Self-Employed Couriering in Turkey: Navigating Precariousness and Status Ambiguity: A Qualitative Field Study

Abstract

Since the 1980s, working hours and the workplace have largely moved away from the standard due to advancing technologies and flexibility practices. Because of these developments, one of the emerging forms of work, self-employed couriering, has rapidly increased its dominance in the labor market in recent years. Self-employed couriering, whose implementation continues to expand day by day, has frequently become the subject of scientific research due to its structure that differs from traditional forms of employment.

This study focuses on identifying the profile, working system, and working conditions of self-employed couriers in Turkey through data obtained from the field and on the discovery of appropriate steps toward the ambiguity of status uncertainty and precariousness in this work line. The results of the qualitative field research reveal the insecure structure of self-employed couriering, which is often referred to as precarious in the literature, but also show that this classification is not absolute due to factors such as trade-offs and expectations of high income. However, the research findings clearly reveal the ambiguity surrounding the status of self-employed couriers and emphasize the need for concrete and innovative legal regulations that are internationally accepted with respect to status uncertainty in particular, as well as occupational health and safety, income and social protection, and job security, independent of the factor of insecurity.

Keywords

• New forms of work
• Platform work
• Self-employed couriering
• Status problem
• Precarious employment

References

1. Kanpolat, E. & Gezer, G. (2023). Covid-19 pandemisinde evde kalamayanların çalışma koşulları: Motokuryeler üzerine nitel bir analiz. Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi, 24(2), 26- 60. https://doi.org/10.53443/anadoluibfd.1154008 google scholar
2. Kavurmacı, A. (2023). Motokuryelerin çalışma koşullarını iyileştirecek faktörlerin belirlenmesi. Sosyal Güvenlik Dergisi, 13(1), 33- 54. https://doi.org/10.32331/sgd.1318002 google scholar
3. Karanfil, İ. & Efe, E. (2025). Türkiye’de esnaf kurye modeli ve direniş: Trendyol’a bağlı kuryelerin iş bırakma eylemi. Emek ve Araştırma Dergisi, 16(27), 25-52. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/emekarastirma/article/1658852 google scholar
4. Erol, A. (2023). Kendi hesabına çalışan (esnaf) kuryelerin hukuki statüleri ve sendikalaşma hakları. Selçuk Hukuk Dergisi, 33(3), 1081- 1108. https://doi.org/10.15337/suhfd.1288017 google scholar
5. Bakın, A. (2025). Platform ekonomiside emeğin örgütlenmesi: Hukuki belirsizlikler, mekansal dağınıklık ve algortimik denetim mekanizmaları. Emek Araştırma Dergisi, 16(27), 1- 24. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/emekarastirma/article/1689854 google scholar
6. Öz, İ. (2023). Platform ekonomisinde kollektif eylemi yeniden düşünmek: Trendyol ve Yemeksepeti kuryelerinin eylemleri. Eğitim Bilim Toplum Dergisi, 21(82), 87- 116. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ebt/article/1244884 google scholar
7. Abuladze A. (2024). Delivering resistance: Exploring mobilization and collective actions of food delivery couriers in Georgia. (Master’s dissertation, The Arctic University, Tromso). https://nva.sikt.no/registration/0198f3c9f8d1-ed75e27e-0f92-4a62-bc30-59b7b393009e google scholar
8. BEIS. (2018). The Characteristics of the Those in the Gig Economy. Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy, United Kingdom. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5aa69800e5274a3e391e38fa/The_characteristics_of_those_in_the_gig_economy.pdf google scholar

9. Benach J., Vives A., Amable M., Vanroelen C., Tarafa G., & Muntaner C. (2014). Precarious employment: Understanding an emerging social determinant of health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 229–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182500 google scholar
10. Chen, C. & Chen, X. (2024). Ethical challenges for same-day delivery contractors. International Journal of Ethics and Systems. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-07-2024-0208 google scholar
11. Chung, H. & Van der Lippe, T. (2020). Flexible working, work-life balance, and gender equality: İntroduction. Social Indicators Research, 151, 365- 381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-2025-x google scholar
12. CIPD. (2017). To Gig or Not to Gig? Stories from the Modern Economy. Survey Report. https://www.cipd.org/globalassets/media/knowledge/knowledge-hub/reports/to-gig-or-not-to-gig_2017-stories-from-the-modern-economy_tcm18-18955.pdf google scholar
13. De Stefano, V. (2015). The rise of the ‘just-in-time workforce’: On-demand work, crowdwork and labor protection in the gig economy. Comparative Labor Law Journal, 3, 471- 504. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2682602 google scholar
14. De Stefano, & Aloisi, A. (2018). European legal framework for digital labor platforms. European Commission. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC112243 google scholar
15. Defossez, D. (2021). The employment status of food delivery riders in Europe and the UK: Self-employed or worker? Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 29(1), 25- 456. https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X211051833 google scholar
16. Doorn, N. (2020). From a wage to a wager: dynamic pricing in the gig economy. J. Muldoon and W. Sronge (Ed.), Platform equality, policy, challanges for the digital economy, (9-22). Autonomy. google scholar
17. Drahokoupil, H. & Piasna, A. (2019). Work in the platform economy: Deliveroo riders in Belgium and the smart arrangement. ETUI. https://www.etui.org/sites/default/files/WP-2019-01-deliveroo-WEB-2.pdf google scholar
18. ETSC. (2003). Transport safety performance in the EU–A statistical overview. https://etsc.eu/transport-safety-performance-in-the-eu-a-statistical-overview/ google scholar
19. Eurofound. (2018). Employment and working conditions of selected types of platform work. Publications Office of the European Union. https://www.skillsforemployment.org/sites/default/files/2024-01/edmsp1_225225.pdf google scholar
20. European Parliament (2020). The platform economy and precarious work. Policy department for economic, scientific, and quality of life policies. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/652734/IPOL_STU(2020)652734_EN.pdf google scholar
21. Foucault, M. (2019). Hapisanenin doğuşu (M. A. Kılıçbay, çev.). İmge Yayınları. 8. Baskı. google scholar
22. Garben, S. (2019). The regulatory challenge of occupational safety and health in the online platform economy. International Social Security Review, 72(3), 95-121. https://doi.org/10.1111/issr.12215 google scholar
23. Goods, C., Veen, A., Barrat, T. (2019). Is your gig any good? Analyzing job quality in the Australian platform-based food delivery sector. Journal of Industrial Relations, 61(4), 502-527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185618817 google scholar
24. Hinterseer, T. (2013). Part-time work: Atypical? Precarious? Normal? European Journal of Futures Research, 1(18), 1- 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40309-013-0018-1 google scholar
25. Huang, H. (2023). Algotirmic management in the food delivery platform economy in China. New Technology, Work and Employment,38(2), 185- 205. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12228 google scholar
26. Huang, H. (2023). The food delivered is more valuable than my life: Understanding the platform precarity of online food delivery work in China. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 53(5), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2022.2155866 google scholar
27. Huberman, L. (2021). Feodal toplumdan 21. yüzyıla (M. Belge, çev.). İletişim Yayınları. 21. Baskı. google scholar
28. Huws, U. (2018). Küresel dijital ekonomide emek (C. Şenesen, çev.). Yordam Yayınları. 1. Baskı. google scholar
29. ILO. (2015). National employment policies: A guide for workers’ organizations. International Labor Office. https://www.ilo.org/publications/national-employment-policies-guide-workers%E2%80%99-organisations google scholar
30. ILO. (2016). Non-standard employment around the world: Understanding challenges and shaping prospects. International Labor Office https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/@publ/documents/publication/wcms_534496.pdf google scholar
31. ILO. (2021). World employment and social outlook on the role of digital labor platforms in transforming the world of work. International Labor Office. https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/@publ/documents/publication/wcms_771749.pdf google scholar
32. ILO. (2022). Motosikletli kuryeler odağında teslimat sektörü çalışanlarına yönelik psikososyal risk analizi. Uluslararası Çalışma Ofisi. https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@europe/@ro-geneva/@ilo-ankara/documents/publication/wcms_837229.pdf google scholar
33. ILO. (2025). Realizing decent work in the platform economy. International Labor Office. https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/2025-02/ILC113-V%282%29-%5BWORKQ-241129-001%5D-Web-EN.pdf google scholar
34. Kalleberg, A. L. (2009). Precarious work and insecure workers: Employment relations in transition. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400101 google scholar
35. Kalleberg, A. L. (2021). Precarious lives: Job insecurity and well-being in rich democracies. American Sociological Association, 50(2). https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0094306121991073 google scholar
36. Kervola, H., Hyvönen, S., Kallionpää, E., Liimatainen, H. (2024). Flexibility and freedom suit me better: Food delivery couriers preferred employment status. Frontiers in Sociology, 9, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2024.1415852 google scholar
37. Kesane, I., Spurina, M. (2024). Sociological types of precarity among gig workers: Lived experiences of food delivery workers in Riga. Social Inclusion, 12, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.7696 google scholar
38. Law Commission of Canada (2005). Annual report. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/lcc-cdc/documents/annual-reports/LCC%20Annual%20Report%202004-2005.pdf google scholar
39. Law Commission of Ontario (2010). Vulnerable workers and precarious work. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/lcc-cdc/documents/annual-reports/LCC%20Annual%20Report%202004-2005.pdf google scholar
40. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256294652_Naturalistic_Inquiry google scholar
41. Mansson, J. & Ottosson, J. (2011). Transitions from part-time unemployment: Is part-time work a dead end or a stepping stone to the labor market? Economic and Industrial Democracy, 32(4), 569-589. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831X10387836 google scholar
42. Markey, M. L. (2023). Law, precarious labor and posted workers: A sociolegal study on posted work in the EU (First edition). Routledge. google scholar
43. May, B. (2019). Precarious work: Understanding the changing nature of work in Canada: Report of the standing committee on human resources. https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/HUMA/Reports/RP10553151/humarp19/humarp19-e.pdf google scholar
44. Mendonca, P., Kougiannou, N. K., Clarl, I. (2023). Informalization in gig food delivery in the UK: The case of hyperflexible and precarious work. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 62(8), 60- 77. https://doi.org/10.1111/irel.12320 google scholar
45. Miles M. B. & Huberman, M.A. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2th edition). Sage. google scholar
46. Moore, S. & Newsome, K. (2018). Paying for free delivery: Dependent self-employment as a measure of precarity in parcel delivery. Work, Employment and Society, 32(3), 475-492. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017018755664 google scholar
47. O’Farrell, R. & Montagnier, P. (2019). Measuring platform-mediated workers. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2019/04/measuring-platform-mediated-workers_14dcaf32/170a14d9-en.pdf google scholar
48. OECD, ILO, EU (2023). Handbook on measuring digital platform employment and work. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/03/handbook-on-measuring-digital-platform-employment-and-work_f4c975ea/0ddcac3b-en.pdf google scholar
49. Pawlowska, Z., Ordysinski, S., Pecillo, M., Galwas-Grzeszkiewicz, M. (2025). A study of working conditions in platform work. Sustainability, 17(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146536 google scholar
50. Perri, M., O’Campo, P., Gill, P., Gunn, V., Ma, R. W., Buhariwala, P., Rasoulian, E., Lewchuk, W., Baron, S., Bodin, T., Muntaner, C. (2024). Precarious work on the rise. BMC Public Health, 24 (2074). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19363-3 google scholar
51. Piasna, A., Zwysen, W., Drahokoupil, J. (2022). The platform economy in Europe: Results from the second ETUI internet and platform work survey. ETUI. https://www.etui.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/The%20platform%20economy%20in%20Europe_2022.pdf google scholar
52. Renau-Cano, M., Espelt, R., Fuster Morell, M. (2021). Flexibility and freedom for whom? Precarity, freedom, and flexibility in on-demand food delivery. Work Organization Labor and Globalization, 15(1), 46- 68. https://doi.org/10.13169/workorgalaboglob.15.1.0046 google scholar
53. Rijswijk, K. (2020). Digital transformation: Ongoing digitization and digitalization processes. https://desira2020.agr.unipi.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/DESIRA_article_rijswijk_digitisation.pdf google scholar
54. Rodgers, G. & Rodgers, J. (1989). Precarious jobs in labor market regulation: The growth of atypical employment in western Europe (First edition). International Labor Office. google scholar
55. Shenton, Andrew K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63- 75. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201 google scholar
56. Sikolia D., Biros D., Mason M., Weiser M. (2013). Trustworthiness of grounded theory methodology research in ınformation systems. AIS Electronic Library. https://www.academia.edu/128741267/Trustworthiness_of_Grounded_Theory_Methodology_Research_in_Information_Systems google scholar Smith, K. (2020). What is the knowledge economy? Knowledge-intensive industries and distributed knowledge bases. The United Nations University. https://www.knowledge4all.com/admin/Temp/Files/95c9162b-b420-4b49-9b2b-5a7bac1c5539.pdf google scholar
57. Standing, G. (2011). The precariat: The new dangerous class (E. Bulut, çev.). İletişim Yayınları 2. Baskı. google scholar
58. Statistic Finland (2021). Labor force survey. https://eures.europa.eu/living-and-working/labour-market-information/labour-market-information-finland_en#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20the%20labour%20force,work%20in%20the%20service%20sector google scholar
59. Stevart, P., Shanan, G. Smith, M. (2020). Individualism and collectivism at work in an era of deindustrialization: Work narratives of food delivery couriers in the platform economy, People, Organizations & Society, Grenoble Ecole de Management, 5, 1- 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2020.00049 google scholar
60. Tirapani, A. N. (2021). Neither a dream nor a nightmare: Exploring precariousness from an organization studies perspective. (Doctoral dissertation, Tilburg University, Tilburg). https://research.tilburguniversity.edu/en/publications/neither-a-dream-nor-a-nightmare-exploring-precariousness-from-an-/ google scholar
61. Urzi B., Maria C., Pesole, A. Férnandéz-Macías, E. (2020). New evidence on platform workers in Europe. Publications Office of the European Union https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC118570 google scholar
62. Vosko, L. F. (2010). Managing the margins: Gender, citizenship, and the international regulation of precarious employment (First edition). Oxford University Press google scholar
63. Vosko, L. F., MacDonald, M., Campbell, I. (2009). Gender and the contours of precarious employment (First edition). Routledge. google scholar
64. Wang, Q. & Churchill, B. (2024). Risky business: How food-delivery platform riders understand and manage safety and work. Journal of Sociology, 61(2), 1- 17. https://doi.org/10.1177/14407833241246571 google scholar