See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/357972381

Barriers to entry of gig workers in the gig platforms: exploring the dark side of
the gig economy

Article  in  Aslib Journal of Information Management · January 2022

DOI: 10.1108/AJIM-08-2021-0235

CITATIONS READS

0 721

4 authors, including:

Pratima Amol Sheorey Ashish Mahendra

eVyaas Learning Pvt Ltd Pondicherry University
31 PUBLICATIONS   205 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Human Resource Management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ashish Mahendra on 29 January 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2050-3806.htm

Barriers to entry of gig workers in Barriers to

entry of gig
the gig platforms: exploring the workers

dark side of the gig economy

Aastha Behl
Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune, India and
Jagannath International Management School, New Delhi, India Received 16 August 2021
Revised 19 November 2021
K. Rajagopal and Pratima Sheorey 31 December 2021
Accepted 1 January 2022
Symbiosis Centre for Management and Human Resource Development (SCMHRD),
Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune, India, and
Ashish Mahendra
School of Management, IMS Unison University, Dehradun, India and
Department of Banking Technology, Pondicherry University, Puducherry, India

Abstract
Purpose – The alternative arrangements to traditional employment have become a promising area in the gig
economy with the technological advancements dominating every work. The purpose of this paper is to explore
the barriers to the entry of gig workers in gig platforms pertaining to the food delivery sector. It proposes a
framework using interpretive structural modelling (ISM) for which systematic literature review is done to
extract the variables. This analysis helps to examine the relationship between the entry barriers to gig
platforms. The study further proposes strategies to reduce the entry barriers in gig sector which would help to
enhance productivity and generate employment opportunities.
Design/methodology/approach – The study uses interpretive structural model (ISM) to ascertain the
relationship between various entry barriers of the gig workers to the gig platforms. It also validates the
relationship and understand the reasons of their association along with MICMAC analysis. The model was
designed by consulting the gig workers and the experts allied to food delivery gig platforms namely Zomato
and Swiggy.
Findings – It was observed that high competition, longer login hours and late-night deliveries are the
significant barriers with high driving power and low dependence power. Poor payment structures and strict
terms and conditions for receiving the incentives are interdependent on each other and have moderate driving
and dependence power. The expenses borne by the gig workers, such as Internet, fuel and vehicle maintenance
expenses have high dependence power and low driving power. Hence, they are relatively less significant than
other barriers.
Research limitations/implications – The study is confined to food delivery sector of India, without
considering other important sectors of gig economy for generalizing the framework. As the study is based on
forming an ISM framework through literature review only, it does not consider other research methods for
analysing the entry barriers to the gig platforms.
Practical implications – The study attempts to dig out the low entry barriers for gig workers in food
delivery platforms as there is a dearth of analysis of these factors. This study would weave them using ISM
framework to help the gig platforms overcome these barriers at various levels, thus adding to the body of
literature.
Originality/value – The study discusses the need for understanding relationship between the entry barriers
in the form of ISM model to identify the dependent and driving factors of the same.
Keywords Gig economy, Interpretive structural modelling, Food delivery sector, Entry barriers,
MICMAC, India
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Digitalization and globalization have led to the growth of the gig economy across the globe to Aslib Journal of Information
Management
support alternative work arrangements that have the advantage of flexible working hours. © Emerald Publishing Limited
2050-3806
With the advancement in technology, people’s preferences for jobs have changed from DOI 10.1108/AJIM-08-2021-0235
AJIM traditional ones to freelance services (Todol
ı-Signes, 2017). The surge of Internet users and
the demand for food delivery services have created a broad opportunity for India’s sprawling
gig workers to work as per their own convenience. While the demand to access the desired
goods and services is transforming the urban economies, the gig workforce is devalued at its
core due to high competition and unemployment prevailing in the country (Davidson and
Infranca, 2015).
The era of growth-at-all-costs has made many gig workers unhappy because of increasing
discounts and coupons given to the customers (Ray et al., 2019) and market correction rates
prevailing in the gig sector. The monthly income of food delivery gig workers has plummeted,
which is unfair when the demand for such deliveries is at an inflection point (Kaine and
Josserand, 2019). Gig platforms have added delivery persons by thousands due to such high
demand, as this sector has very low entry barriers. Since they are contract workers who are not
even directly hired through the gig platforms, they are not covered in the ambit of labour
regulation and social security. They have no say in the wages and terms of work, and the
incentives are strictly based on their working hours. The gig platforms offer employee benefits
such as accident, medical and life insurance but the claim to such benefits hardly reaches them.
Additionally, the modest income received by the gig workers leads to frequent dropouts or
irregularity in the work schedule of the gig workers (Behl et al., 2021; Anwar and Graham, 2021).
It is important to understand that existing literature in this sector has failed to list the
entry barriers that gig workers face while choosing to work under this platform. Existing
studies focus on barriers and problems faced by the gig workers during their work or the
challenges faced by the gig economy in general (Tan et al., 2021; Koutsimpogiorgos et al.,
2020; Bregiannis et al., 2017). Although the studies mention that there are low entry barriers in
the gig economy, it is essential to portray these entry barriers concerning food delivery
platforms and their impact on the gig sector.
The COVID-19 crisis reveals the unprecedented growth of the gig sector due to the drastic
demand for jobs in the economy. Considering the dearth of literature and paucity of studies in
this field, the following are the objectives of the study:
(1) To explore the entry barriers for the gig workers in the gig platforms in India,
(2) To develop a theoretical framework for understanding the barriers that gig workers
face when entering the gig platforms and
(3) To recommend strategic measures to combat the restrictions and barriers for gig
workers in the gig platforms in India.
The present work aims to address the research gaps in the literature and highlights the
importance of gig workers in the food delivery sector, such as Zomato and Swiggy, with the
help of a hierarchical model. The study utilizes the ISM model that reveals the hierarchy of
the identified barriers to entry in the gig sector based on their interrelationship. The reachability
matrix and level partitioning is done by identifying the barriers and representing them in a
diagraph. There exist umpteen studies that discuss concepts related to the factors that make
gig workers choose gig jobs. However, the entry barriers are not addressed clearly in the
past literature. The relationship link to these barriers is also missing. Hence, the present
study addresses three important research questions, namely:
RQ1. What are the entry barriers for the gig workers in the gig platforms?
RQ2. What are the reasons for developing a theoretical framework to understand the
relationship between these entry barriers for the gig workers in India?
RQ3. What are the driving and dependent factors for these entry barriers in the gig
platforms?
As showcased by the literature review in the next section, which consists of the entry barriers Barriers to
for the gig workers in the gig platforms, this study proposes to design a conceptual entry of gig
framework using interpretive structural modelling (ISM). This will help understand the linear
relationship between all the entry barriers that act as constructs to the study. The theoretical
workers
framework will help understand the factors restricting the gig workers from choosing gig
jobs in the food delivery sector. This study would suggest strategic measures to combat the
same for the mutual benefit to both sides of the gig economy. The study also discusses which
entry barriers are essential in the gig sector that helps in bringing potential outcomes of
growth in the gig economy. To the best of our knowledge, such a study is being conducted for
the first time, by listing down the entry barriers and confirming the same with the gig
workers and their recruiters.
The study is divided into five sections. The first section introduces the topic and discusses
the significance of the study. It explains the gig economy’s background and how the entry
barriers of the gig workers to the gig platforms serve as a dark side of this sector. The second
section depicts the background of scholarly work done in the gig sector to find the entry
barriers that restrict the gig workers from taking gig jobs in the food delivery sector in India.
The section extends the entry barriers by shortlisting the variables and exploring the
relevant work done in this field and identifying the research gaps. The third section discusses
the research designs and research methodology used in the study. The fourth section
discusses the results of the analysis derived from ISM. The last section concludes the study
and lists the unique contributions and limitations, and signifies the future scope of research.

2. Review of literature
2.1 Overview of the gig economy
With the rapid proliferation of technological innovations, the gig economy has contributed to
the development of non-standardized forms of work through digital platforms. These
platforms operate with low basic pay, job insecurity and low fringe benefits. Since the jobs are
contractual and flexible in nature, they tend to be a secondary income source for most gig
workers. This is often termed as on-demand jobs, digital work, just-in-time work or shared
economy, where a short-term task is assigned to an individual, for which they are
contractually paid, and the platforms have high worker turnovers (De Stefano, 2016; Farrell
and Greig, 2016). The contingent work is digitally mediated, and can be performed remotely
at the location of the customers (Graham and Anwar, 2018). With low barriers to entry and
simple accessibility, the gig economy works with complete autonomy of working hours,
developing a boundary-less career for the gig workforce. The study extracts these low entry
barriers to the gig platforms, specifically in the food delivery sector, with the help of past
literature from renowned journals.

2.2 Barriers to entry of gig workers in the gig platforms

The economy is witnessing a significant shift in bringing the flexible nature of work across
geographical boundaries. This so-called flex or gig economy has brought a tremendous
change and has led to the expansion of markets worldwide. The growing needs of the
working population has resulted in a war for talent, driving the gig workforce to leverage
technology to accommodate their work. The gig economy is still at a very nascent stage in
India, but the demand for work on the gig platforms has seen rapid growth in the last few
years. The low entry barriers have also been one of the primary reasons for the rising demand
of the gig sector in every field. The gig economy seems to be a win-win situation for both the
gig workers and gig platforms, but remains very complicated on a ground level. This section
focuses on the identification of barriers to entry of gig workers in the food delivery gig
platforms, with the help of existing literature:
AJIM (1) Payment structures: The gig economy has a unique employment relationship in which
gig workers are not beholden to any employer, and they have the liberty to choose
their hours of work. Similarly, gig platforms enjoy the similar flexibility as they do not
have to depend on gig workers for the execution of tasks, thus helping them avoid the
additional cost of social security and fixed remuneration. This sector has brought
both praise and ire in equal measure. Gig workers get paid per job/per task by
officially marking their time to ensure fair payout, and they do not have any fixed
payment structures (Bergman and Jean, 2016; Ahmad, 2020; Roy-Mukherjee and
Harrison, 2020). Since the transactions have no formal contract, their payment is often
delayed, or the basic wages remain uncertain, depending on the tasks they take up
(Belanche et al., 2021; Prassl, 2018; Heeks et al., 2021). Emerging evidence shows the
darkest side of the gig economy: stressful working conditions, low pay structures,
precarity, no bargaining powers and lack of employment protection (Woodcock and
Graham, 2019; Anwar and Graham, 2021).
(2) Incentives: During times of low demand for work, gig workers keep twiddling their
thumbs all day, waiting for another gig work to be assigned, as they have no financial
security. But during high demand, gig platforms keep track of workers’ productivity
by promoting incentives systems based on their reputation and ranking, and
discouraging switching jobs within the gig sector (Ray et al., 2019). Many gig
platforms like ridesharing and food delivery platforms fix a minimum amount of
login period and specify the number of deliveries to incentivize their gig workers
based on algorithm system (Wu and Zheng, 2020; Collier et al., 2017). Yet gig
platforms often intervene with bonuses and incentives of these gig workers and
regulate the work floor by strict control over the terms and conditions of receiving
these incentives (Parwez and Ranjan, 2021; Krijger, 2019; Butschek et al., 2019; Adams
et al., 2018). Since these incentives are temporary in nature (Jabagi et al., 2019), there
has to be a structure that helps the gig workforce stay motivated with the rewards for
the work they do.
Gig platforms rarely use these incentives to motivate gig workers to engage and commit
themselves to their work (Mukhopadhyay and Chatwin, 2020). Allon et al. (2018) finds that
financial incentives positively affect work quality, and gig platforms have benefitted from
incentive optimizations. In the areas where the gig workers do not get formal incentives with
the guarantee of a minimum income, the workers have to remain content with their basic
income in hand (Horton, 2017). But their condition is so weak that the gig workers live at the
beck and call of an online app just to make their ends meet. Despite low ratings, restaurants
need to be significantly present on the food delivery platforms to make their names reach
their customers with positive network effects (Kung and Zhong, 2017). This, in turn, helps
incentivize the gig workers by increasing their deliveries, and helps the restaurants to get an
opportunity to focus on their core competencies. Better protection with more attractive
incentives helps the gig workers enhance their capabilities in the right direction (Taylor
et al., 2017).
(3) High competition: With the growth of unemployment in India, gig workers have been
clamouring for jobs even if they pay less and offer stiff competition. While on the one
hand gig workers need to monitor the app to do the assigned work constantly, on the
other hand the gig platforms benefit from the increased competition that reduces the
wages of these gig workers (Gomez-Herrera et al., 2017; Graham et al., 2017). These
workers often face undercut by a lower bid racing to the bottom, making even the
basic pay impossible during fluctuating demand (Anwar and Graham, 2021; Johnston
and Land-Kazlauskas, 2018). The matching of algorithms with clients depends on the
 competition faced by these platforms, which reduces gig workers’ hourly pay wages, Barriers to
thus reducing their earnings unambiguously (Schwellnus et al., 2019; Ostoj, 2019). entry of gig
The regulations addressing high competition and the gig workers’ rights are almost
absent in most legislative decisions (Collier et al., 2017). Many studies reveal that gig
workers
platforms try to develop new forms of algorithmic shortlisting of gig workers to ease
the roles of recruiters during fierce competition (Williams et al., 2021). As a result of
intensifying competition, there is a shift of domination and control, thus suppressing
their wages and working conditions (Shibata, 2020).
(4) Operating expenses: The sharing economy has significantly transformed the
traditional business patterns and the way people work. The gig workers bear the
transaction and operating expenses out of their own pockets and the gig platforms
use this to gain huge profits by just being a digital mediator between the customers
and the gig workers (Xiao, 2019). Ever since the payments have been transforming
digitally, it has been a great help to the gig workers to plan and manage their vehicle
expenses such as EMI, fuel or maintenance costs (Prabhat et al., 2019). But during low
demand, the average net hourly expenditures borne by these gig workers are
sometimes higher than the wages earned by them (Bharadkar et al., 2020). They do
not have the means to afford the purchase or lease vehicles for deliveries or ride
sharing (Schwellnus et al., 2019). Several studies report that the yearly net incomes of
these workers after deducting daily expenses are low even if they work for more than
eight hours a day (Buchak, 2019; Herrera et al., 2020; Manriquez, 2019). Apparently,
there is a pressing need to have a special employment law that reimburses the
running costs borne by the gig workers (Todol
ı-Signes, 2017).
(5) Login hours and late-night deliveries: Gig workers generally work through zero-hour
contracts where they have the liberty to choose their work hours – and they’re paid
accordingly – considering themselves as the secondary contributors to household
incomes. Hence this is called login employment, where it entirely depends on the
platform to direct the work to the gig workers according to the market demand
(Yakubovich et al., 2018). The login employment becomes precarious when the
workload decreases, thus making the workers choose peak hours and late-night
deliveries to garner high earnings (Dunn, 2020). Working for longer hours on multiple
platforms is a necessity as these platforms offer low barriers to entry and relatively
stable monotonous work with free login systems (Cano et al., 2021; Shevchuk et al.,
2021).
(6) Social protection and retirement benefits: There is a vast gap in covering the gig
workforce within the ambit of social security and this demand remains as relevant as
ever (Van Doorn et al., 2020). It is a double challenge for the gig workers as it undermines
their rights and dignity, distorts fair employment and exacerbates poverty (Hunt et al.,
2018; Chaudhary, 2021). The contractual gig work is based on an ambiguous
employment relationship, giving rise to uncertainty in social protection, but it is mainly
relegated to a marginalized position in the digital niches (Chen et al., 2020; Roy and
Shrivastava, 2020). As social protection is designed for employees under the traditional
approach, gig workers fall into the gaps to access social protection, thus increasing the
risks of poverty and economic uncertainty in the long run (Aranguiz and Bednarowicz,
2018; Bregiannis et al., 2017). The government in most countries also lacks policies that
maintain the social welfare and security of the gig workers (Rahim et al., 2021).
Employees misclassify the gig workers as contractual workers than employees in most countries,
denying them their rights towards health and retirement benefits, accidental insurance or any
AJIM fringe benefits (Friedman, 2014; Donovan et al., 2016; Etzioni, 2018; Leenoi, 2021). On the one hand,
the gig workers have control over their work schedules, but on the other hand, these workers have
no social interaction, thus pushing them into erratic work hours. Financial constraints could be a
reason for gig workers choosing their jobs, but they tend to remain unreceptive to the routine
corporate culture (Veluchamy et al., 2021). Especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic,
gig workers are even more vulnerable to health problems because of their routine travel jobs in the
ride sharing and food delivery sectors (Osorio, 2020).
(7) Digital skills: Technological advancements have helped the gig workers grasp digital
skills that have surfaced in India, but not everyone is educated and tech-savvy
enough to operate the app that assigns them the work through digital marketplaces.
Unavailability of Internet connectivity and poor skills to operate digitally remain
barriers to the gig work (Huang et al., 2018, 2020; Heeks, 2017). Digitally mediated gig
work has become the need of the hour for the gig workers to work without any
constraint of time and location (Gandhi et al., 2018). This system is entirely based on
algorithms, and digital skills are the basic means of coordinating and impeding the
ability of the gig workers to navigate and control their work (Jarrahi and Sutherland,
2019; Soriano and Panaligan, 2019).
(8) Background checks: The rise of the gig economy has made the screening process
complex by adding background checks while hiring gig workers. While this seems to
be an entry barrier for a handful of people, it is a basic requirement for the gig
platforms. An identity proof and a copy of the registered license is required to be
deposited along with onboarding fees (Van Doorn et al., 2020; Heeks, 2017; Hunt et al.,
2018). The platforms exercise strict control over the conditions of work of gig workers
after checking their background and other details like experience, qualifications and
knowledge (Collier et al., 2017; Norlander et al., 2021; Donovan et al., 2016). This is a
part of their training regime. The roadworthiness of vehicles is also checked before
allowing them to do their work (Christie and Ward, 2019; Enwukwe, 2021).
(9) Language barriers: Inappropriate language can cause collateral damage to the gig
workers as they get strict instructions to be careful with the words they use (Page-
Tickell et al., 2020). These workers are not very familiar with English, yet they are
expected to read the orders before they deliver. Among all the barriers gig workers
face, learning the local or domestic language is essential to the gig work. They are
expected to read the English language and be courteous while delivering things (Van
Doorn et al., 2020; Montgomery and Baglioni, 2021).
(10) Gender discrimination: The issue of gender inequality in gig work is often overlooked
against all the other concerns of the gig workers. Gender stereotype is not as
important for hiring workers for some gig jobs such as ride sharing or food delivery
but is a boon to some women who choose this work over any other work for managing
their homes (Milkman et al., 2021; Galperin, 2019). Although female participation is
less, many gig platforms have enabled women to enter the gig market, even if it is for
domestic work or daycare services (Pober, 2019; Chaudhary, 2021; Kaine et al., 2020).
There is a gender pay gap and discrimination in several gig works, but women need
to overcome it by stepping up for male-typed gig jobs (Kasliwal, 2020; Tan et al., 2021;
Vyas, 2021; Churchill and Craig, 2019; Bansal et al., 2021).

3. Research design
3.1 Instrument development
We developed a qualitative approach to create a conceptual framework for understanding the
relationship of the entry barriers for gig workers in the gig platforms in the food delivery
sector in India. The study was conducted in several phases. It started with extraction of Barriers to
several entry barriers of gig workers in the gig platforms namely Zomato and Swiggy with entry of gig
the help of literature review.
Table 1 briefly summarizes the existing literature on barriers and references that impact
workers
gig workers’ entry on gig platforms in the food delivery gig sector, as identified from the
above literature survey.
It is essential to mention that there were ten constructs/barriers initially identified through
the literature review, which are clearly depicted in Table 1 above. But out of those ten
constructs, only six were shortlisted with the help of interviews from gig workers of Zomato
and Swiggy. These barriers were cross-examined with the experts who are recruiters of food
delivery platforms to understand the relationship between them. The four constructs which
were excluded from the analysis of gig workers and experts encompass:
(1) Digital skills
(2) Background checks
(3) Language barriers
(4) Gender discrimination

Brief description
S. no of the barriers References

B1 Payment structures Bergman and Jean (2016), Ahmad (2020), Belanche et al. (2021), Prassl
(2018), Roy-Mukherjee and Harrison (2020), Heeks et al. (2021),
Woodcock and Graham (2019), Anwar and Graham (2021)
B2 Incentives Parwez and Ranjan (2021), Mukhopadhyay and Chatwin (2020),
Krijger (2019), Wu and Zheng (2020), Allon et al. (2018), Butschek et al.
(2019), Collier et al. (2017), Adams et al. (2018), Ray et al. (2019), Horton
(2017), Kung and Zhong (2017), Taylor et al. (2017)
B3 High competition Gomez-Herrera et al. (2017), Anwar and Graham (2021), Johnston and
Land-Kazlauskas (2018), Schwellnus et al. (2019), Collier et al. (2017),
Williams et al. (2021), Ostoj (2019), Graham et al. (2017), Shibata (2020)
B4 Operating expenses Prabhat et al. (2019), Schwellnus et al. (2019), Buchak (2019), Herrera
et al. (2020), Manriquez (2019), Todol
ı-Signes (2017), Xiao (2019),
Bharadkar et al. (2020)
B5 Login hours and late-night Yakubovich et al. (2018), Dunn (2020), Cano et al. (2021), Shevchuk
deliveries et al. (2021)
B6 Social protection and Van Doorn et al. (2020), Hunt et al. (2018), Chen et al. (2020), Aranguiz
retirement benefits and Bednarowicz (2018), Bregiannis et al. (2017), Chaudhary (2021),
Roy and Shrivastava (2020), Rahim et al. (2021), Friedman (2014),
Donovan et al. (2016), Etzioni (2018), Leenoi (2021), Veluchamy et al.
(2021), Osorio (2020)
B7 Digital skills Huang et al. (2018, 2020), Heeks (2017), Gandhi et al. (2018), Jarrahi and
Sutherland (2019), Soriano and Panaligan (2019)
B8 Background checks Van Doorn et al. (2020), Heeks (2017), Hunt et al. (2018), Collier et al.
(2017), Norlander et al. (2021), Donovan et al. (2016), Christie and Ward
(2019), Enwukwe (2021) Table 1.
B9 Language barriers Van Doorn et al. (2020), Montgomery and Baglioni (2021), Page- Summary of entry
Tickell et al. (2020) barriers for gig
B10 Gender discrimination Pober (2019), Kasliwal (2020), Tan et al. (2021), Milkman et al. (2021), workers in the food
Galperin (2019), Vyas (2021), Kaine et al. (2020), Bansal et al. (2021), delivery gig platforms
Chaudhary (2021), Churchill and Craig (2019) in India
AJIM 3.2 Sampling design and data collection
The study used ISM that commences with shortlisting variables considered relevant to the
issue (Attri et al., 2013). This was followed by taking opinions from both the gig workers and
the experts and recruiters from the gig platforms respectively, who helped identify entry
barriers and identify relationships among them. ISM is one such technique that helps
understand the directional relationship between various constructs (Warfield, 1974). A
questionnaire was developed to identify the entry barriers, for which the gig workers of
Zomato and Swiggy were consulted. To understand the relationship between the identified
barriers, we interviewed the recruiters from the recruitment agencies of Zomato and Swiggy.
The main objective of this study was to determine the relevant barriers that impact the gig
workers the most while entering the gig platforms.
The questionnaire was handed out to 45 gig workers who were the respondents of the
study, and the data from 30 respondents has been used in the study (Rafiq et al., 2021); hence,
the response rate of the study is 67%. The reliability of the questionnaire was checked
through Cronbach’s alpha and was found to be 92.1%. This value is significantly high.
The identification of six barriers out of a total of ten barriers depicted the impact and
significance of these barriers on the entry of gig workers in the food delivery gig platforms.
All the other barriers were rejected because their contribution in creating an impact on the gig
workers was extremely low.
The experts also helped to cross-examine the barriers shortlisted by the gig workers.
The experts included five recruiters from recruitment agencies of Zomato and Swiggy. The
interrelationship of these entry barriers was discussed with these experts and all the
irrelevant barriers, those having the least impact, were removed. All the overlapping barriers
were clubbed under one head. Experts also discussed the significance of the barriers
identified through literature review and held that some of them were just the essential
requirements of gig workers to join a gig platform rather than a barrier, and hence they
should be eliminated from the list. For example, the documents required for joining gig
platforms include PAN card and Aadhar card, which is a mandatory requirement and not an
entry barrier for any gig worker. A similar explanation was developed for gendered
employment and discrimination, which was eliminated as a barrier because all the
respondents interviewed were males. The recruiters held that women are generally reluctant
to work in the food delivery sector. They are unable to get incentives as they cannot dedicate
long hours to this work, and sustainability always remains an issue for them. Internet
connectivity and knowing the local language was another basic requirement of the gig work
rather than being an entry barrier. Since all these barriers were of very low significance and
were considered more like requirements of gig workers to enter in their gig jobs, they were
eliminated from the list.
The selected barriers were discussed in detail with both gig workers and experts. The next
step was to frame structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) with the help of these selected
variables. The shortlisted constructs were arranged in a matrix, discussed with the gig
workers and crosschecked with the recruiters. The responses from both the classes of
respondents were clubbed to understand the contextual relationship between these barriers.
The questionnaire was successfully understood by most of the respondents to identify the
unique relationships between these six constructs of the study. The recruiters, who were the
study experts, helped fill the entire set of questions in V, A, X and O format, as depicted in
Table 2.
A SSIM matrix classifies the entire set of variables into factors “i” in columns and factors
“j” in rows and explains the direction of these variables with the help of four symbols. This
helps in understanding which variable drives or influences the other variable. Thus, VAXO
matrix depicts:
 V – barrier “i” needs to be addressed before barrier “j” Barriers to
A – barrier “j” needs to be addressed before barrier “i” entry of gig
X – both barriers “i” and “j” need to be addressed simultaneously
workers
O – barriers “i” and “j” can be addressed independent of each other
This helps in identifying and assessing the precedence and association of linear relationships
between these barriers. This precedence drawn between the constructs omitted showing the
relationship of each barrier with itself to bring clarity regarding their associations with each other.
Considering the objectives of the proposed study, ISM was used to develop a conceptual
and theoretical model through semi-structured interviews. This was extended with Matrice
d’Impacts Croises-Multiplication Appliqu
e (MICMAC analysis) by analysing the driving and
dependence power of these barriers. The MICMAC analysis is also called cross-impact matrix
and it classifies these variables into four parts: autonomous, linkage, dependent and
independent factors.
ISM technique is divided into several steps according to Figure 1, as discussed here:
(1) A list of constructs which are relevant to the study are identified and shortlisted with
the help of existing literature.
(2) The Delphi method or expert opinion is used to understand the theoretical
relationship among various study barriers, which helps achieve the study’s main
purpose.
(3) SSIM is developed for variables to understand their pair-wise relationship.
(4) SSIM is converted into a reachability matrix to depict the relationship of variables in
binary numbers.
(5) The transitivity check is conducted to check if these variables are dependent on each
other to get the final reachability matrix
(6) Iteration levels are assigned to the final reachability matrix to understand their levels.
(7) A diagraph is developed with these iteration levels and VAXO matrix is converted
into an ISM model.
(8) The ISM model is reviewed and MICMAC analysis is done to analyse each variable’s
driving and dependence power for better insight into interdependencies.

4. Discussion and results

This section explains in detail the results and outcomes obtained from the data collection with
the help of ISM and MICMAC analysis.

Entry barriers “j”

S. no Brief description of the entry barriers (i) 6 5 4 3 2 1

1 Payment structures V O V A X
2 Incentives O A O A
3 High competition V V O Table 2.
4 Operating expenses O A Structural self-
5 Login hours and late-night deliveries O interaction
6 Social protection and retirement benefits matrix (SSIM)
AJIM List of entry barriers of gig
Literature review
workers to th e gig pla orms

Establish contextual rela onship

between the variables (i,j) Experts’ opinion

Construct a Structural Self - Construct a reachability matrix

Interac on Matrix (SSIM) and apply transi vity rule

Forma on of different level by

par ons of reachability matrix

Construct conical form of

reachability matrix

Remove transi vity from

diagraph Construct diagraph

Yes
Replace variable nodes with Is there any
rela onship statement conceptual
inconsistency?

No

Figure 1. Represent rela onship statement into

Flowchart of ISM
model for the entry barriers of the gig
technique
workers to the gig pla orms

4.1 Discussion of ISM framework

The present study was conducted by identifying the entry barriers faced by the gig workers
in their gig platforms. These barriers were shortlisted by conducting interviews of gig
workers through structured questionnaire and understanding the relationship of these
barriers with the help of recruiters of food delivery platforms in India, namely Zomato and
Swiggy. The gig workers were interviewed personally on a one-to-one basis. Experts/
recruiters were contacted through LinkedIn to conduct detailed discussions to understand
the contextual relationship between these entry barriers. The VAXO matrix depicts the Barriers to
relationship, which helped develop a SSIM with the help of these experts. entry of gig
Table 2 represents the SSIM matrix developed for this study:
Table 2 explains the associations of variables with each other, which are heterogeneous in
workers
nature. For converting these constructs or variables into variables of value, it is essential to
develop an initial reachability matrix from SSIM. This is done by initially assigning symbols
to these variables in V, A, X and O format. This VAXO is converted into binary numbers, that
is, 1s and 0s, with the help of Boolean algebra, to get the reachability matrix.
Following are the rules of its substitution:
(1) If the entry in SSIM is “V”, then:
 The (i,j) entry in the reachability matrix will be “1”; and
 The (j,i) entry in the reachability matrix will be “0”.
(2) If the entry in SSIM is “A”, then:
 The (i,j) entry in the reachability matrix will be “0”; and
 The (j,i) entry in the reachability matrix will be “1”.
(3) If the entry in SSIM is “X”, then:
 The (i,j) entry in the reachability matrix will be “1”; and
 The (j,i) entry in the reachability matrix will be “1”.
(4) If the entry in SSIM is “O”, then:
 The (i,j) entry in the reachability matrix will be “0”; and
 The (j,i) entry in the reachability matrix will be “0”.
With these rules, an initial reachability matrix is developed with 1s and 0s.
Table 3 represents an initial reachability matrix developed for this study:
Once the tabular matrix is developed with binary numbers, the next step is to conduct a
transitivity check. This is done to prove that if one construct is related to the second construct
and the second is related to third, then the first construct is also related to the third one. Hence
the final reachability matrix will replace some 0s with 1* to eliminate the gaps or errors in the
initial reachability matrix. Transitivity check provides conceptual consistency to the
reachability matrix, which helps in depicting some inferred entries with 1* of the associations
between the barriers.
The final reachability matrix is developed with the transitivity check, driving power
(summation of 1s in horizontal rows), and dependence power (summation of 1s in columns) as
shown in Table 4:

Entry barriers “j”

S. no Brief description of the entry barriers (i) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Payment structures 1 1 0 1 0 1
2 Incentives 1 1 0 0 0 0
3 High competition 1 1 1 0 1 1
4 Operating expenses 0 0 0 1 0 0 Table 3.
5 Login hours and late-night deliveries 0 1 0 1 1 0 Initial reachability
6 Social protection and retirement benefits 0 0 0 0 0 1 matrix
AJIM Table 4 explains the driving power and dependence power of the constructs. The driving
power depicts that all the factors that consist of 1s drive and impact other factors. The
dependence power depicts that all the factors consisting of 1s can be depended upon in
the ISM model. The transitivity shows the numerical changes by eliminating errors from all
the constructs in the model. The maximum value of any driving or dependence power in the
entire reachability matrix will be 6, and the minimum value will be 1. The diagonal number
shown in the matrix will always remain 1 as this shows the effect of the factor on itself. All the
binary numbers directly impact the MICMAC analysis also, which is explained in the next
section.
After developing the final reachability matrix, we derive the reachability sets and
antecedent sets. The reachability set (the number of 1s from the driving power) consists of the
factor itself and other factors which it can create an impact on. The antecedent set (the
number of 1s from the dependence power) consists of the factor itself and other factors that
may impact it. This is accompanied by the intersection set derived from reachability and
antecedent set respectively to assess the levels of ISM hierarchy. All the entry barriers placed
on the topmost level are independent in nature, and they do not lead to the other entry barriers
in the ISM hierarchy. All the entry barriers placed in the subsequent levels lead to the other
barriers in the study. The entire process of finding the level of each entry barrier helps in
building a diagraph as shown in Table 5.
Table 5 represents the iteration levels of all the entry barriers that are developed with the
help of a conical matrix which clubs all the barriers that fall on the same level in the final
reachability matrix. This is done by matching the numbers of reachability set and
intersection set, which helps allocate levels to these barriers. The highest or the topmost level
is given to those barriers with common numbers between reachability set and intersection
set, and subsequently, the levels are decided. Once the conical matrix is developed, the
diagraph is converted into an ISM model by employing the transitive links attained in
Table 5.

Entry barriers
“j”
S. no Brief description of the entry barriers (i) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Driving power

1 Payment structures 1 1 0 1 0 1 4
2 Incentives 1 1 0 1* 0 1* 4
Table 4. 3 High competition 1 1 1 1* 1 1 6
Final reachability 4 Operating expenses 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
matrix indicating the 5 Login hours and late-night deliveries 1* 1 0 1 1 0 4
driving and 6 Social protection and retirement benefits 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
dependence power Dependence power 4 4 1 5 2 4

Barriers Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

B1 1, 2, 4, 6 1, 2, 3, 5 1, 2 II
B2 1, 2, 4, 6 1, 2, 3, 5 1, 2 II
B3 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 3 3 IV
Table 5. B4 4 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 4 I
Diagraph representing B5 1, 2, 4, 5 3, 5 5 III
levels partitioning B6 6 1, 2, 3, 6 6 I
4.2 Results of ISM framework Barriers to
The ISM framework depicts the study’s outcome, representing a four-level hierarchical model entry of gig
consisting of six barriers that gig workers face while entering the gig platforms in the food
delivery sector in India. The ISM model is created to depict the association of each entry-level
workers
barrier with the other barrier and the directional connection between them.
The discussion with the recruiters of food delivery platforms Zomato and Swiggy helped
in understanding the association between all the six entry barriers as shown in Figure 2. The
results reflect the following observations:
The model shows that the entry barrier “high competition” appears at the bottom of the
hierarchy and has the maximum impact on the gig workers while choosing food delivery gig
platforms for their jobs. During the interviews, the gig workers discussed their concerns
about the lack of jobs in the market and high unemployment, especially during the pandemic.
Hence, a lot of people are turning towards gig platforms for work. Although the food delivery
platforms are much in demand, the demand for gig workers is also high. With the rise in
competition and availability of these gig workers at peak timings, they keep themselves
logged in for longer hours to get more orders for deliveries (Mulcahy, 2017). To avoid high
competition during the daytime and earn some extra bucks, gig workers also work for late-
night deliveries. Hence high competition drives/influences late-night deliveries and prolonged
login hours for the gig workers, thus making this an entry barrier in the gig platforms.
Since the terms and conditions required for getting incentives are stringent, gig workers
need to work for fixed hours and make sure that they make a fixed number of deliveries every
single day. Hence, more gig workers try to work for longer hours and during night shifts to
get incentivized for their work apart from basic delivery rates (Christie and Ward, 2018). The
basic pay per delivery or the payment structures offered to gig workers is revamped and
reduced to much lower levels. The gig workers shared their concerns about working more
than 12 h a day to sustain themselves in this work. They hardly have any bargaining powers
in these complex systems where they cannot even decline the orders assigned to them – if
they do, these gig platforms have the right to suspend their IDs. Most of the time, the
kilometres that the app shows ignores the long U-turns that these gig workers need to take to
deliver food to the destinations.

Operating expenses Social protection & retirement benefits

Payment structure Incentives

Login hours & late-night deliveries Figure 2.

Relationship of entry
barriers for gig
workers in the gig
platforms using
interpretive structural
High competition modelling
AJIM This adds to their fuel expenses, thus making them economically vulnerable. Thus, “poor
payment structures” and “strict terms and conditions of getting incentives” are
interdependent in nature.
In many cases, gig workers do not have access to a licensed vehicle. Even if they have a
vehicle, managing their fuel and Internet expenses with such low incomes gets challenging.
They also need to pay onboarding fees for basic training and delivery uniforms, which they
must always wear during duty hours. While the weekly payment cycles and expectations for
high wages draws gig workers to the platforms, it gets difficult to manage the fuel and
Internet expenses most of the time. Thus, “poor payment structures” affect “fuel, Internet, and
vehicle maintenance expenses.”
In addition to poor payment structures and economic vulnerability, they face barriers such
as lack of social protection and retirement benefits. Cash on delivery sometimes gets difficult
for these gig workers as the clients make them wait long to pay them. Although these gig
workers get accidental insurance, none of the workers interviewed reported to have claimed
the benefits of this. These gig workers always struggle to secure basic rights, dignity and
social protection, but these rights hardly find a place in the legal systems of India. “Lack of
social protection and retirement benefits” emerge as barriers that have to be addressed jointly
by policymakers in the government and gig platforms (Parigi and Ma, 2016). As these
barriers are at the top level and are independent in nature, they do not impact the barriers
placed at lower levels.

4.3 Driving power and dependability matrix (MICMAC analysis)

MICMAC analysis is also known as a cross-impact matrix or driving and dependence
diagram. The purpose of MICMAC analysis is to assess and analyse the driving and
dependence power of the constructs of the study with the help of visual representation. The
final reachability matrix demonstrates the driving and dependence power of the constructs,
which is classified in four categories, namely:
(1) Autonomous factors: These factors are relatively disconnected from the system as
they possess weak driving and dependence power. Although they may strongly
influence the variables with which they’re linked, they stay aloof in the system.
(2) Dependent factors: These factors have weak drive power but strong dependence
power.
(3) Linkage factors: These factors have both strong driving and dependence power.
These are so interconnected and unstable that any action on the factors would leave
an effect on other factors as well and a reaction on itself.
(4) Independent or driving factors: These factors have strong drive power but weak
dependence power. The factor having strong driving power is known as the “key
factor.” This “key factor” is an independent factor.
Figure 3 depicts the MICMAC analysis showing the plotting of sector-wise distribution of the
variables. This shows the mapping of gig workers’ entry barriers in the gig platforms in four
sections.
The map indicates the absence of autonomous factors in the system in the first quadrant,
which means none of the constructs are disconnected from the system. The second quadrant
represents two variables, namely “Internet, fuel and vehicle maintenance expenses” and “lack
of social protection and retirement benefits.” These are dependent factors that signify that
these variables have weak driving power but strong dependence power. The ISM model also
represents these two barriers in its top-level hierarchy, which are independent in nature. Lack
of social protection and retirement benefits does not influence other factors, but other barriers
 MICMAC ANALYSIS Barriers to
STRONG 7
IV III
entry of gig
6 3 workers
5
DRIVING POWER

4 5 1,2

1 6 4
WEAK

I II Figure 3.
0 Driving and
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 dependency power
WEAK DEPENDENCE POWER STRONG mapping of barriers to
entry of gig workers in
Note(s): Cluster I: Autonomous factors; Cluster II: Dependent factors; the gig platforms
Cluster III: Linkage factors; Cluster IV: Independent factors

influence this barrier. Similarly, gig workers have many concerns about the daily expenses
they have to bear to provide services to the customers. Due to low basic pay these gig workers
get for their deliveries, these expenses sometimes get challenging to manage. On a parallel
front, some customers do not receive calls for guiding them to the address, make them wait for
cash on delivery and misbehave with them, and they get penalized if orders are not delivered
on time.
The third quadrant represents two barriers at the same point, that is, poor payment
structures, economic vulnerability and strict terms and conditions for receiving incentives.
These are linkage factors that signify strong driving and dependence power. During the
interviews, the discontent from the payment structures was majorly quoted by most gig
workers, irrespective of the weather conditions they work in. The fourth quadrant comprises
independent or driving factors comprise two barriers, namely “high competition” and “longer
login hours or late-night deliveries”. These factors have strong driving power but weak
dependence power in the system. High competition has the strongest driving force to drive all
other variables directly or indirectly in the system. This has been a concern for those gig
workers who entered the gig platforms during the pandemic when most people lost their jobs.
The demand for food deliveries has increased during these times, exerting a strong control on
its market share. Hence, the government needs to frame policies to fix a basic pay structure if
unemployment cannot be controlled at this stage. Currently, neither the state government nor
the central government is taking steps for the providing benefits to these workers (Parigi and
Ma, 2016). The union budget of 2021 proposes a portal to collect information on gig workers,
but not many steps have been taken towards this.

5. Discussion and future scope of the study

Among all the reasons listing down the dark side of the gig work, lack of motivation is the
biggest reason that makes gig workers choose a permanent work over gig work (Pichault and
McKeown, 2019). Hence it is important to understand the practical ways to engage these gig
workers to reduce the dropout and switching rates to other safer jobs with the help of game-
based work arrangements (Behl et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2020). The gig platforms develop
innovative ways to keep the gig workforce motivated to complete the task on time with the
gamified elements such as points, leaderboards and badges (Behl et al., 2022).
AJIM The gamified practices used by the gig platforms help them enable work control with
rewards of improving the experiences of gig workers by motivating them to be participative
in their work (Behl et al., 2021). This helps in combatting the dark side of engagement such as
work fatigue, high degree of risk and many more, thus making gamification an essential part
of gig work.

5.1 Managerial and theoretical implications

The present study is the first to identify and list the barriers to entry of gig workers in gig
platforms. There is hardly any literature on this, so this study gives the fellow researchers
and academicians an advantage to understand the impact and significance of low entry
barriers in the gig platforms. The research also measures the validity of the data through
Cronbach’s alpha. This study is also the first to build an ISM model to find an association of
these entry barriers with each other and examine the strength of this relationship with the
help of MICMAC analysis.
This study contributes to presenting the variables’ hierarchy levels in order of their
significance and study the impact they create on the gig workers. This gives a new dimension
to the existing body of literature and will help the gig platforms and policymakers to work on
it. This study will add insights to both the food delivery platforms as well as the policymakers
in terms of improving the social security code, which is still under discussion. While people
choose gig works for their primary incomes, they wish to work as free spirits rather than in
frustrating jobs. Hence, if gig platforms are unable to give social security and other benefits to
its gig workers, government should help these workers by fixing their basic salaries and
securing their jobs under various labour law schemes. Introducing gamified elements by the
gig platforms would also help in improving the productivity of work, become intrinsically
motivated and their engagement would help in retaining the gig workforce in their jobs (Behl
et al., 2021, 2022).

5.2 Future scope of the study

The ISM model can further be extended to total interpretive structural modelling (TISM),
where the experts can assess and explain the interpretive logic for the dominance of
constructs of the study. Since TISM essentially focuses on the reason, that is, the “Why”
behind the association of the constructs, it also validates data to a certain extent.
Second, the present data employs MICMAC analysis. Future studies can use fuzzy
MICMAC analysis for analysis, improving the contextual relationships of the constructs by
mapping the dependencies and interdependencies of the variables. Future studies can deploy
different research techniques such as multidimensional scaling (MDS) technique, system
dynamics modelling or fuzzy DEMATEL or fuzzy algebra to generalize the study results.
Though the present study aims to find out the low entry barriers for the gig workers in the
food delivery gig platforms, it can be extended to find out the entry barriers for gig workers in
other gig platforms too. This study can also be extended to find out the positive influences or
enablers of gig workers to join any gig platforms. There is a pressing need to enlarge the data
collection for employing constructs validity tests and empirical validation of large data.
Hence, future research might be extended to other disciplines and other countries for better
comparison of the results of the study.

6. Conclusion and limitations of the study

6.1 Conclusion
This section depicts the conclusions of the study drawn from the ISM hierarchy. The main
purpose of the study is to develop a theoretical framework depicting the relationship between
the gig workers’ different entry barriers in the gig platforms. Based on ISM, an attempt has Barriers to
been made to identify strategies to combat these barriers based on the opinion of gig workers. entry of gig
The findings indicate that high competition drives all the other barriers directly or indirectly
in the food delivery gig sector.
workers
The study presents the negative influencers that act as barriers for the gig workers. This
was identified with the help of literature survey, and it was shortlisted with the help of gig
workers. The recruiters were interviewed to discuss how each barrier impacts or influences
the other barrier to better understand these barriers’ contextual relationship. These
discussions and interviews were constructive to build an ISM framework with different
hierarchical levels for these barriers. The ISM model clearly shows that the barrier “high
competition” has the highest driving power and least dependence power and is placed in the
bottom of the hierarchy. Similarly, the expenses borne by the gig workers such as Internet,
fuel and vehicle maintenance expenses have high dependence power and low driving power.
Hence it is placed at the topmost hierarchy level.
Since the gig economy is a solace to the unemployed poor comprising skilled and unskilled
workforce, it has not reached a mature stage in India. Given the technological developments
and shifting of conventional work culture to the concept of the mobile workforce, the gig
economy holds a tremendous growth potential. The gig workers need to be skilled and
technologically advanced. However, the government still needs to work on the grey areas,
such as providing primary social security benefits to the gig workers. The poor payment
structure is another downside that gig platforms need to address. Gig workers remain
vulnerable to market shocks due to the lack of permanent employment and a sheer desire to
have a job. Regardless of all the concerns, the gig economy is inevitable as India lacks
commensurate employment options. Thus, it is crucial to place minimal regulation and
balance the needs of gig workers with the gig platforms.
6.2 Limitations of the study
The research limits itself to the entry barriers that the gig workers face in the food delivery
sector only and not any other gig platform. There may be an element of bias on the part of the
recruiters while discussing the association of these barriers with each other and developing
the model. There are probably many more barriers in the gig sector rather than it being
limited to the barriers listed through the literature survey. The study is limited to the Indian
context only, and the results may vary depending upon the opinions of experts from other
countries, both in terms of shortlisting the barriers and understanding the association
between them. The study is also limited to validating the data collection of a small set of data
through Pearson correlation through SPSS.
The study limits itself to ISM method for understanding the relationship between the
barriers. TISM was not used because the data was restricted to just two platforms, namely
Zomato and Swiggy. If the data had been collected from the other sources such as delivery
partners of specific restaurants like Dominos, Pizza Hut and so on, TISM would have helped
represent the significant transitive linkages in the directed graph of ISM.

References
Adams, A., Freedman, J. and Prassl, J. (2018), “Rethinking legal taxonomies for the gig economy”,
Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 475-494.
Ahmad, N. (2020), “Mapping gig workers as the new economy post COVID-19”, 3rd International
Seminar on Islam and Science (SAIS2020), organized by the PKAUSIM, Faculty of Syariah and
Law, USIM and International Fatwa and Halal Centre, USIM AID Conference, March 15, 2020,
pp. 942-955.
Allon, G., Cohen, M. and Sinchaisri, W.P. (2018). “The impact of behavioral and economic drivers on
gig economy workers”, available at: SSRN 3274628.
AJIM Anwar, M.A. and Graham, M. (2021), “Between a rock and a hard place: freedom, flexibility, precarity
and vulnerability in the gig economy in Africa”, Competition and Change, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 237-258.
Aranguiz, A. and Bednarowicz, B. (2018), “Adapt or perish: recent developments on social protection
in the EU under a gig deal of pressure”, European Labour Law Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 329-345.
Attri, R., Dev, N. and Sharma, V. (2013), “Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach: an
overview”, Research Journal of Management Sciences, Vol. 2319 No. 2, p. 1171.
Bansal, A., Brawley Newlin, A., Baloochi, E.M., Zanoni, P. and Zhen, L. (2021), “Equality and
discrimination in the new world of work”, Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 2021
No. 1, p. 14070.
Behl, A., Sheorey, P., Jain, K., Chavan, M., Jajodia, I. and Zhang, Z.J. (2021), “Gamifying the gig:
transitioning the dark side to bright side of online engagement”, Australasian Journal of
Information Systems, Vol. 25, pp. 1-34.
Behl, A., Jayawardena, N., Ishizaka, A., Gupta, M. and Shankar, A. (2022), “Gamification and
gigification: a multidimensional theoretical approach”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 139,
p. 13781393.
Belanche, D., Casal
o, L.V., Flavi
an, C. and P
erez-Rueda, A. (2021), “The role of customers in the gig
economy: how perceptions of working conditions and service quality influence the use and
recommendation of food delivery services”, Service Business, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 45-75.
Bergman, M.E. and Jean, V.A. (2016), “Where have all the ‘workers’ gone? A critical analysis of the
unrepresentativeness of our samples relative to the labor market in the industrial–
organizational psychology literature”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 84-113.
Bharadkar, K., Medappa, K., Mani, M., Taduri, P. and Tiwari, S. (2020), “Is platform work decent
work? A case of food delivery workers in Karnataka”.
Bregiannis, F., Bruurmijn, W.J., Calon, E. and Ortega, M.A.D. (2017), “Workers in the gig economy”.
Buchak, G. (2019), “Financing the gig economy”, available at: SSRN 3766338.
Butschek, S., Amor, R.G., Kampk€otter, P. and Sliwka, D. (2019), “Paying gig workers: evidence from a
field experiment”.
Cano, M.R., Espelt, R. and Morell, M.F. (2021), “Flexibility and freedom for whom? Precarity, freedom
and flexibility in on-demand food delivery”, Work Organisation, Labour and Globalisation,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 46-68.
Chaudhary, R. (2021), “India’s emerging gig economy: shaping the future of work for women”.
Chen, B., Liu, T., Guo, L. and Xie, Z. (2020), “The disembedded digital economy: social protection for
new economy employment in China”, Social Policy and Administration, Vol. 54 No. 7,
pp. 1246-1260.
Christie, N. and Ward, H. (2018), The Emerging Issues for Management of Occupational Road Risk in a
Changing Economy: A Survey of Gig Economy Drivers, Riders and Their Managers, UCL Centre
for Transport Studies, London.
Christie, N. and Ward, H. (2019), “The health and safety risks for people who drive for work in the gig
economy”, Journal of Transport and Health, Vol. 13, pp. 115-127.
Churchill, B. and Craig, L. (2019), “Gender in the gig economy: men and women using digital platforms
to secure work in Australia”, Journal of Sociology, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 741-761.
Collier, R.B., Dubal, V.B. and Carter, C. (2017), “Labor platforms and gig work: the failure to regulate”.
Davidson, N.M. and Infranca, J.J. (2015), “The sharing economy as an urban phenomenon”, Yale Law
and Policy Review, Vol. 34, p. 215.
De Krijger, F.M. (2019), Free to Enjoy a Precarious Ride-On Entrepreneurial Game Playing in the
Platform-Based Food Delivery Sector, Utrecht university repository.
De Stefano, V. (2016), “The rise of the ‘just-in time workforce’: on demand work, crowdwork, and labor Barriers to
protection in the ‘gig economy’”, Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp.
461-471. entry of gig
Donovan, S.A., Bradley, D.H. and Shimabukuru, J.O. (2016), “What does the gig economy mean for workers?”.
workers
Dunn, M. (2020), “Making gigs work: digital platforms, job quality and worker motivations”, New
Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 232-249.
Enwukwe, N.E. (2021), “The employment status of Nigerian workers in the gig economy: using Uber
as a case study”, Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization, Vol. 107, pp. 55-62.
Etzioni, A. (2018), “Benefits for gig workers”, Challenge, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 255-268.
Farrell, D. and Greig, F. (2016), “Paychecks, paydays, and the online platform economy”, in
Proceedings. Annual Conference on Taxation and Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the National
Tax Association, Vol. 109, National Tax Association, pp. 1-40, January.
Friedman, G. (2014), “Workers without employers: shadow corporations and the rise of the gig
economy”, Review of Keynesian Economics, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 171-188.
Galperin, H. (2019), “‘This gig is not for women’: gender stereotyping in online hiring”, Social Science
Computer Review, Rochester, NY, pp. 1-19.
Gandhi, A., Hidayanto, A.N., Sucahyo, Y.G. and Ruldeviyani, Y. (20182018), “Exploring people’s
intention to become platform-based gig workers: an empirical qualitative study”, in
International Conference on Information Technology Systems and Innovation (ICITSI), IEEE,
pp. 266-271, October.
Gomez-Herrera, E., Martens, B. and Mueller-Langer, F. (2017), “Trade, competition and welfare in
global online labour markets: a ‘gig economy’ case study”, available at: SSRN 3090929.
Graham, M. and Anwar, M.A. (2018), “Two models for a fairer sharing economy”, in Davidson, N.,
Finck, M. and Infranca, J. (Eds), The Cambridge Handbook of the Law of the Sharing Economy,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 328-340.
Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V., Wood, A., Barnard, H., Hjorth, I. and Simon, P. (2017), The Risks and
Rewards of Online Gig Work at the Global Margins, Oxford Internet Institute, Oxford.
Heeks, R. (2017), “Decent work and the digital gig economy: a developing country perspective on
employment impacts and standards in online outsourcing, crowdwork, etc.”, Development
Informatics Working Paper no 7, Global Development Institute SEED, University of
Manchester, Manchester.
Heeks, R., Graham, M., Mungai, P., Van Belle, J.P. and Woodcock, J. (2021), “Systematic evaluation of
gig work against decent work standards: the development and application of the Fairwork
framework”, The Information Society, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 267-286.
Herrera, L., Justie, B., Koonse, T. and Waheed, S. (2020), Worker Ownership, Covid-19, and the Future
of the Gig Economy, UCLA Labor Center, Los Angeles.
Horton, J.J. (2017), “Price floors and employer preferences: evidence from a minimum wage
experiment”, available at: SSRN 2898827.
Huang, N., Burtch, G., Hong, Y. and Pavlou, P.A. (2020), “Unemployment and worker participation in
the gig economy: evidence from an online labor market”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 31
No. 2, pp. 431-448.
Huang, N., Burtch, G. and Pavlou, P. (2018), “Local economic conditions and worker participation in
the online gig economy”, in Pries-Heje, J., Ram, S. and Rosemann, M. (Eds), Proceedings of the
International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco, CA, pp. 1-17.
Hunt, A., Samman, E., Mansour-Ille, D. and Max, H. (2018), “The gig economy in complex refugee
situations”, Forced Migration Review No. 58, pp. 47-49.
Jabagi, N., Croteau, A.M., Audebrand, L.K. and Marsan, J. (2019), “Gig workers’ motivation: thinking
beyond carrots and sticks”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 192-213.
AJIM Jarrahi, M.H. and Sutherland, W. (2019), “Algorithmic management and algorithmic competencies:
understanding and appropriating algorithms in gig work”, in International Conference on
Information, Springer, Cham, pp. 578-589.
Johnston, H. and Land-Kazlauskas, C. (2018), “Organizing on-demand: representation, voice,
and collective bargaining in the gig economy”, Conditions of Work and Employment Series
No. 94, International Labour Office, Geneva.
Kaine, S., Flanagan, F. and Ravenswood, K. (2020), “Future of work (FoW) and gender”, in Wilkinson,
A. and Barry, M. (Eds), The Future of Work and Employment, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.
119-138.
Kaine, S. and Josserand, E. (2019), “The organisation and experience of work in the gig economy”,
Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 479-501.
Kasliwal, R. (2020), Gender and the Gig Economy: A Qualitative Study of Gig Platforms for Women
Workers, Vol. 359, Observer Research Foundation, ORF Issue Brief.
Koutsimpogiorgos, N., Van Slageren, J., Herrmann, A.M. and Frenken, K. (2020),
“Conceptualizing the gig economy and its regulatory problems”, Policy and Internet, Vol. 12
No. 4, pp. 525-545.
Kung, L.C. and Zhong, G.Y. (2017), “The optimal pricing strategy for two-sided platform delivery in
the sharing economy”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review,
Vol. 101, pp. 1-12.
Leenoi, P. (2021), How to Improve Working Conditions for Gig Workers in Thailand, Policy Brief:
International Labour Organization, Geneva.
Manriquez, M. (2019), “Work-games in the gig-economy: a case study of Uber drivers in the city of
Monterrey, Mexico”, in Vallas, S.P. and Kovalainen, A. (Eds), Work and Labor in the Digital Age,
Emerald Publishing, Bingley, pp. 165-188.
Milkman, R., Elliott-Negri, L., Griesbach, K. and Reich, A. (2021), “Gender, class, and the gig economy:
the case of platform-based food delivery”, Critical Sociology, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 357-372.
Montgomery, T. and Baglioni, S. (2021), “Defining the gig economy: platform capitalism and the
reinvention of precarious work”, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 41
Nos 9-10, pp. 1012-1025, doi: 10.1108/IJSSP-08-2020-0400.
Mukhopadhyay, B.R. and Chatwin, C.R. (2020), “The significance of Herzberg and Taylor for the gig
economy of China: evaluating gigger incentives for Meituan and Ele. me”, International Journal
of Applied Behavioral Economics (IJABE), Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 1-17.
Mulcahy, D. (2017), “Will the gig economy make the office obsolete?”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 3, pp. 2-4.
Norlander, P., Jukic, N., Varma, A. and Nestorov, S. (2021), “The effects of technological
supervision on gig workers: organizational control and motivation of Uber, taxi, and
limousine drivers”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 32
No. 19, pp. 4053-4077.
Osorio, V.V. (2020), “Not a fairy tale: unicorns and social protection of gig workers in Colombia”, SCIS
Working Paper Number 7, The Southern Centre for Inequality Studies, University of the
Witwatersrand, South Africa.
Ostoj, I. (2019), “The growth of the gig economy – benefits and treats to labor”, Economic and Social
Development, 41st International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development Book
of Proceedings, 23–24 May 2019, Belgrade, pp. 386-394.
Page-Tickell, R., Ritchie, J. and Page-Tickell, T. (2020), “Evolutionary mismatch and misbelief impact
on participants in the gig economy”, Conflict and Shifting Boundaries in the Gig Economy: An
Interdisciplinary Analysis, Emerald Publishing, Bingley.
Parigi, P. and Ma, X. (2016), “The gig economy. XRDS: crossroads”, The ACM Magazine for Students,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 38-41.
Parwez, S. and Ranjan, R. (2021), “The platform economy and the precarisation of food delivery work Barriers to
in the Covid-19 pandemic: evidence from India”, Work Organisation, Labour and Globalisation,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 11-30. entry of gig
Pichault, F. and McKeown, T. (2019), “Autonomy at work in the gig economy: analysing work status,
workers
work content and working conditions of independent professionals”, New Technology, Work
and Employment, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 59-72.
Pober, I. (2019), The Gig Economy: An Avenue to Women’s Economic Empowerment?, Utrecht
university repository.
Prabhat, S., Nanavati, S. and Rangaswamy, N. (2019), “India’s ‘Uberwallah’ profiling Uber drivers in
the gig economy”, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Information and
Communication Technologies and Development, pp. 1-5.
Prassl, J. (2018), Humans as a Service: The Promise and Perils of Work in the Gig Economy, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Rafiq, M., Naz, S., Martins, J.M., Mata, M.N., Mata, P.N. and Maqbool, S. (2021), “A study on emerging
management practices of renewable energy companies after the outbreak of Covid-19: using an
interpretive structural modeling (ISM) approach”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 6, p. 3420.
Rahim, A.F.A., Yaacob, N.A., Noor, R.M., Najid, N.A. and Zulkifli, N. (2021), “Strengthening the
gig economy”, Gading Journal for Social Sciences (e-ISSN 2600-7568), Vol. 24 No. 04,
pp. 17-26.
Ray, A., Dhir, A., Bala, P.K. and Kaur, P. (2019), “Why do people use food delivery apps (FDA)? A uses
and gratification theory perspective”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 51,
pp. 221-230.
Roy, G. and Shrivastava, A.K. (2020), “Future of gig economy: opportunities and challenges”, IMI
Konnect, Vol. 9, pp. 14-25.
Roy-Mukherjee, S. and Harrison, M. (2020), “The shifting boundaries of capitalism and the conflict of
surplus value appropriation within the gig economy”, in Page-Tickell, R. and Yerby, E. (Eds),
Conflict and Shifting Boundaries in the Gig Economy, Emerald Publishing, Bingley, pp. 45-62.
Schwellnus, C., Geva, A., Pak, M. and Veiel, R. (2019), “Gig economy platforms: boon or bane?”.
Shevchuk, A., Strebkov, D. and Tyulyupo, A. (2021), “Always on across time zones: invisible
schedules in the online gig economy”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 36 No. 1,
pp. 94-113.
Shibata, S. (2020), “Gig work and the discourse of autonomy: fictitious freedom in Japan’s digital
economy”, New Political Economy, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 535-551.
Soriano, C.R. and Panaligan, J.C. (2019), “Skill-makers in the platform economy: transacting digital
labour”, in Athique, A. and Baulch, E. (Eds), Digital Transactions in Asia: Economic,
Informational and Social Exchanges, Routledge, London, New York, pp. 172-191.
Tan, Z.M., Aggarwal, N., Cowls, J., Morley, J., Taddeo, M. and Floridi, L. (2021), “The ethical debate
about the gig economy: a review and critical analysis”, Technology in Society, Vol. 65,
p. 101594.
Taylor, M., Marsh, G., Nicol, D. and Broadbent, P. (2017), Good Work: The Taylor Review of Modern
Working Practices, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, London.
Todol
ı-Signes, A. (2017), “The ‘gig economy’: employee, self-employed or the need for a special
employment regulation?”, Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 193-205.
Van Doorn, N., Ferrari, F. and Graham, M. (2020), “Migration and migrant labour in the gig economy:
an intervention”, available at: SSRN 3622589.
Veluchamy, D.R., Reddy, P., Pillai, R. and Singh, R. (2021), “A study on work life integration of gig
workers”, An Anthology of Multi-Functional Perspectives in Business and Management Research,
Vol. 1, pp. 23-32.
AJIM Vyas, N. (2021), “‘Gender inequality – now available on digital platform’: an interplay between gender
equality and the gig economy in the European Union”, European Labour Law Journal, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 37-51.
Warfield, J.N. (1974), “Developing interconnection matrices in structural modeling”, IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, No. 1, pp. 81-87.
Williams, P., McDonald, P. and Mayes, R. (2021), “Recruitment in the gig economy: attraction and
selection on digital platforms”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 32 No. 19, pp. 4136-4162002E.
Woodcock, J. and Graham, M. (2019), The Gig Economy: A Critical Introduction, Polity, Cambridge.
Wu, P.F. and Zheng, Y. (2020), “Time is of the essence: spatiotemporalities of food delivery platform
work in China”, in ECIS. Twenty-Eigth European Conference on Information Systems
(ECIS2020), pp. 1-15.
Xiao, S. (2019), “Understanding the employment status of gig-workers in China’s sharing economy era:
an empirical legal study”, Asian Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 10 No. 3.
Yakubovich, V., Galperin, R.V. and El Mansouri, M. (2018), “Timing is money: the flexibility and
precariousness of login employment”, available at: SSRN 3247017.

Corresponding author
Aastha Behl can be contacted at: aasthabehl1610@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats