Delivery riders often work in a sector built on unpredictable demand, unpaid waiting time and app-based control. Across Europe, authorities and courts are increasingly questioning whether this model amounts to misclassified employment and, in some cases, labour exploitation.
Yet the Nordic region also offers evidence that a fairer approach is possible: in parts of Sweden, Denmark and Norway, collective agreements have introduced guaranteed hourly pay and clearer protections that reduce income volatility.
Why platform delivery keeps riders insecure in Europe
Food delivery platforms expanded quickly by promising convenience to consumers and flexibility to workers. In practice, many riders carry most of the risk. Pay depends on orders, while waiting time can be unpaid or poorly compensated. Riders can also be managed through opaque performance metrics, with limited ability to challenge decisions such as reduced access to orders or account deactivation.
The risks are not theoretical. For example, on 9 February 2026, prosecutors in Milan placed Glovo’s Italian unit under judicial supervision over alleged labour exploitation. The case highlighted a recurring European problem: riders who are formally self-employed but organised and monitored in ways comparable to employees.
What the Nordic picture shows, country by country
The Nordic countries share strong welfare systems, but platform delivery has developed uneven standards.
In Finland, the status of Wolt couriers has been at the centre of a legal dispute. In May 2025, Finland’s Supreme Administrative Court ruled that Wolt couriers can meet the criteria for an employment relationship. In February 2026, Yle reported that Wolt hired its first couriers as employees, but under exceptional terms: couriers are paid for time spent delivering, not for time spent waiting for orders, and they use their own vehicles without compensation. The case shows that a formal employment label does not automatically settle the question of paid downtime.
In Sweden, legal pressure has also increased. In 2025, the Administrative Court of Appeal in Gothenburg found that a platform company should be treated as the employer for work environment responsibility. The decision matters because it limits the claim that platforms are only intermediaries.
Denmark has no legal minimum wage, and pay floors are typically negotiated through collective bargaining. For food delivery couriers, a key reference is the collective agreement between 3F and Dansk Erhverv covering third-party delivery of prepared food (Madudbringningsoverenskomsten). It set a guaranteed hourly rate of DKK 133.35 (€17,85) from March 2023 and DKK 139.10 (€18,62) from March 2024.
Norway provides an example of how company-level bargaining can change platform delivery. Foodora’s collective agreement with Fellesforbundet introduced minimum hourly guarantees of NOK 140 (€12,45) on weekdays, NOK 150 (€13,33) on Saturdays and NOK 160 (€14,22) on Sundays, with seniority supplements.
Where conditions are better: wage floors and paid waiting time
Sweden’s Foodora agreement remains one of the clearest examples of a platform adopting an employee model with negotiated standards. Foodora’s bicycle and moped couriers covered by the collective agreement with the Swedish Transport Workers’ Union (Transportarbetareförbundet, “Transport”) work scheduled shifts and receive guaranteed hourly pay even when orders are slow.
Under the latest agreement, guaranteed hourly wages rose to SEK 125.45–150 from 1 May 2025, and are set to rise to SEK 130.90–155.90 from 1 May 2026 (about €11–€14, depending on the bracket). The core point is structural: waiting time counts as paid work time within the agreed shift.
Denmark’s most cited employee-based example has been Just Eat, which has operated with a collective agreement for couriers negotiated with 3F and Dansk Erhverv. Research published by the Nordic Council of Ministers noted that, after renegotiation in 2023, the agreement ran until 2025 and covered 850 employed couriers at the time.
Norway’s Foodora agreement is narrower in coverage than Sweden’s, but it shows the same logic: the company compensates riders up to a minimum level when the delivery-based total would otherwise fall below the hourly guarantee.
How the Nordics got there: bargaining power, courts and market structure
These wage floors did not appear automatically. They emerged through three channels.
First, collective bargaining remains the main tool for setting pay and conditions across much of the Nordic labour market. Where a platform accepts bargaining, it can be pulled into an existing framework of wage scales, supplements and predictable scheduling.
Second, court decisions increasingly limit platforms’ ability to avoid employer-like duties. Finland’s ruling on Wolt couriers and Sweden’s work environment decision both point to a similar question: if a platform controls key working conditions through digital systems, it may also carry responsibility.
Third, competition shapes what scales. Platforms compete on cost, and labour is a central variable. If one company offers guaranteed pay and others rely on per-delivery compensation, the cheaper model can undercut the employer model unless bargaining coverage is high or regulation reduces the gap.
Sweden’s approach is linked to the strength of its bargaining system. Sweden combines high collective bargaining coverage with sector-wide wage setting, even without a statutory minimum wage. That makes it easier for unions to negotiate standards that include paid waiting time, at least for the companies that sign.
Why EU rules could make Sweden less exceptional
The European Union has adopted Directive (EU) 2024/2831 on improving working conditions in platform work. Member states must apply it from 2 December 2026.
The directive aims to reduce misclassification and strengthen oversight of algorithmic management, including transparency and human involvement when automated systems monitor workers or take decisions that affect them. If implemented robustly, it could narrow the space for business models that combine employment-like control with contractor status and unpaid downtime.
It will not create a single European wage model, and it does not replace collective bargaining. But it raises the baseline for accountability and could make Nordic-style wage floors easier to defend, especially where platforms depend on opaque ranking systems and unilateral pay settings.
What a fairer delivery model requires
Platform delivery is likely to remain a permanent part of urban economies. The policy question is whether it should rely on riders absorbing risk through unpaid waiting time and unpredictable earnings. Nordic examples suggest three practical conditions for a fairer model.
A guaranteed hourly wage matters because it stabilises income and makes it possible to plan shifts and rest. Clear responsibility matters because courts and regulators need to identify who is accountable for pay rules, safety and work environment standards. Coverage matters because a single company agreement can improve conditions for those included, but not for riders in competing contractor models.
Foodora’s Swedish agreement does not remove every pressure in delivery work. Riders still face road risk, weather and performance monitoring. It does, however, show that platforms can operate with wage floors and paid waiting time. In a sector often associated with insecurity, delivery riders in the Nordics illustrate that better standards are achievable when bargaining power, legal clarity and enforcement align.
