Platform work in South Asia entrenches precarity despite digital growth

In India, over 90 percent of the workforce is employed informally, while Pakistan records nearly 73 percent of its non-agricultural workforce outside formal arrangements. Bangladesh shows a similar pattern. Platform companies, presenting themselves as digital intermediaries, have capitalized on this large pool of inexpensive labour.

Platform economies across South Asia are being promoted as engines of digital transformation and economic growth, but a new study suggests that this optimism masks deep regulatory failures that leave millions of workers exposed to precarity. Researchers have examined how India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh regulate platform work in comparison to global benchmarks.

Their article, “Digital Bazaars Reimagined: Comparing Platform Work Regulations in South Asia through the Lens of the EU PWD and ILO Standard-Setting Procedure,” published in the European Labour Law Journal, finds that regulatory frameworks in these countries either neglect or deliberately bypass meaningful oversight of platforms. Against the backdrop of the European Union’s 2024 Platform Work Directive (PWD) and the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) emerging standard-setting process, the study highlights how South Asian states are charting diverging paths but converging on a common pattern of insufficient protection for workers.

Does platform work reduce informality or reinforce it?

In India, over 90 percent of the workforce is employed informally, while Pakistan records nearly 73 percent of its non-agricultural workforce outside formal arrangements. Bangladesh shows a similar pattern. Platform companies, presenting themselves as digital intermediaries, have capitalized on this large pool of inexpensive labour.

The authors argue that instead of transforming informal work into secure employment, platforms often deepen precariousness. Workers remain classified as independent contractors, denied formal employment status, and subjected to algorithmic management systems that determine wages, monitor performance, and regulate schedules. Far from dismantling hierarchies of caste, class, and gender, platform work frequently reinforces them. Evidence from India shows that delivery workers from marginalized castes are still subjected to segregation, while women workers face disproportionate unpaid care burdens alongside platform-imposed targets.

The supposed inclusivity of digital platforms is therefore more complex than governments and corporations present. While platforms may offer opportunities for women or marginalized groups to enter the workforce, these gains are overshadowed by systemic vulnerabilities such as low pay, unpredictable earnings, and the absence of collective bargaining rights. Rather than moving from informality to formality, South Asian platform workers remain in a cycle of insecurity.

How do India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh approach regulation?

The research provides a comparative overview of regulatory frameworks in the three countries, revealing stark differences in orientation.

In Bangladesh, the approach is largely laissez-faire. While the Labour Act of 2006 governs traditional employment, it does not clearly recognize platform workers. Regulatory discussions have been limited to consumer-focused guidelines, such as ride-sharing service rules, with little attention to workers’ rights. Despite ratifying most fundamental ILO conventions, Bangladesh’s implementation remains weak, leaving nearly half a million platform workers in precarious conditions. Government initiatives such as the “Smart Bangladesh” vision prioritize digital innovation while sidelining labour protections.

Pakistan demonstrates what the authors term a “soft regulatory approach.” The Industrial Relations Act of 2012 and provincial labour policies offer partial frameworks, while programmes like Mazdoor Ka Ehsaas extend some social protection to informal workers. Notably, the draft Islamabad Capital Territory Platform Workers Protection Bill proposes minimum wages, social security, and union rights for platform workers, as well as provisions regulating algorithmic management. Yet platform workers remain legally classified outside of employment relationships, limiting the effectiveness of these measures.

In India, the government has pursued deregulatory reforms under its new labour codes. The Code on Social Security includes provisions for gig and platform workers, but these fall short compared to protections for other workers. Contributions from aggregators are capped at minimal levels, and benefits remain fragmented. Some states, like Rajasthan, Karnataka, and Jharkhand, have drafted legislation mandating welfare boards and transparency requirements. However, the overall orientation remains toward promoting platforms as part of India’s broader techno-nationalist agenda, where deregulation is justified as a means of attracting foreign investment.

These national trajectories demonstrate the absence of comprehensive protections. Workers remain outside employment frameworks, algorithmic oversight goes unregulated, and collective rights face legal and cultural barriers.

Can international frameworks influence South Asian regulation?

The study compares these national approaches with the EU Platform Work Directive, which has established global benchmarks on three key fronts: presumption of employment, algorithmic management oversight, and collective rights safeguards. The authors note that these provisions are virtually absent in South Asia due to structural constraints, deregulation, and political disinterest.

The ILO’s recent decision to place platform work on its standard-setting agenda could shift the debate. Depending on whether the outcome is a binding Convention or a non-binding Recommendation, the new standards may push South Asian countries to adopt stronger protections. Pakistan has expressed support for a Convention, while India and Bangladesh have signaled preference for less stringent discussions. Yet the authors caution that ratification rates in the region remain low, raising doubts about rapid adoption.

Nonetheless, the symbolic weight of ILO engagement matters. By framing global norms around platform work, the ILO may influence domestic debates, even if enforcement lags. The authors argue that a well-designed ILO instrument, particularly one that addresses algorithmic management, classification, and social protection, could compel South Asian governments to reconcile their development narratives with workers’ rights.

A region caught between growth and protection

South Asian states have strategically neglected meaningful regulation of platform work, often prioritizing digital growth over labour rights, the stuy concludes. Bangladesh leans on laissez-faire governance, Pakistan experiments with soft law, and India advances deregulatory reforms tied to techno-nationalist ambitions. Together, these approaches leave workers without adequate protections and perpetuate informality.

While the EU’s Platform Work Directive offers a robust model, its influence in South Asia remains limited due to weak cross-regional economic ties. The forthcoming ILO standards may hold greater promise, but much depends on whether governments in the region are willing to move beyond symbolic commitments to actual enforcement.