Openness and
Distinction in the Sharing Economy. Poetics, 54: 66-81
Sennett, Richard.
1998. The Corrosion of Character. The
Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism. New York: Norton
Simon, H. William.
2019. Economic Democracy and Enterprise Form in Finance. Politics &
Society 47 (4): 557-571. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329219880372
Simon, Joyce, Mark Stuart and Chris Forde. 2023. Theorising Labour Unrest and
Trade Unionism in the Platform Economy. New Technology, Work and Employment
38 (1): 21-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12252
Slee, Tom. 2015. What’s Yours
is Mine, Against the Sharing Economy. New York: Or
Books.
Smyrnaios, Nikos.
2018. Internet Oligopoly. The Corporate
Takeover of Our Digital World. Bingley: Emerald
Publishing.
Spier, Shaked. 2022.
The Ethics and Politics of Platform Cooperatives. Platform
Cooperativism Consortium. New York: Institute for Digital Cooperative Economy.
Accessed July 7, 2023. https://ia802203.us.archive.org/8/items/shaked-spier/Shaked%20Spier%20%28Mar%2014%29.pdf
Srnicek, Nick. 2017. Platform Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity
Press
Standing, Guy. 2016.
The Corruption of Capitalism: Why Rentiers Thrive
and Work Does Not Pay. London, Biteback.
Stratford, Beth.
2020. The Threat of Rent Extraction in a
Resource-Constrained Future,
Ecological Economics, Volume 169 (No
Issue Available), 106524, ISSN 0921-8009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106524.
Sundararajan, Arun.
2016. The Sharing Economy. The End of
Employment and the Rise of Crowd-based Capitalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Thépot, Stéphane.
2023. CoopCycle : L’ Ubérisation
N’est Pas Une Fatalité. Sesame. Accessed
January 2, 2023. https://revue-sesame-inrae.fr/coopcycle-luberisation-nest-pas-une-fatalite/
UNCTAD. 2019.
Digital economy report 2019. Value Creation and Capture: Implications for
Developing Countries. Geneva: United Nations. Accessed July 7, 2023. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/der2019_en.pdf
Van Doorn, Niels.
2017. Platform Cooperativism and the Problem of the Outside. Culture
Digitally. Accessed July 7, 2023. https://culturedigitally.org/2017/02/platform-cooperativism-and-the-problem-of-the-outside
Varoufakis, Yanis. 2023. Technofeudalism.
London: Bodley Head.
Varoufakis, Yanis. 2020. Another
Now: Dispatches from an Alternative Present. London: Bodley Head.
Varvarousis, Angelos
and Georgios Tsitsirigkos. 2019. Social Enterprises and their
Ecosystems in Europe. Country Report: Greece. European
Commission. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Accessed
July 7, 2023. https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?pager.offset=10&advSearchKey=socnteco&mode=advancedSubmit&catId=22&doc_submit=&policyArea=0&policyAreaSub=0&country=0&year=0
Woodcock, Jamie.
2020. The Algorithmic Panopticon at Deliveroo: Measurement,
Precarity, and the Illusion of Control. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organisation 20 (3): 67-95.
Accessed July 7, 2023. https://ephemerajournal.org/contribution/algorithmic-panopticon-deliveroo-measurement-precarity-and-illusion-control-0
Zaimakis, Giannis
and Evangelos Nikolaidis, eds. 2022. Studies in Social and Solidarity
Economy. Approaches, Challenges, Applications. Irakleio:
University of Crete. (in Greek)
Zhu, Jiang and
Olivera Marjanovic. 2021. A Different Kind of Sharing Economy: A Literature
Review of Platform Cooperatives. In Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences. 4128-4137.
Accessed July 7, 2023. https://hdl.handle.net/10125/71119
Zuboff, Shoshana.
2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. New York:
Hachette.
|
Interviewee |
Role |
Organisation |
Country |
|
1 |
Coordinator,
employee |
CoopCycle |
France |
|
2 |
Founding
member, employee |
CoopCycle |
France |
|
3 |
Volunteer |
CoopCycle |
France |
|
4 |
Volunteer |
CoopCycle |
France |
|
5 |
Core member |
CoopCycle/Rayon9 |
Belgium |
|
6 |
Core member |
CoopCycle/Eraman |
Spain |
|
7 |
Member, coop
worker |
CoopCycle/York
collective |
UK |
|
8 |
Member, coop
worker |
CoopCycle/Colibri |
Italy |
|
9 |
Member, coop
worker |
CoopCycle/Naofood |
France |
|
10 |
Member, coop
worker |
CoopCycle/Mensakas |
Spain |
For CoopCycle members, volunteers
1) What is the mission of CoopCycle?
2) What is the strategy to achieve your mission?
3) How did you reach a decision on the contribution rate?
4) What will be the role of CoopCycle within the
multi-stakeholder cooperative?
5) Do CoopCycle and the coops in the federation use the
same servers? How do you protect the data? How do you protect the licence?
6) What do you consider a correct balance between
centralisation and decentralisation in the federation?
7) What is your relation to trade unions and social
movements?
8) Most of the clients you work with are capitalist enterprises? Is it a contradiction? Is there any “green
washing” on behalf of these clients?
9)
Are you
planning to connect to other supply chains in the future?
For coop managers, workers
1) What are the motivations for riders joining a bike delivery coop?
2) What types of deliveries do you handle?
3) Do you assess work performance? If so, how?
4) How many women work as a rider?
5) How does self-management work?
6) Do you have riders in your cooperative employed as
freelancers, subcontractors?
7) How are riders getting paid? What is considered a
well-paying salary for a rider in your country?
8) What problems do you face? How do you address these
problems?
9) Most of the clients you work with are capitalist enterprises? Is it a contradiction? Is there perhaps any
“green washing” on behalf of these clients?
Atkinson, Sophie. 2021. EU: ‘More than a Job’: the Food Delivery Co-ops
Putting Fairness into the Gig Economy. Global Dialogue. Accessed July 7, 2023. https://globaldialogue.online/ally-en/2021/eu-more-than-a-job-the-food-delivery-co-ops-putting-fairness-into-the-gig-economy/
Borrits, Benoît. 2019a. Coopcycle: Construire la Qualification du Métier
Contre le Dumping Social. Association Autogestion. Accessed July 7, 2023. https://autogestion.asso.fr/coopcycle-construire-la-qualification-du-metier-contre-le-dumping-social/
Borrits, Benoît. 2019b. Nous Sommes une Start-up Anarcho-Communiste»:
Coopcycle Auto-organise les Coursiers à Vélo. Alternatives. Accessed July 7,
2023. https://basta.media/Nous-sommes-une-start-up-multinationale-anarcho-communiste-Coopcycle-auto
Carnegie, Megan. 2022. Worker-Owned Apps Are Redefining the Sharing
Economy. Wired. Accessed July 7, 2023. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/gig-economy-worker-owned-apps
Cruz, Laura. 2020. Núria Soto: “A Deliveroo no
le Interesa que Digamos que nos Tuvo que Contratar”. El Salto. Accessed July 7,
2023. https://www.elsaltodiario.com/precariedad/nuria-soto-a-deliveroo-no-le-interesa-que-digamos-que-nos-tuvo-que-contratar
Dorcadie, Mathilde. 2018. Face aux Plateformes Numériques, les Livreurs
à Vélo Européens S’organisent. Basta!. Accessed July
7, 2023. https://basta.media/Face-aux-plates-formes-numeriques-les-livreurs-a-velo-europeens-s-organisent
Framasoft. 2017. CoopCycle, le Projet Coopératif qui Roule Social.
Framablog. Accessed July 7, 2023. https://framablog.org/2017/10/28/coopcycle-le-projet-cooperatif-qui-roule-social/
Hayes, Ryan. 2019. Worker-Owned Apps Are Trying to Fix the Gig Economy's
Exploitation. Vice. Accessed July 7, 2023. https://www.vice.com/en/article/pa75a8/worker-owned-apps-are-trying-to-fix-the-gig-economys-exploitation
Kasparian, Denise. 2022. CoopCycle in Argentina. Grassroots Economic
Organising. Accessed July 7, 2023. https://geo.coop/articles/coopcycle-argentina
Le Club de Mediapart. n.d. Le blog de
CoopCycle. Accessed July 7, 2023. https://blogs.mediapart.fr/coopcycle/blog
Souteyrat, Mathias. 2022. Saint-Étienne : Face
à Uber Eats et Deliveroo, quel Avenir pour Les Coursiers Stéphanois? Actu
Saint-Étienne. Accessed July 7, 2023. https://actu.fr/auvergne-rhone-alpes/saint-etienne_42218/saint-etienne-face-a-uber-eats-et-deliveroo-quel-avenir-pour-les-coursiers-stephanois_48966070.html
Websites
CoopCycle. n.d.a. Licence. Accessed July 7, 2023. https://wiki.coopcycle.org/en:licence
CoopCycle. n.d.b. Home. Accessed July 7, 2023. https://coopcycle.org/en/
Cyclome. n.d.a. Accueil. Accessed July 7, 2023. https://www.cyclome.fr/
Cyclome. n.d.b. Nos articles. Découvrez Toutes les Actualités de
Cyclope! Accessed July 7, 2023. https://www.cyclome.fr/blog/
International Cooperative Alliance (n.d.) France. Accessed July 7, 2023.
https://coops4dev.coop/en/4deveurope/france
Le Monde Nouveau. 2020. Les Coursiers
Montpelliérains. Accessed July 7, 2023. https://www.lemondenouveau.fr/2020/12/12/les-coursiers-montpellierains/
Les Coursiers Stéphanois. Coopérative de Cyclo-logistique. n.d. Nous
découvrir. Accessed July 7, 2023. https://www.coursiers-stephanois.fr/
Les Ecossolies. n.d. Home. Accessed July 7, 2023. https://www.ecossolies.fr/
Open Collective. n.d. CoopCycle. Accessed July 7, 2023. https://opencollective.com/coopcycle
Youtube Videos
Democracy at Work. 2021. All Things Co-op: CoopCycle [Video]. Accessed
July 7, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26qCKUjS9go&t=21s
Lowimpact TV. 2020. CoopCycle Federation: a
Bicycle Courier Co-op in Every Town [Video]. Accessed July 7, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6hzXcLda-U&t=671s
Means TV. 2020. Reclaiming Work: The Story of Coop
Cycle | Official Trailer | Means TV [Video] Accessed July 7, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCnHH3N8pVA
Riders Collective. 2021. Cooperatives - HOW TO? - The
CoopCycle Model [Video] Accessed July 7, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGYoyB-rrjg
CoopCycle. 2021.
Activity Report 2019-2020.
CoopCycle. 2022a. SCIC project-1.
CoopCycle. 2022b.
2021-2022 Reports.
CoopCycle 2022c.
Intro in Business Strategy.
CoopCycle 2022d. How
to Make a Cooperative Business Plan.
Vangelis
Papadimitropoulos
Vangelis
Papadimitropoulos is a post doc researcher affiliated with the
Panteion University of Athens. Currently he is the principal investigator in
the research project entitled “Techno-Social Innovation in the Collaborative
Economy”. He holds a PhD in the political philosophy of Cornelius Castoriadis
and has written extensively on democratic political theory, political economy,
platform coops and the commons.
Haris
Malamidis
Haris Malamidis is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. His research interests focus on social movements, social and solidarity economy, the commons, migration, integration and social care.