Gig Position en

GIG ECONOMY AND
PLATFORM WORK IN BRAZIL

FROM CONCEPT TO PLATFORMS
1
.
TECHNICAL INFORMATION
PRODUCED BY
Center of Education and Research on Innovation at FGV Direito SP
GENERAL COORDINATION
Alexandre Pacheco da Silva and Marina Feferbaum
STAFF
Head of Research
Ana Paula Camelo
Co-head of Research
Guilherme Forma Klafke
Researchers
Ana Carolina Rodrigues Dias Silveira ; Arthur Cassemiro Bispo;
Bruno Ett Bícego; Gabriela Marcassa Thomaz de Aquino;
Olívia Q. Figueiredo Pasqualeto
TRANSLATION
TGA Translations
The research "Future of work and the gig economy: regulatory is-
sues on technology and social protection" is developed by the Cen-
ter of Education and Research on Innovation at FGV Direito SP (CEPI
FGV Direito SP) within the scope of the collaboration between CEPI
and iFood to foster the public debate about the future of work. The
activities developed within the scope of this collaboration are carried
out with full academic autonomy, contractually guaranteed. The
staff is grateful for the reviews and valuable contributions of CEPI
researchers.
HOW TO CITE THIS TEXT IN ABNT (Brazilian Association of Technical

Standards):
CEPI. Center of Education and Research on Innovation at FGV Direito
SP. Gig economy and work on platforms in Brazil: from concept to
platforms. São Paulo: FGV Direito SP, 2021.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoCo-

mercial-CompartilhaIgual 4.0 Internacional.
2
SUMMARY
SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
Abstract 4
Highlights and key findings 4
METHODOLOGY 6
INTRODUCTION 7
WHAT GIG ECONOMY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? 7
THE GIG ECONOMY ECOSYSTEM 13

Platform architecture 13
Platform providers 14
Workers 15
Requestors 16
PLATFORM SCENARIO IN BRAZIL 19

Platform mapping: knowing the field 19
Field description 20
GIG ECONOMY IN THE LEGISLATION 31
FINAL COMMENTS 35
Findings and points of attention 35
Questions raised from the survey 35
Final notes 36
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES 37
ANNEX 1 40
ANNEX 2 46
3
CEPI FGV Direito SP
Gig economy and working on platforms in Brazil: from concept to platforms
version 01, 25 de Julio de 2021
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Abstract
Gig economy is a concept that is still under construction and in continuous transformation, which has
been formulated in view of the new work dynamics established by digital platforms and on which
there is no consensus in the literature. The term does not find an exact match in the Portuguese lan-
guage, and it is possible to find several translations, such as economy on demand, moonlighting
economy or freelancer economy. Therefore, and because we do not fully identify with the existing
translations, we prefer to use the expression gig economy, in English, in this document. Alongside
the existing conceptual multiplicity, we observe that the gig economy is also marked by a strong het-
erogeneity of economic activities, services, business models, workers, etc.; insufficient data and op-
erating peculiarities of each platform. Faced with this still little-known scenario that is marked by
open questions, CEPI FGV Direito SP presents what it understands as the gig economy and how it is
presented in the Brazilian context, based on a non-exhaustive survey of these applications in Brazil.
Highlights and key findings
• Gig economy is the business environment where there is intermediation of human work
through digital platforms, in which flexible, short-term contracts prevail and in which workers
are paid for tasks performed. In this relationship, digital platforms can intermediate different
types of work.
• It involves web-based jobs and geographically located jobs.
• The organizational structure of digital platforms that are part of the gig economy involves at
least three parties: platform provider, supplier (worker) and requestor (platform user).
• Platform providers provide the infrastructure that mediates supply and demand. This posi-
tion can lead to information asymmetry, as providers have a comprehensive view of the in-
teractions taking place in this ecosystem. Informational asymmetry leads to a series of dis-
cussions in the gig economy, with emphasis on work management.
• Workers are a fundamental part of the functioning of the gig economy. However, there is
insufficient data on this group. There are no precise numbers on the count and profile of these
workers in Brazil.
• Requestors, also called platform users, can be individuals (consumers) and/or legal entities
(commercial establishments). However, there is little consolidated data on requestors.
• In addition to the concepts, we also seek to look at the reality of the Brazilian ecosystem from
a mapping of work intermediation platforms.
4
CEPI FGV Direito SP
• In the mapping, it was initially noted that: some platforms share few details about their func-
tioning; the terms of use and service are not always available for consultation; in other situa-
tions, even when available, the terms of use do not detail elements such as the form of remu-
neration, scope of the platform, etc.
• The gig economy goes beyond product delivery and passenger transportation. We have iden-
tified platforms that operate in various economic activities: legal services; teaching and train-
ing; programming and information technology; cleaning; small task freelancers; health and
wellness; cargo transportation; pet care; small repairs and minor construction works; child-
care; scientific or technical research; tourism, hospitality and tours; brokerage; and entertain-
ment.
• There are platforms with different space scopes: from those acting locally, to those acting
internationally. In the mapping carried out, most platforms present regional or national ac-
tion.
• Based on the survey carried out, we observed that most platforms intermediate geograph-
ically located work, such as product delivery and passenger transportation. Some offer exclu-
sively web-based services such as programming platforms; and others work in both areas, as
is the case with some legal or medical services.
• Ten platforms were analyzed in greater depth. Among them, the existence of common de-
nominators was observed: identification of workers as self-employed and the remuneration
calculated per task. The other elements analyzed - such as evaluation, benefits, pricing, etc.
- proved to be diverse.
• A series of particularities were also observed in the platforms.
• Therefore, we observe that the gig economy corresponds to a heterogeneous ecosystem,

which leads us to the question: how to regulate work on platforms in face of such a diverse
ecosystem?
5
CEPI FGV Direito SP
METHODOLOGY
METHODOLOGY
This position paper was prepared from two re- Considering the objective of the mapping and
search fronts: (i) bibliographical and (ii) map- of the research that underlies it, in addition to
ping of work intermediation applications oper- the number and diversity of platforms availa-
ating in Brazil. The bibliographical research ble in the market, the mapping carried out was
mapped the books and scientific articles in the not exhaustive and the research was per-
following databases, between March and May formed until the saturation of results.
2021: Google Scholar, GoogleBooks, Sci-
Next, we verified two pieces of information
elo.org, Scielo.br, Scopus, Springer, Web of
about them to select the items to be analyzed:
Science, CAPES Journals. The following key-
a) if they operated in Brazil in June 2021, ex-
words were used (searched also in Spanish and
cluding those that had closed operations or
Portuguese): "types of gig economy work",
only operated abroad; and b) whether they fell
"types of work platforms", "gig economy ty-
into the category of service and work interme-
pology", "types of work platforms", "types of
diation apps. Cases concerning doubt and un-
platforms for sharing economy". In addition,
certainty were included for further analysis.
previously mapped reports and documents
The screening of platforms in this first stage
that make up the research collection were
resulted in 133 applications.
considered in the preparation of this docu-
ment. Afterwards, the team consulted the terms of
use and service of the platform, its websites
Platform mapping was carried out in June
and other websites that provided information
2021. Based on indications from the literature,
on how the intermediation works. For the pur-
reports and websites on the subject, the team
poses of this research, data disclosed in news
systematized a set of economic activities that
and/or by third parties that does not officially
are usually related to the gig economy. Based
represent the considered platforms were dis-
on this list, two sources (Google search engine
regarded. Through this search, 32 observa-
and app stores Play Store and App Store) were
tions were removed and we reached 101 plat-
explored to search for apps or web pages that
forms that were analyzed in relation to some
indicated platforms related to the previously
aspects of the business model: platform type,
mapped categories using keywords such as
compensation type, compensation calcula-
"apps transportation Brazil”, “apps delivery
tion, platform evaluation method, authorship
Brazil”, “applications veterinary Brazil”, and
of the evaluation on the platform . These cat-
other similar ones. In app stores, category rat-
egories were either taken or adapted from
ings were used.
Curtis (2021, p. 43).
The initial survey of platforms at sources re-
sulted in 190 applications, excluding duplicity.
6
CEPI FGV Direito SP
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
The conceptual multiplicity existing in the lit- Bills in the National Congress, strongly influ-
erature, the undefined characteristics, the enced by the COVID-19 pandemic. We dis-
heterogeneity (of services, business models, cussed this movement in previous publica-
workers, etc.), the scarcity of sectorial data tions of our research Future of work and the
and the operation of platforms, the algorith- gig economy: regulatory issues on technol-
mic particularities of each platform, among ogy and social protection (thematic briefing 1
other issues make the gig economy a complex and thematic briefing 2).
ecosystem, full of shades and still little known,
We noted that the health crisis has increased
despite the significant trajectory of research
attention to the possibilities of labor regula-
and discussions regarding the regulation of
tion in the gig economy, also highlighting the
this model of activities. Therefore, academic
need to better understand this ecosystem:
researches such as the one carried out by CEPI
who are the actors involved? What are the
FGV Direito SP are necessary to understand
economic activities involved? Is it a homoge-
the elements and the various facets of a still
neous or heterogeneous environment? What
new, poorly regulated, but growing scenario in
are the particulars that must be observed?
Brazil and in the world.
Based on this context, we present in this posi-
The regulatory debate on the gig economy in
tion paper what CEPI FGV Direito SP under-
Brazil started to move in 2015, with the
stands as the gig economy, with special atten-
presentation of the first bills (PL) on the sub-
tion to the Brazilian context. Initially, we ad-
ject in the Federal Senate and in the Chamber
dress theoretical aspects to, later, analyze
of Deputies. The peak of proposals on this
practical aspects, explaining our understand-
theme took place in 2020, with the presenta-
ing of their challenges in the face of the na-
tion of 71 Bills, which we call the third wave of
tional regulatory situation.
WHAT GIG ECONOMY ARE WE TALKING

WHAT GIG ECONOMY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?
ABOUT?
Gig economy is a term still under construction; used. There are authors who treat such termi-
it is possible to find different concepts about it nologies as if they were synonymous and
in the literature. We noticed a certain overlap there are authors who consider them to be dis-
between the terms platform economy, shar- tinct expressions and, among them, it is also
ing economy and gig economy (on demand possible to find variations (GÖRÖG, 2018, p.
economy, moonlighting economy or freelance 180-184).
economy), among other terms sometimes
7
CEPI FGV Direito SP
There are more generic concepts and others we prefer to use the term gig economy in
that seek to detail particularities. The difficulty English in this position paper.
in reaching a consensus on the concept of
The platform economy, whose concept is also
these "diverse economies" may be related to
not consensual (EUROFOUND, 2017), is un-
the heterogeneity of activities, business mod-
derstood here as an economy of scale based
els, company profiles, applications, and work-
on digital platforms, marked by the decen-
ers that make up the ecosystem (DEMARY,
tralization of activities and actors, by algo-
2015).
rithmic management and by the flexibility in
In addition to the conceptual multiplicity, relationships, which involve, at least three
there is also a diversity of translations of the parties: platform provider, supplier and re-
term gig economy into Portuguese: “on de- questor (SCHMIDT, 2017).
mand economy”, “moonlighting economy” or
Within the platform economy, it is possible to
“freelance economy”.
identify different business models, as shown in
Furthermore, as Acquier, Carbone and Mass figure 01.
(2019) comment, there is a conceptual dis-
It is within this heterogeneous ecosystem that
pute, especially around the sharing economy,
digital intermediation platforms are inserted,
which arises from the environmental and so-
which are the subject matter of study of the re-
cial impacts of this new economy(ies).
search that supports this publication. How
The concept of gig economy adopted in this those platforms are organized, the way how
document represents CEPI's understanding of goods and services are shared, and the man-
the conformation of the different shades agement of such sharing raise debates regard-
found within the platform economy and about ing the name of this phenomenon, and its eco-
itself, without prejudice to other possible ones nomic, social and regulatory impacts. Among
found in the literature. the different models existing in the platform
economy, there are the sharing economy and
Due to this variety, and because we do not
the gig economy, inserted in the intermedia-
identify the precise correspondence with the
tion platform models.
original expression in the translations, since
all these elements – on demand, moonlight-
ing and freelance – are part of this economy,
8
CEPI FGV Direito SP
Figure 1 – Business models in the platform economy
Social media Information Intermediation
Platforms that streamline Platforms that offer a Platforms that connect two
interaction between users, matching service that poles. These platforms
who create and share their connects users with content depend on users to deliver
own content or information creators content of supply and
demand
Sharing and Gig Economy

Platforms: Facebook, Search platforms: Google: platforms: Amazon MTurk;
Instagram, Tinder. Yahoo! ; Bing. Uber; Airbnb;iFood;
- Getninjas.
News platforms: Google -
News; Yahoo News; Online markets:
- Amazon.com: eBay.
Evaluation platforms: -
TheFork; Foursquare: Yelp. App stores: App Store;
Google Play.
Online content
E-retailers
providers
Platforms that deliver content Companies that sell their own

online, whether distributing products on online platforms
content created by third
parties/other users, or
distributing their own content
Streaming platforms: Netflix,

Prime Video, Disney+.
- E-retailers: Walmart, Saraiva.
Online content sites:
Youtube.
Source: adapted from CEPAL (2018).

Icons by Freepik and Flat Icons and taken from flaticons.com
9
CEPI FGV Direito SP
In this regard, the gig economy can be understood as the dimension of work inserted in the sharing
economy. According to Sundararajan (2016), the sharing economy is an economic system marked by
five main characteristics:
Market-based: The sharing economy creates markets that enable the exchange of goods
and the emergence of new services, resulting in potentially higher levels of economic ac-
tivity.
High-impact capital: The sharing economy opens up new opportunities for everything
from assets and skills to time and money to be used at levels closer to full capacity.
Crowd-based “networks” rather than centralized institutions or “hierarchies”: the supply

of capital and labor comes from decentralized crowds of individuals rather than corpo-
rate or public aggregates.
Fine lines between the personal and the professional: the supply of labor and services of-
ten markets and scales activities among peers, such as giving someone a lift or lending
money, activities that used to be considered "personal".
Lack of boundaries between employment and casual work, between independent and de-
pendent employment, between work and leisure: many traditionally full-time jobs are
supplanted by employment contracts that have different levels of time commitment,
granularity, economic dependence and entrepreneurship.
Another important distinction concerns the which flexible, occasional and non-perma-
profitable purpose of the platforms: non- nent contracts prevail (WATSON, 2021), and
profit platforms and commercial platforms where tasks performed are paid for (WOOD-
(SCHMIDT, 2017) In the former, "collaboration COK; GRAHAM, 2020). In this relationship,
is more important than competition and the digital platforms can intermediate different
outcomes of labor are freely shared with eve- types of work.
ryone, including people outside the platform"
According to Stefano (2016), the gig economy
(SCHMIDT, 2017, p. 9), while in the latter there
involves two types of work: crowdwork and
is competition between platforms in the ex-
work on demand via apps. For the author,
ploration of economic activity. The subject
crowdwork is the work carried out through
matter of this document is the for-profit in-
online platforms that connect an indefinite
termediation platforms.
number of organizations, companies and in-
From this characterization, it is possible to un- dividuals over the Internet around the world
derstand the gig economy as the business en- (STEFANO, 2016, p. 2). While work on de-
vironment where there is intermediation of mand via apps is work that is performed in a
human work through digital platforms, in traditional way, with the physical presence
10
CEPI FGV Direito SP
of the worker – such as transportation and works) and gig work (which, for the author, are
cleaning, for example – but it is channeled works located geographically) . In this regard,
through digital platforms (STEFANO, 2016, p. like Stefano (2016) and Berg et al. (2018),
3). Schmidt (2017) identifies a distinction be-
tween work performed over the Internet and
In the categorization by Berg et al. (2018), dig-
work that requires physical presence in a par-
ital platforms mediate web-based work (indi-
ticular location. However, by adopting the gig
cated by Berg et al. as crowdwork) and geo-
work name only for geographically located
graphically located work (cf. figure 2). It is
work, Schmidt excludes the cloudwork from
noteworthy that, given the diversification of
the gig economy, which does not meet our un-
business and service models, it is possible to
derstanding. Although they have particulari-
identify platforms that, at the same time, in-
ties, we understand that both geographically
termediate web-based work and geograph-
located jobs and web-based jobs are included
ically located work.
in the gig economy.
Schmidt (2017), in turn, identifies that plat-
forms that mediate work can mediate cloud-
work (which, for the author, are web-based
Figure 2 – Web-based vs geographically located work: concepts and characteristics
• Identified as crowdwork by • Identified as work on

Geographically located work (BERG et al,
Stefano (2016); demand via apps by Stefano

Web-based work (et al, 2018)
• Work performed over the (2016);

internet, without the • Work performed in person by
physical presence of the the worker and demanded
provider and the service through digital platforms;
taker, intermediated by
2018)
platforms that connect • Example: transportation,

users around the world; delivery, cleaning
applications, such as Uber,
• Example: microtask Ifood, and Parafuzo,
platforms, such as Amazon respectively.
Mechanical Turk
Source: own preparation.

Icons by Freepik and Vectors Market and taken from flaticons.com.
11
CEPI FGV Direito SP
In this environment, some opportunities and challenges for male and female workers are pointed out.
Box 6: Opportunities and challenges of the gig economy according to the literature
Opportunities Challenges
Excess of labor and reduced remuneration (ABÍLIO
New jobs (OECD, 2016)
et. al, 2020)
Fewer/lower barriers to enter into the labor market Social protection (labor and social security) insuffi-
(OECD, 2016) cient or non-existent (STEFANO et al, 2021)
New challenges to the collective organization of

Flexibility of hours and workplace (in crowdwork)
workers due to the pulverization of the category
(BERG et al, 2018)
(WOODCOK; GRAHAM, 2020)
Possibility of including historically excluded groups Lack of transparency in the relationship with plat-
(OECD, 2016) forms (BERG et al, 2018)
We also emphasize that, in the original con- and costs, as well as increasing information
ception of the sharing economy, there is a about the platform's users, "reducing the risks
search for the optimization of underutilized of trading with those you don't know ” (KALIL,
assets through sharing (KPMG, 2020). Or, as 2020, p. 72).
indicated by Sundararajan, the use of the full
Schmidt (2017, p.18) highlights that geo-
capacity of assets, which may involve goods
graphically located work platforms have
and/or services (ACQUIER; CARBONE; MASS,
only become possible due to the wide
2019), as is the case with transportation appli-
spread of smartphones and the Global Posi-
cation drivers, who, in addition to sharing
tioning System (GPS). Both technologies are
work, also share the vehicle. Although this
prerequisites for being able to implement
sharing can be observed since before infor-
work that is not web-based, but at specific lo-
mation and communication technologies, it is
cations in a given city.
possible to say that it took place less widely
and more restrictedly in local communities. It is noteworthy that there are criticisms about
With the platforming of the economy, from the current use of the original concept of shar-
online arrangements that structure, organize ing economy, as it has lost its initial purpose of
and optimize economic activity (KENNEY; sharing goods and services whose potential
ZYSMAN, 2016), this sharing network gained was not well used, having become a model
a larger and more complex scale (ACQUIER; closer to the traditional sectors of the econ-
CARBONE; MASS, 2019). omy (SCHOR, 2017). In this regard, criticism
also extends to the gig economy, such as peo-
Technology plays an important role in the
ple who rent cars or motorcycles to provide
scale-up of such sharing (CARTAGO, 2019).
services as drivers or delivery drivers in
According to Kalil, the digital dimension of
sharing is relevant, as it enables large-scale
economic activity, reducing transaction time
12
CEPI FGV Direito SP
transportation and delivery applications, re- sharing, which amplifies the need to under-
spectively, moving away from the logic of stand this ecosystem.
THE
THEGIG ECONOMY
GIG ECONOMY ECOSYSTEM
ECOSYSTEM
As Acquier, Carbone and Mass (2019) point or multilateral platforms, which allow direct
out, the sharing model is not recent. Technol- interactions between two or more distinct
ogy, however, made it possible for this prac- sides, each side being affiliated with the plat-
tice to become a model for all types of compa- form (HAGIU; WRIGHT, 2015). Thus, as identi-
nies, transforming it, therefore, into a busi- fied by Schmidt (2017, p.10), in this relation-
ness model (CARELLI; GRILLO; OLIVEIRA, ship there are always at least three parties in-
2020, p. 2613). volved: platform provider, supplier and re-
questor.
“The organizational structure of the digital
platforms under the gig economy is character-
ized by some economists as bilateral markets
Platform architecture
Since our study is focused on the analysis of Traditionally, the sharing model is mainly con-
work intermediation platforms, at the suppli- centrated between individuals (P2P or C2C). In
er's pole we locate the worker, either perform- this model, individuals pay a certain amount to
ing a web-based job (crowdwork) or perform- acquire resources shared by other individuals
ing a geographically located job (work on de- through an electronic platform (platform pro-
mand) At the requestor’s pole there is a plat- vider) There is also the sharing model in which
form user, who can be an individual (con- a company offers resources to consumers
sumer) or a legal entity (commercial establish- through a platform (B2C) or offers resources
ment) (see figure 3). It should be noted, how- to another company (B2B) (MA et al., 2020,
ever, that as we are dealing with a business p.2). The possibilities of transactions on online
model of multilateral platforms, it is possible platforms were systematized in figure 3.
to have more than one supplier within the sys-
tem, making up a business chain that involves
more than three parties.
13
CEPI FGV Direito SP
Figure 3 - Transaction representation on online platforms
P2P
People Peers
Sells Buys
Platform providers
Professionals and companies Consumers and companies
B2C
B2B
Source: translated OECD (2016).

Icons by Freepik and itim2101 and taken from flaticons.com.
Platform providers
Platform providers are responsible for provid- In a research on business models in the sharing
ing the infrastructure that mediates supply economy, Acquier, Carbone and Mass (2019,
and demand and, because of that, they have a p.9) identified that these businesses create
comprehensive view of the interactions that economic and social values in two ways: (i)
occur between other user groups (suppliers through intermediation from one point to an-
and requestors). On the other hand, users other, by organizing the decentralized produc-
have access to interfaces (small data windows tion, distribution and exchange of products
in the system of digital platforms, as high- and services; (ii) through centralized pooling
lighted by Schmidt), which are different de- of resources, by creating a structure that is ac-
pending on the form of affiliation to the plat- cessible. The authors emphasize that these
form (suppliers and requestors) models are not exclusive, and that there may
be combinations between them. In this re-
According to Schmidt (2017, p.10), the typical
gard, there are different intermediation meth-
platform model is characterized by systemic
ods: from simpler models, which only connect
asymmetry of information (which enables the
two parties, to more sophisticated models,
platform to establish who sees what - and
which, in addition to connecting two parties,
when they see it - and what interactions are
encourage consumer loyalty, promote greater
possible between the other poles of the rela-
trust in services, have greater algorithmic con-
tionship)
14
CEPI FGV Direito SP
trol and management power, etc. Thus, con- A.; SRNICEK, N., 2021, p.11); interface that al-
sidering that one of the main discussions in the lows easy access and use, with few barriers to
gig economy is precisely on intermediation, it entry (KALIL, 2020), reliable payment system,
is necessary to identify how it is done, what based on a robust digital infrastructure
values are created by the platforms and what (KPMG, 2020, p.17), among others. See the in-
are the levels of interaction, control and man- fographic for further details (figure 4).
agement of interactions between the parties.
It should be noted that, according to the Euro-
Although there is a wide range of activities pean Parliamentary Research Service, digital
that can be intermediated by platform provid- platforms act as regulators by establishing the
ers, these companies share common charac- rules for their users to interact, the behaviors
teristics: economies of scale; business models that will be encouraged and those that will be
involving cross-subsidies; generation, use and discouraged on the platform. This rule-setting
capture of data, and the fact that they act as function is part of what some authors call plat-
private regulators of their ecosystem (GAWER, form governance. (GAWER, A.; SRNICEK, N.,
2021, p.16)
Workers
Workers are fundamental in this ecosystem of The distinction is relevant because it reflects
multilateral platforms, in relation to which how economically dependent workers can be
there is insufficient data and scattered num- on a platform(GAWER, A.; SRNICEK, N., 2021).
bers, which represents a challenge to estimate Furthermore, the variety of profiles also shows
the number and profile of people working in that there are different reasons why people
this sector (ILO, 2021 ). choose to work for platforms, which signals
the need to consider such diversity when ana-
In Figure 4, we have compile data and infor-
lyzing and regulating the topic (BUSI-
mation about the number of workers linked to
NESSEUROPE, 2020).
the gig economy in Brazil and in the world.
This group of people who work in the gig econ- According to Lapa (2021), in an analysis of
omy, in turn, is heterogeneous, making it diffi- data from the National Household Sample
cult to identify a single profile Some provide Survey during the pandemic, there is no spe-
services through digital platforms as a way of cific category in PNAD-Covid19 that involves
supplementing their income, while others only application delivery drivers. They can be
have this work as their main source of income considered in two existing categories (moto
(BUSINESSEUROPE, 2020). For some of the couriers and delivery drivers), but which in-
people, the gig economy is no longer just an clude other workers who are not linked to plat-
opportunity for eventual income (just a forms. Thus, the set of analysis goes beyond
"moonlighting" job), becoming their main oc- the gig economy, which reinforces the need
cupation, which goes against the very origin of for sectorial research specifically dedicated to
the term "gig economy". the topic. According to the study, in October
2020 there were 688,256 people working as
15
CEPI FGV Direito SP
moto couriers or delivery drivers without a for- that 94.6% of the 298 respondents were male.
mal contract, a number that tends to involve
The survey of Abílio et al. (2020) also showed
workers in the gig economy, since, as a rule,
a variation in profiles with regard to remuner-
they are not hired as workers under the CLT
ation and working hours: in the study, remu-
(Consolidated Labor Laws) regime. This is a
neration ranged from up to R$ 130.00 to R$
group made up of 95% men. These workers
1,041.00 per week, while working hours varied
had an average income of R$ 1,508.02 in No-
between up to 4 hours a day to more than 15
vember 2020 (LAPA, 2021, p. 13) and work du-
hours of work a day.
ration (usually worked hours) of 40.31 hours
per week.
The survey carried out by Aliança Bike (2019)

on the profile of cyclist app delivery people in Where does the expression gig come
the city of São Paulo illustrates the diversity of from?
motivations for working in the gig economy: According to Woodcok and Graham (2020),
when asked about the reason for doing deliv- the term gig refers to short-term contracts
eries, part of the 270 respondents answered that are typical of musical events. An aspir-
that "I was unemployed" (59%), followed by "I ing musician may perform at a concert hall
like to ride a bicycle" (14%) and "it's a job to do on any given day, but that does not ensure
in my spare time" (11%)" ( ALIANÇA BIKE, that he will perform continuously or on
2019, p. 5). The survey also indicated variety in other scheduled days. Chances are the op-
portunity will be repeated, as it may have
the working hours of cyclists, which varies be-
been his only presentation. In general, this
tween 5 hours and more than 12 hours a day,
musician is paid for the show performed
with an average journey of 9 hours and 24
and may, depending on what was agreed,
minutes per day (ALIANÇA BIKE, 2019). The receive some benefits. This notion of even-
monthly remuneration also ranged from tuality and unpredictability was borrowed
R$466.20 to R$995.30, with an average remu- to name the gig economy.
neration of R$936.00. There was, however,
one variable that predominated: 99% of re-
spondents were male, a percentage similar to
the survey developed by Abílio et al. (2020) on
the working conditions of delivery drivers via
digital platforms during the pandemic(in 29
cities, predominantly in São Paulo, Belo Hori-
zonte, Recife and Curitiba), which identified
Requestors
Another pole of the gig economy ecosystem request the service within the digital platform.
analyzed here is occupied by requestors, In our mapping, we did not find specific re-
which can be individuals or legal entities who search on the number and profile of users of
16
CEPI FGV Direito SP
these digital work intermediation platforms. the different relationships that are established
However, the numbers presented in the info- through work on platforms, as well as the pos-
graphic (figure 4) help to measure the scope of sible ways of regulating this ecosystem. In this
this market. research, we dedicate ourselves to the anal-
ysis of the legal dimension of this discussion,
Taken together, the data reveals the hetero-
which does not make invisible (and requires)
geneity of the scenario. The different combi-
other equally relevant analyses.
nations of these complex elements lead to un-
certainties, debates and controversies about
17
CEPI FGV Direito SP
Figure – Platform-specific data
Registered on the platform

Uber: 5 million drivers worldwide, of which
1 million are in Brazil;
According to the PNAD (National Household Sample
iFood 160 thousand active delivery drivers Survey) 3.8 million Brazilians work with digital plat-
registered on the platform and more than forms. The PNAD on Covid points to the existence of
250 thousand delivery drivers in restau- 700 thousand delivery drivers of goods in the country.
rants;
According to the Locomotiva Institute, 32.4 million
99: 600 thousand drivers; adult workers - 20% of the country's workforce - earn
Gentinjas: Over 2 million professionals; their living working on digital applications;
Freelancer.com: 31 million registered work- Data from the 2020 IPEA (Institute of Applied Eco-
ers around the world; nomic Research) indicated that the total number of
workers in transportation and product delivery applica-
Workana 2.5 million registered profession- tions in Brazil rose from 1.253 million in January 2015 to
als around the world; 1.988 million in April 2019, an increase of around
700,000 jobs in four years.
Uber: 93 million users worldwide, of which

22 million are in Brazil. Platform has activity
in more than 500 cities in the country;
iFood: 60 million orders delivered and more
than 5 million app downloads per month.
The platform is active in more than 1200 cit-
ies in the country;
99: 18 million riders, operating in more than
1000 cities;
FreteBras more than 13,609 companies
registered to offer freight and more than
1,944 cities served;
Singu: about 200,000 customers registered
According to data from Quantas pesquisa e estudos
on the platform and more than 500,000 or-
de mercado (research and market studies) in 2018,
ders placed:
from one thousand people interviewed in the city of
Jurídico Certo: 84 thousand offices and São Paulo. 76% were users of private car and taxi ser-
companies have already requested services vices, and 25% used more than one app.
on the platform.
Source: own preparation based on data extracted from: CADEIRA (2021); ESTADÃO (2019); FAIRWORK (2021); FreteBras
(2021); GETNINJAS (s.d.); IFOOD (2021); IPEA (2020); IPESI (2021); Jurídico Certo (2021); Quantas pesquisa e estudos de mer-
cado (2018); Singu (2021); UBER (2020); 99 (s.d1.,2021).
Icons by Freepik and taken from flaticons.com.
18
CEPI FGV Direito SP
PLATFORM SCENARIO IN BRAZIL

PLATFORM SCENARIO IN BRAZIL
Platform mapping: knowing the field
A mapping of digital work intermediation plat- that were classified and analyzed, considering
forms operating in Brazil was carried out the following criteria: platform name, spatial
based on the methodology indicated above. coverage, economic activity and type of plat-
Initially, 190 platforms were found, which form (figure 5).
were selected considering their relevance to
The analysis of these elements was supported
the gig economy.
by information available on the platforms'
From this preliminary analysis, platforms that websites and in their terms of service (when
(i) although they appeared in the search, did available). This information enabled us to un-
not mediate work were excluded; (ii) are derstand some details of the business model
owned by commercial establishments, distrib- of each platform, although it was difficult to
uting their products exclusively, such as an ap- obtain accurate information in some situa-
plication created by a restaurant chain to dis- tions. We also noticed that the websites of
tribute their own products; (iii) which function some platforms offer few details about how
as typical service outsourcers, pursuant to Law they work. The terms of use are not always
No. 6.019/1974. Although outsourcing is also a available for consultation without registering
form of work intermediation, it was excluded as a potential worker, even when there are
from this analysis, as it is already regulated in terms of use available, there is not always de-
Brazil. This process resulted in 101 platforms tail on all the criteria defined for the analysis.
Figure 4 – Axes of analysis of mapped platforms
Platform name
coverage
Special
Platforms in
the gig
activity
Economic
economy
Platform type
19
CEPI FGV Direito SP
Field description
Although the best known sectors of the gig forms operating with various economic activi-
economy are product delivery and passenger ties, as illustrated in graph 1 and figure 6. It is
transportation, there are digital platforms op- noteworthy that some of the platforms are not
erating in several market niches. In the survey restricted to a specific economic activity, be-
carried out, we identified gig economy plat- ing present in more than one of the categories.
Graph 1 – Platforms by economic activities
Cargo transportation, 8 Health and well-being, 7
Passenger transportation, 11
Cleaning, 7 Programming and IT, 7
Delivery of products (delivery), 24 Small repairs

and small
Law and the like, 9 works, 3 Childcare, 3
Small task freelancers, 7
Scientific or
technical
research, 2
Brokerage, 2
Tourism,
hospitality and Entertainme
Multiple activities, 13 Teaching and training, 8 Pet care, 6 tours, 2 nt 1
20
CEPI FGV Direito SP
Figure 5 – Platforms mapped by economic activity

Icons by Freepik, monkik, Becris, dDara and Icons8 and taken from flaticons.com and icons8.com.br.
21
CEPI FGV Direito SP
The multifaceted reality of apps

In addition to the platforms considered in our analysis, throughout the mapping and analysis
of the literature, it was also possible to identify platforms that present other business models
and characteristics different from those observed in the gig economy. We noted there are
platforms that significantly differ from the labor intermediation models that exist in the gig
economy. That is the case of companies that create their own platforms just to optimize their
operation. We also identified platforms that are in an undetermined zone between already
known forms of hiring, such as outsourcing, for example, and the gig economy. Below, we list
some of these dimensions.
Own System
In the mapping carried out, we observed that some commercial establishments, especially in
the product delivery sector, created their own intermediation platforms. We have as an exam-
ple the McDonald's fast food chain application. By downloading the app, you can download
the menu, place orders to receive at home or pick up directly at the store, have access to ex-
clusive promotions, etc. In these cases, from what it is possible to analyze from the company's
website, the main objective is not exactly the intermediation of work, but rather the optimi-
zation of the sale of products from in-house or outsourced delivery drivers ).
Union of companies
During the mapping carried out, we identified the existence of an initiative in the product de-
livery sector, already approved by the Administrative Council for Economic Defense, in which
the companies Outback, Giraffas, Bob's and Rei do Mate joined together to create a delivery
platform in order to reduce expenses with delivery platforms known in the market, as well as
to streamline the management of offers by restaurants (JANKAVSK; RODRIGUES;
GUIMARÃES, 2021).
Outsourcing
The outsourcing of work (disciplined by Law No. 6.019/74, modified by Law No. 13,429/17) is
that in which the outsourcing company hires workers as employees (under the CLT regime),
who then provide services to the company that takes on this workforce. Within this theme,
we find two models involving digital platforms: the first one is the outsourcing platform, that
is, outsourcing companies that start to develop their activities in the scope of digital plat-
forms. The second is the use of outsourcing by some gig economy platforms, either in total or
only in part of the operations, to, for example, guarantee a minimum number of workers to
22
CEPI FGV Direito SP
meet demand at peak hours. We note, regarding this second model, that some platforms
mention the use of intermediaries to connect with workers, but do not expressly name this
relationship as outsourcing, which raises questions (i) about the existence or not of a relation-
ship employment with these intermediaries, (ii) whether Law 6.019/74 is being observed and
(iii) how these workers are being hired.
Platform Cooperatives
We also identified the existence of a model of work cooperatives. According to Scholz (2016,
p.61), platform cooperativism involves three elements: (i) it is based on the large platform
technological model, "adhering to democratic values"; (ii) it is based on solidarity among the
cooperative members; (iii) seeks to reframe concepts such as efficiency and innovation, aim-
ing to benefit a greater number of people. In Brazil, the National Cooperative Policy is pro-
vided for in Law No. 5.754/71 and work cooperatives are regulated by Law No. 12.690/20a12.
In our mapping, however, we did not identify cooperatives (which may be a result of the key-
words used in the searches), although there are reports of experiences in this regard, such as
Pedal Express (DIGILABOUR, 2021).
23
CEPI FGV Direito SP
Regarding the spatial coverage (graph 2), most platforms have regional or national action. We con-
sider national coverage when the platform operates throughout the Brazilian territory, while regional
performance refers to platforms that operate in one or more specific regions of the country. Few plat-
forms have local operations, that is, operate in only one city. A considerable number have interna-
tional operations, operating in more than one continent, while some platforms have continental op-
erations, operating in only one continent.
Graph 2 – Scope of action of the platforms
Regional Domestic International Not applicable/indetermined Continental Local
Another important difference between the on the case (graph 3). From the analysis car-
platforms concerns the way they work. Based ried out within the scope of this research, we
on the mapping done, we identified that most verified the predominance of national cover-
platforms work with geographically located age. In 6 platforms it was not possible to iden-
jobs, that is, the services linked to them re- tify the spatial coverage.
quire the physical presence of the worker in a
certain location, such as the delivery of prod-
3Graph – Types of platforms
ucts, the transportation of passengers or do-
mestic cleaning services (figure 7). Some plat- Platform type
forms only offer web-based services, in which Local platforms

workers perform online tasks such as therapy
sessions, design services, programming or Both
content creation. Certain platforms operate in

Web-based
both areas, such as some legal or medical ser-
vices, in which both online assistance and Not applicable/undetermined
face-to-face services are available, depending
24
CEPI FGV Direito SP
Figure 6 – Platforms mapped by type of work
Passenger 99, EcoDrivers, Garupa, Homo Driver. InDriver,

Lady Driver, Sity, Took, Uber, Wappa,
transportation
Blablacar.
99Entrega, Garupa, InDriver, UberEats,

Wappa, iFood, Rappi, Loggi, Lalamove, Click
Product Entregas, Eu Entrego. Shipp, B2log, James,
Brokerage Modal plus delivery Shippify, Logbee, 99food, aiqfome,
Cornershop, Delivery Much, Pede.ai,
Tonolucro, Alfred Delivery, Delivery Me.
Teladoc,
Health and well- MFit Personal,
being Telavita, Triider
Zenklub Minor repairs Iguana Fix
Get to work 2.0
Fiver
Programming
UpWork
and IT Triider, Blumpa, Parafuzo, Dixx Domestic
Freelancer Cleaning Services, Help Me Cleaning, Hands-To-Work
2.0, Famyle.
Teaching and Hotmart
Training TwygoEAD Garupa, Dog Hero, PetDriver, Pet Booking,
Pet care VaiVemPet, Famyle.
Fiver
Small task UpWork Sitly
freelancers Freelancer Childcare Babysits
Twenty Dick Geographically located work Famyle
Meu Redator
Web-based work Cargo inDnver, Triider, Brasil Fretes, TruckPad,

transportation FreteBras, BuscaCargas, Pega Carga, Cargo X.
Scientific or Freelancer
technical research Twenty Dick
Health and Make You
well-being Singu
Entertainment Fiverr
Law and the Diligeiro
like Correspondente Express
Multiple activities Workana

Tourism,
hospitality and Booking
tours
DeCasa
Multiple ServiceTouch
activities Habitissimo
indiqueAi
25
CEPI FGV Direito SP
Brokerage Quinto Andar
aaa
Health and Boa Consulta

well-being
Law and the Juridico Certo, Litive, Oi Advogado, Meu

like Advogado Online (.adv), Freelaw, Meu
Advogado Online.com
Find Up
Programming Conquest One
and IT EuNerd
Shapp
Web-based and geographically Teaching and Profes
located jobs Training Udemy
Superprof
Tourism,
hospitality and AirBnB
tours
Multiple Youtaf, GetNinjas, Helpie, Crafty, Sem

Source: own preparation. activities Patrão, Joobby, Mercado Livre, OLX.
Icons by Freepik and Vectors Market and taken from flaticons.com.
26
CEPI FGV Direito SP
version 01, version 01, 25 de Julio de 2021
In view of this heterogeneous scenario of eco- with multiple activities included services that
nomic activities, spatial coverage and types of were distinct from one another, with no uni-
platforms (geographically located, web-based formity, they were not considered at this
and both), ten cases were highlighted for the stage.
analysis of criteria related to remuneration,
In a second moment, the websites and terms
work evaluation and peculiarities of platform
of use of the platforms included among the
operation. These cases were selected taking
five largest economic activities in the mapping
into account the five categories that showed
were analyzed. In figure 8 we demonstrate
the highest results in the economic activity cri-
similarities and differences between the busi-
terion: product delivery, passenger transpor-
ness models.
tation, law and the like, education and train-
ing, and cargo transportation. As platforms
27
CEPI FGV Direito SP
Figure 7 - Similarities and differences between business models
• Geographically located product delivery platform (delivery)

• Geographically located product delivery platform (delivery)
• Regional coverage
• Continental coverage.
• Platform requires delivery drivers to be registered as individual
• Platform declares that the legal relations fought are civil and
Tonolucro
Microentrepreneurs (MEI).
commercial, with no employment relationship.
• Compensation per task defined by the platform.
• Compensation per task defined by the platform.
iFood
• There is no information about the evaluation model.

• Individualized evaluation by consumers and partner establishments.
The platform mentions the possibility of providing evaluation of • The platform has a physical delivery center, where the delivery driver
partner establishments by delivery drivers. removes the backpack and returns it by card at the beginning of the
day, checks in and, at the end of the day, returns the material or checks
• Fraud, damages, traffic violations, judicial determinations,
it out. The headquarters is also a warehouse where the delivery driver
modification of delivery conditions, and recurring negative reviews can drink water and use the internet. There is a logistics center for
can result in the deactivation of the platform.
problem solving through the platform.
• It offers personal accident insurance, health advantage plan for
• Delivery drivers who have been inactive for the longest time have
delivery drivers, as well as online professional qualification course.
priority to make deliveries.
• Geographically located passenger transportation platform. • Geographically located passenger transportation platform that self-
• International coverage. identifies as a passenger platform without commercial purpose,
BlaBlaCar
• Compensation per task defined by the platform. bringing together drivers and passengers traveling to the same
• Mutual evaluation system carried out by drivers and consumers. destination and allowing to share travel costs.
Uber
• Below average ratings cause drivers and users to lose (totally or • Remuneration per task defined by the driver, although there is a price
partially) access to the platform. suggestion by the platform.
• Allows a female driver to choose to take female passenger-only • Mutual and individualized evaluation system made by consumers and
rides. drivers available in each user's profile. In case of negative evaluation,
• As a requirement for the registration of drivers, there is a criminal there is a right of reply.
background check. • Low ratings and cancellation rate greater than 40% can lead to
• Offers advantages to drivers, such as discounts on car rentals. suspension, access limitation or exclusion from the platform.
• Geographically located cargo transportation platform.

• Continental coverage.
• Remuneration per task and agreed between the parties • Geographically located cargo transportation platform. National
• There is no information on the evaluation method. coverage.
• To be able to advertise on the platform, you need to subscribe to a • Remuneration per task and agreed between the parties
FreteBras
plan. • Payment is made in two installments: the first after collection of the
CargoX
• To subscribe to a plan on the platform you must have a CNPJ cargo and the second within 48 hours of receipt.
(corporate registration number). • There is no information on the evaluation method.
• The subscribing user can be blocked from the platform due to lack • The cancellation of cargo transportation or the driver's non-attendance
of payment for the plan or for non-compliance with the terms and may result in blocking and/or exclusion of the platform, without
conditions of use. excluding the application of indemnity for losses and damages to the
• The subscribing user is deactivated after being 30 days past due in platform.
the payment of the plan. In order to re-enter the platform the user • Failure to comply with the terms of use implies exclusion from the
must pay a reactivation fee. platform and prohibition to use the service.
• The platform may also, at its discretion and at any time, depending • The platform can monitor delivery from driver to customer.
on the seriousness of the infractions committed by subscribing
users, deactivate or block, including definitively, the registration of
users.
• Geographically located, web-based legal correspondence and legal

Juridico Certo
services platform.
• Geographically located platform for legal correspondence. • National coverage.
Diligeiro
• National coverage. • Remuneration per task and agreed between the parties
• Remuneration per task and agreed between the parties • Payment is made through the Jurídico Pag functionality and a fee is
• Evaluation is carried out by the service contractor and made deducted for its use.
publicly available. • Evaluation carried out by the consumer and made available in an
• There is a charge for plans so that the correspondent can apply aggregated and public manner.
before users with a free plan. • Requires payment of a plan to be able to register as a worker.
• The platform may disconnect the user or block the account for not • The platform can interrupt the worker's access when the individual is
complying with the terms of use. declared bankrupt, when he loses any authorization necessary to
perform his activity or when there is non-compliance with the terms of
use.
• Geographically localized and web-based platform of classes.

• Geographically localized and web-based platform for classes, with • National coverage.
International Coverage. • The platform states that it does not have an employment relationship
• It restricts the use of platforms to individuals. Neither students nor
Superprof
with registered tutors, acting as a tutor service provider.

tutors can be legal entities. • In terms of use, the platform stresses that the user (individual or legal
Shapp
• Compensation per task is defined by the worker. entity) is responsible for submitting income tax returns to the Federal
• There is no information on the evaluation method. Revenue Service of Brazil.
• Platform declares to be free by not applying fees on payments • Compensation per task is defined by the worker.
made by students to tutors. There is, however, a professional plan • Free platform for registration, but charges a fee of R$20.00 per new
that can be paid by the tutor to be more prominent in their ads. student.
• Tutors who do not have the status of “Superprof Star” should offer • Evaluation performed by the worker and the consumer. The evaluation
a free first class. received by workers may influence their prominence on the platform.
• Delays in responding to students and violation of the terms of use • The platform may suspend the worker if there is a violation of the
may lead to suspension or deletion from the platform. terms of use, data provided is false, in case of illegal or immoral
conduct, unauthorized advertising by the platform.
28
CEPI FGV Direito SP
In the analysis of the ten cases, we identified In cases where the evaluation was available,
common denominators between the plat- there was a predominance of the evaluation
forms: all of them consider workers as self- system carried out by workers and service con-
employed and all workers are paid by task. tractors/consumers: iFood, Tonolucro, Uber,
However, the formalization of the relationship BlaBlaCar and Shapp. There are also platforms
between the workers and the platform varies: that offer evaluation only by the service re-
some platforms, such as Tonolucro and questor/consumer: Diligeiro and Jurídico
CarregaBras, require proof that the worker is Certo.
registered as MEI (Individual Microentrepre-
Among the cases analyzed, we highlight an in-
neur) and has a CNPJ (company register) num-
itiative by the Tonolucro app: providing space
ber, respectively. Superprof does not accept
for delivery drivers to eat, rest, use the Inter-
that its users – teachers and students – are le-
net, as well as a logistics center to help deliv-
gal entities and other platforms do not men-
ery drivers to solve delivery-related problems.
tion requirements or prohibitions in this re-
In addition, this same platform uses a peculiar
gard.
operating mechanism: the delivery drivers
As for the calculation of remuneration per have to check-in (when they start their work
task, we also observed variations: there are day and collect a backpack and the mobile
platforms where the worker defines the value card machine) and then to check-out (at the
of the service provided, such as Shapp, Super- end of the day ) in a physical space on the plat-
prof and BlaBlaCar. There are platforms where form The iFood platform also indicates on its
the value of the service is agreed between the website that some restaurants registered on
parties, such as the CarregaBras, CargoX, Dili- the platform offer support points for delivery
geiro and Jurídico Certo platforms. There are drivers, where it is possible to use the re-
cases where the platform itself defines the stroom, have water, etc.
value of the service, such as iFood, Tonolucro
There are also platforms that provide benefits
and Uber.
to male and female workers, such as personal
Regarding assessments, the ways in which accident insurance, health benefits and pro-
they occur are not always clear in the terms of fessional qualification plan (iFood), discounts
use, as in the case of the CarregaBras, CargoX on car rentals (Uber), among others.
and Superprof platforms.
During the mapping of the platforms, we were
As blocking or excluding workers' access to able to note some particularities. We list some
platforms is usually associated with evalua- of these findings, which can help us to under-
tions, it is important that information about stand and reflect on their impact and rele-
evaluation criteria is more accessible. vance in terms of possible regulation of the
sector.
29
CEPI FGV Direito SP
Peculiarities observed in some platforms throughout the mapping:
Platforms that do not self-identify as work intermediaries;

Use of the Google Maps application service to calculate the value of the service provided
in real time;
Requirement of exclusivity for registered workers;
Employee responsibility to comply with legal formalities that may be applicable, such as
the payment of taxes, for example;
Requirement that service provision advertisements be in English;
Charging or not fees on the value of services provided;
Platforms operating in specific niches;
Payment to the worker is made through an instrument created by the platform itself;
The consumer can choose a specific worker;
The platform can delete, cancel, suspend the user;
The platform can monitor the worker;
Requirement that the employee has a National Register of Legal Entities (CNPJ) number,
or is an Individual Microentrepreneur (MEI);
Advantages for workers, such as health plans and training;
Worker can only enter in the platform via referral;
Worker must pay a fee to be registered on the platform;
Guarantee of the service offered must be ensured by the worker;
The consumer must pay (in addition to the service specifically) to have access to profes-
sionals;
There are training sessions so that workers comply with service standards.
30
CEPI FGV Direito SP
GIG ECONOMY IN THE LEGISLATION

GIG ECONOMY IN BRAZILIAN LEGISLATION
In the course of the Future of work and the related to the regulation of work on digital
gig economy: regulatory issues on technol- platforms. Of those, 59 Bills are aimed at ap-
ogy and social protection1 research, we plication drivers; 21 Bills to delivery drivers; 35
mapped 128 federal bills (PLs) from the Cham- Bills to drivers and delivery drivers; 12 Bills to
ber of Deputies and the Federal Senate, pre- workers in general; and 1 Bill for artists and
sented in the period from 2015 to July 20212, performers of audiovisual works (graph 4).
Graph 4 – Distribution of Bills by categories of workers (2015-2021)
Delivery drivers
Drivers
Delivery Drivers and Drivers
General Workers
Artists and Interpreters of

Audiovisual Works
We see a focus of the bills on two main cate- platforms and are present in essential services
gories: application drivers and delivery driv- of urban daily life, as well as the scarce availa-
ers. Some possible reasons for this predomi- bility of data on work on platforms based on
nance would be the greater visibility of these the web.
categories and their vulnerabilities, as they
In addition, the social isolation caused by the
usually work with equipment that identify
Covid-19 pandemic has increased the demand
1
For further information we recommend reading TB1 and TB2, which contain the analysis and methodology
applied to the mapping of the legislative debate.
2
The most recent PL was presented on July 6, 2021 in the Chamber of Deputies.
31
CEPI FGV Direito SP
for delivery and transportation services, which jurisdiction and bureaucratic difficulties to en-
seems to have caught the attention of parlia- able, for example, the collection of social secu-
mentarians, given the dizzying increase in Bills rity contributions, in case there is no regis-
presented in the first year of the pandemic tered company in Brazil.
(2020), as shown in TB2.
In an analysis already published in TB2 and up-
However, the mapping carried out by CEPI dated for this publication, we classified the
identified a much greater diversity of types of Bills as "comprehensive", "partially compre-
work and services offered by digital platforms. hensive" and "specific", considering the exist-
In figure 6, we show a set of 17 different areas ence of essential provisions for the regulatory
and activities, which include sectors such as debate, namely: (i) definitions and distinctions
programming and IT, law, education and train- of ecosystem actors and activities; (ii) charac-
ing, cleaning services, among others. The fact terization of the work regime; (iii) remunera-
that most Bills focus on two categories (deliv- tion of workers; (iv) working conditions; (v)
ery and transportation) does not in itself mean benefits granted to workers; (vi) algorithmic
a disconnection from reality. However, this platform governance; and (vii) regulation of
majority only comprises part of the gig econ- platform actions. The different frequencies
omy ecosystem, which involves many other and combinations of these provisions allowed
sectors and is expanding. us to identify different scopes.
Considering the criterion of spatial coverage, Considering these criteria, 14% of the Bills an-
the Bills bring provisions of national applica- alyzed3 were considered comprehensive, as
tion (as a rule, with regard to labor legislation), they covered at least 6 items; 27% were con-
but also provisions with attributions of local sidered partially comprehensive for address-
competence (e.g.: inspection of delivery and ing at least 4 items; and 59% of the Bills were
transportation services, as well as points of considered specific for addressing 3 or fewer
support/service centers for workers, as pro- items. The predominance of specific bills
vided for in Bill 4112/2020). draws attention and can raise debates consid-
ering different regulatory processes. The more
Most of the Bills are guided by the business
comprehensive Bills result mainly from the
model of geographically located platforms,
"third (and most recent) legislative wave"4 and
without directly facing the challenges of work-
bring proposals for broader regulatory frame-
ing on web-based platforms. However, among
works, which cover both labor and economic
the 12 Bills aimed at workers in general, some
issues.
propose general rules, which can be adopted
regardless of the business model (this is the Some Bills present distinctions between work-
case, for example, of Bills 180/2020 CD, Bill ers, with the purpose of identifying who is the
3748/2020 CD and Bill 3754 /2020), although subject of rights and obligations, as well as ex-
they also do not foresee possible conflicts of cluding workers or platforms with certain
3
The data differ from that published in TB2 as it was updated based on the set of 128 Bills mapped up to July
2021.
4
We call "third wave" the period in which there was an increase in legislative proposals focusing on issues re-
lated to working conditions and the stipulation of social benefits for workers who work through digital platforms
(KLAFKE & SILVEIRA, 2021).
32
CEPI FGV Direito SP
characteristics from the scope of application the eventual approval of a Bill that does not
of the proposed rule. For example, Bill recognize workers as self-employed would im-
3538/2020 provides for the guarantee of paid ply a broad adjustment in the platform con-
sick leave only to "regular" workers, consider- tracting model;
ing as regular those who "were available to the
• Remuneration is usually done by task and,
application to work at least 40 hours a month"
as a rule, is defined by the platform or agreed
in a period predetermined (cf. art. 3 and its
between the parties. Among the cases ana-
items). Bill 3748/2020, in turn, provides for a
lyzed, there are three exceptions (Superprof,
distinction between platforms, by excluding
Shapp and Blablacar), in which the remunera-
from its scope of application platforms consid-
tion is defined by the worker. There are legis-
ered open, defined as those in which (i) users
lative projects that propose that remuneration
have access to the proposals of various work-
be referenced to the minimum wage, consid-
ers and they contract directly with these pro-
ering the hour worked, subject to periodic ad-
fessionals, (ii) the registration of service offers
justments and prohibiting its connection to
is open to any worker and (iii) the values and
the worker's evaluation (e.g., Bill 3595/2020).
characteristics of the services are defined by
In addition, payment terms and methods are
the workers themselves (cf. art. 9 and its
established in the Bills, in addition to transpar-
items). In the graph in Annex 1, we show defi-
ency rules (e.g.: Bill 3748/2020 and Bill
nitions in the legislative proposals that are be-
3597/2020 SF). There are also Bills that limit
ing processed in the National Congress.
the commission rate charged by platforms
Among the 128 bills mapped, 24 bring charac- (e.g., Bill 4768/2020);
terizations of legal relationship to classify
• It is also observed that there is a general un-
workers on digital platforms as: employed
certainty about the engaged time, that is,
worker, intermittent worker, self-employed
about the duration of work for the purposes of
worker and/or individual micro-entrepreneur
calculating remuneration and rights. In this re-
(MEI). Some Bills provide for the possibility of
gard, questions arise about what is considered
adopting more than one legal regime. There
engaged time: all the time logged on the plat-
are, for example, projects that admit both the
form waiting for the call to work or just the pe-
CLT (Consolidated Labor Laws) and the MEI
riod in which the service was provided? How to
(Micro Entrepreneur) regimes as possibilities
account for working time considering that it is
for qualifying workers who work connected to
common for workers to work on more than
digital platforms, depending on the terms of
one platform? Working on multiple platforms
the exercise of work.
can make this control/measurement difficult,
That data is relevant when related to the defi- as well as the attribution of proportional re-
nitions and contours of the gig economy in the sponsibilities to each company, considering
Brazilian scenario, considering that: that the worker can be logged on simultane-
ously on more than one platform, without nec-
• In general, platforms hire workers in the
essarily being performing services in all of
autonomous regime, with some requiring reg-
them;
istration as MEI (e.g., Tonolucro). When we
look at the set of 128 Bills mapped, only 10 • In the cases analyzed, as a rule, the evalua-
characterize the work regime as autonomous tion is made by the consumer/requestor.
or governed by the MEI regime. In this regard, Some platforms provide for penalties, such as
33
CEPI FGV Direito SP
permanent or temporary suspension, in case mandatory provision of life, health care and
of low average rating. Bills create transpar- property damage insurance (e.g., Bill
ency obligations on valuation mechanisms 3689/2020, Bill 3954/2020 and Bill 5756/2019)
(e.g., Bill 7579/2017); provide for the portabil- Many Bills also bring benefits of a labor and so-
ity of evaluations (idem); provide for the right cial security scope (e.g., paid leave and retire-
to information for workers, supervisory bodies ment contributions);
and representative entities (e.g., Bill
• Although there is an expressive number of
3754/2020); they also demonstrate concern
Bills aiming to regulate the work in the gig
about the impact of evaluation policies on
economy, we identified that some themes are
worker well-being (e.g., Bill 3748/2020);
not present or are occasionally addressed in
• Some platforms offer benefits such as acci- the legislative debate, such as algorithmic
dent insurance. Many Bills provide for the management5 and professional qualification.
5
The silence of the Brazilian legislator on this topic also appeared in the analyses we carried out on the legislative
panorama in other countries in the region (namely, Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Mexico), during the study of
the TB3. However, algorithmic management was addressed by Ley Rider, a Spanish decree that regulates work
on delivery applications. To learn more about the Spanish legislation passed in 2021, check out the publication
of TB6.
34
CEPI FGV Direito SP
FINAL COMMENTS
FINAL COMMENTS
Findings and points of attention
• Analyzing the literature and the mapping of platforms carried out, we noticed a diversity of
business models, economic activities and the profile of workers involved in the gig economy.
• There is a lack of consensus in the literature about what is understood as the gig economy,
its contours and boundary with other ecosystems.
• We noted that some of the mapped platforms do not fit neatly into descriptions or classifica-
tions found in the literature.
• Although the delivery and transportation sectors have presented a greater number of plat-
forms in the mapping carried out and in the bills on the subject debated at the National Con-
gress, the gig economy encompasses other activities.
• Some digital platforms, traditionally and originally not dedicated to work intermediation, ex-
panded their operations to also intermediate services, such as AirBnB (offer of experiences),
Mercado Livre and OLX (offer of various services). Thus, we note a diversification of opera-
tions.
• Although the analysis has focused on platforms inserted in the gig economy, we observe that
already regulated models of labor intermediation (such as outsourcing companies in the
model of Law 6.019/74) are also being platformed.
• We note the existence of other actors in this ecosystem, such as logistics processors. How-
ever, it was not possible to clearly identify their role and the legal relationship between them,
the workers and the platforms.
• We noticed an absence or insufficiency of data on the gig economy, in general (users, work-
ers, income, number of platforms, etc.).
• We note that the terms of use are not always publicly available before there is a registration
on the platform.
• We noticed absence or insufficiency of information in the terms of use of the platforms.
Questions raised from the survey
• We note that regulated professions with active trade unions are also within the gig economy,
leading to the question: how do these unions act within this ecosystem and what would be
their role in an eventual regulation?
• How to regulate work in such a diverse ecosystem? Is a general regulation viable or does the
path go through specific regulations, considering the peculiarities of the platforms?
35
CEPI FGV Direito SP
• According to a reflection by Freitas (2020), self-regulation associated with transparency

could be a way for further adhesion from companies, as well as it would induce the construc-
tion of communication channels on the norms produced in the ecosystem itself. In this sce-
nario, the author also emphasizes the importance of collective bargaining as a mechanism to
alleviate asymmetries between platforms and workers. In this regard, would self-regulation
in the sector be viable?
• How to regulate without neglecting social dialogue?
• Although we have identified, throughout this research, business associations (such as the
Brazilian Association of Mobility and Technology and the Brazilian Association Online to Of-
fline, among others), unions, associations and workers' collectives (such as the Union of
Workers with Land Transportation Applications of the São Paulo State Intermunicipal Asso-
ciation, São Paulo Application Drivers Association, Antifascist Delivery Drivers, among oth-
ers) and collective strikes in the category (such as the #BrequeDosApps and #Apagado-
DosApps initiatives), we noticed a fragmented representation of companies and workers. In
this regard, how to guarantee representativeness of the actors involved in social dialogue?
Final notes
• We are facing a growing and poorly regulated sector and we have identified the need to reg-
ulate work in this ecosystem.
• Therefore, it is necessary to have more data on the gig economy to better understand the
scenario and design regulation and public policies for the sector.
• Greater transparency is needed in the terms of use, regardless of registration on the platform,
as well as complementation of information that is not clear enough in the official channels of
the platforms. Transparency is linked to an attempt to reduce the asymmetry between the
actors of the gig economy, as well as to know who the actors involved in the ecosystem are
and the role they play.
36
CEPI FGV Direito SP
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
99. Sobre a 99. 99, jan. 2018. Disponível em: https://99app.com/sobre-a-99/. Acesso em: 19 julho 2021.
ACQUIER, A.; CARBONE, V.; MASSÉ, D. How to Create Value(s) in the Sharing Economy: Business Models,
Scalability, and Sustainability. Technology Innovation Management Review, Ottawa, v. 9, p. 5-24, 2019. Dis-
ponível em: https://timreview.ca/article/1215.
BERG, J. et al. As plataformas digitais e o futuro do trabalho: promover o trabalho digno no mundo digital.
Organização Internacional do Trabalho, Genebra, 2018.
BUSINESSEUROPE. Regulatory environment for platforms, online intermediaries, data and cloud computing
and the collaborative economy - BusinessEurope reply to the public consultation. Position Paper, 2016.
CALDEIRA, A. Maioria ganha mais como entregador de aplicativo, revela pesquisa. Mobilidade Estadão, jun.
2021. Disponível em: https://mobilidade.estadao.com.br/mobilidade-para-que/maioria-ganha-mais-como-en-
tregador-de-aplicativo-revela-pesquisa/. Acesso em: 19 julho 2021.
CARTAGO, S. S. Insuring the gig economy - KPMG Global. KPMG, abr. 2019. Disponível em:
https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2019/05/insuring-the-gig-economy.html. Acesso em: 19 julho 2021.
CURTIS, S. K. Business model patterns in the sharing economy. Sustainable Production and Consumption, v.
27, p. 1650-1671, 2021. Disponível em: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352550921001214.
Acesso em: 10 agosto 2021.
DEMARY, V. Competition in the Sharing Economy. Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft (IW)/ German Economic
Institute, jul. 2015. Disponível em: https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/iwkpps/192015.html.
DIGILABOUR. Experiências alternativas no trabalho por plataformas no Brasil. DigiLabour, 2021. Disponível
em: https://digilabour.com.br/2021/06/07/experiencias-alternativas-no-trabalho-por-plataformas-no-brasil/.
Acesso em: 20 julho 22021.
DOGHERO. DogHero: passeios e hotel para cachorro na palma da mão. DogHero, 2021. Disponível em:
https://www.doghero.com.br. Acesso em: 19 julho 2021.
EUROFOUND. Mapping the contours of the platform economy. European Foundation for the Improvement
of Living and Working Conditions, abr. 2019. Disponível em: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/data/plat-
form-economy/records/mapping-the-contours-of-the-platform-economy.
FAIRWORK. Work in the Planetary Labour Market: Fairwork Cloudwork Ratings 2021. Fairwork, 2021.
FREITAS JUNIOR, Antonio Rodrigues de Freitas. On demand: trabalho sob demanda em plataformas digitais.
Belo Horizonte: Arraes, 2020.
GAWER, A.; SRNICEK, N. Online platforms: Economic and societal effects. European Parliamentary Research
Service. [S.l.]. 2021.
GÖRÖG, G. The Definitions of Sharing Economy: A Systematic Literature Review. Management, v. 13, n. 2, p.
175-189, 2018. Disponível em: https://www.hippocampus.si/ISSN/1854-4231/13.175-189.pdf. Acesso em: 10
agosto 2021.
HAGIU, A.; WRIGHT, J. Multi-Sided Platforms. Harvard Business School, nov. 2014.
HM TREASURY. Corporate tax and the digital economy: position paper update. 2018. Disponível em em <
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach-
ment_data/file/689240/corporate_tax_and_the_digital_economy_update_web.pdf > Acesso em 10 ago. 2021.
37
CEPI FGV Direito SP
IFOOD. Quem Somos. iFood, 2021. Disponível em: https://institucional.ifood.com.br/ifood. Acesso em: 19
julho 2021.
ILO. The role of digital labour platforms in transforming the world of work [Full report]. International Labour
Organization. [S.l.]. 2021.
IPEA. País registra maior retenção de trabalhadores no mercado formal. Ipea - Instituto de Pesquisa Econô-
mica Aplicada, 2020. Disponível em: https://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/index.php?option=com_con-
tent&id=35366. Acesso em: 19 julho 2021.
IPESI. Brasil tem 32 milhões de trabalhadores em plataformas digitais e aplicativos. IPESI Digital, 2021. Dispo-
nivel em: https://ipesi.com.br/brasil-tem-32-milhoes-de-trabalhadores-em-plataformas-digitais-e-aplicati-
vos/. Acesso em: 19 julho 2021.
JANKAVSK, L.; RODRIGUES, F.; GUIMARÃES, A. Redes de fast-food se unem para reduzir gastos de restauran-
tes com iFood e Rappi. Economia - Estadão, 2021. Disponivel em: https://economia.estadao.com.br/noti-
cias/negocios,outback-giraffas-bobs-e-rei-do-mate-se-unem-para-concorrer-com-ifood,70003779452. Acesso
em: 20 julho 2021.
JURÍDICO CERTO. Encontre agora Advogados e Correspondentes Jurídicos em todo o Brasil. Jurídico Certo,
2021. Disponível em: https://juridicocerto.com/. Acesso em: 19 julho 2021.
KALIL, Renan Bernardi. A regulação do trabalho via plataformas digitais. São Paulo: Blucher, 2020.
KENNEY, M. A. Z. J. The Rise of the Platform Economy. Issues in Science and Technology, março 2016. Dis-
ponível em: https://issues.org/rise-platform-economy-big-data-work/. Acesso em: 19 julho 2021.
KLAFKE, Guilherme Forma; SILVEIRA, Ana Carolina R. Dias. As três ondas de projetos de lei sobre trabalho
em plataformas digitais. Medium: CEPI FGV Direito SP, 24 de fev. de 2021. Disponível em: https://me-
dium.com/futuro-do-trabalho-e-gig-economy/as-tr%C3%AAs-ondas-de-projetos-de-lei-sobre-trabalho-em-
plataformas-digitais-e376571db652. Acesso em: 27 julho 2021.
KPMG. Covid-19 as accelerator of digital transformation and the gig economy. KPMG Saudi Arabia, 2020.
MA, H.-L. et al. Facility sharing in business-to-business model: A real case study for container terminal opera-
tors in Hong Kong port. International Journal of Production Economics, 221, março 2020.
LAPA, Raphael Santos. Trabalho em plataformas digitais durante a pandemia da Covid-19: análise de dados
da PNAD-Covid19 – IBGE – Parte 1 – Entregadores de Aplicativos. Projeto: O mundo do trabalho na Era Digital:
plataformas digitais. Brasília, DF: Universidade de Brasília, 2021.
OECD. Working Party on Measurement and Analysis of the Digital Economy: New Formas of Work in the Digital
Economy. [S.l.]: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2016.
OLIVEIRA, M. C. S.; CARELLI, R. D. L.; GRILLO, S. Conceito e crítica das plataformas digitais de trabalho / Con-
cept and criticism of digital working platforms. Revista Direito e Práxis, v. 11, p. 2609–2634, dez. 2020. ISSN
ISSN: 2179-8966. Disponível em: https://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/index.php/revistaceaju/arti-
cle/view/50080.
PAGE M. J.; MCKENZIE, J. E.; BOSSUYT, P. M.; BOUTRON, I.; HOFFMANN, T. C.; MULROW, C. D. et al. The
PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, v. 372, n. 71, 2021. Dis-
ponível em: https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n71.
SCHMIDT, F. Digital Labour Markets in the Platform Economy: Mapping the Political Challenges of Crowd
Workand Gig Work. [S.l.]: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 2017. ISBN ISBN: 9783958617452.
38
CEPI FGV Direito SP
SCHOLZ, T. Cooperativismo de Plataforma: Contestando a economia do compartilhamento corporativa.

[S.l.]: Fundação Rosa Luxemburgo, elefante editora, Autonomia Literária, 2016.
SINGU. Como Funciona. Singu, 2021. Disponível em: https://singu.com.br/index.html#como-funciona. Acesso

em: 19 julho 2021.
STEFANO, V. D. The Rise of the "Just-in-Time Workforce": On-Demand Work, Crowdwork, and Labor Protec-
tion in the "Gig Economy". Comparative labor law journal: a publication of the U.S. National Branch of the
International Society for Labor Law and Social Security [and] the Wharton School, and the Law School of
the University of Pennsylvania, v. 37, p. 471-504, jun. 2016.
STEFANO, V. D.; DURRI, I. Platform work and the employment relationship. International Labour Organiza-
tion, mar. 2021. ISSN ISBN: 9789220344200. Disponivel em: http://www.ilo.org/global/publications/working-
papers/WCMS_777866/lang–en/index.htm.
SUNDARARAJAN, A. The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism.
Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Mit Press, 2016.
TREASURE, H. M. Corporate tax and the digital economy: position paper. GOV.UK, mar. 2018. Disponível em:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/corporate-tax-and-the-digital-economy-position-paper.
WATSON, G. P. et al. Looking at the Gig Picture: Defining Gig Work and Explaining Profile Differences in Gig
Workers’ Job Demands and Resources. Group & Organization Management, v. 46, p. 327-361, 2021. Disponível
em: https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601121996548.
WOODCOCK, J.; GRAHAM, M. The Gig Economy: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2020. ISBN
ISBN: 1509536361.
ZANATTA, R. A. F.; DE PAULA, P. C. B.; KIRA, B. Economias do compartilhamento e o direito. Curitiba: Juruá
Editora, 2017.
39
CEPI FGV Direito SP
ANNEX 1
Table1 - Comparison of Bills in relation to the presence of legislative definitions
Compa- Engaged Other ac-

Bills (PLs) Activities Platforms Providers Totals
nies schedule tors
Bill n.
1 1 0 0 1 2 5
1665/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1677/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1686/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1744/2020
PLP n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
180/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1872/2020
Bill n.
1 1 0 0 0 0 2
2340/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2379/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2786/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3515/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 1 1
3538/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 1 1
3554/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3572/2020
Bill n.
0 1 0 0 1 2 4
3577/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 1 1
3594/2020
Bill n.
0 1 0 0 1 2 4
3597/2020
Bill n.
0 0 1 0 0 0 1
3689/2020
Bill n.
1 0 1 0 1 0 3
3748/2020
Bill n.
1 0 1 0 1 1 4
3754/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 2 2
3797/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
854/2020
40
CEPI FGV Direito SP
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
794/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3484/2020
Bill n.
0 1 0 0 0 0 1
3599/2020
Bill n.
0 0 1 0 0 0 1
3954/2020
Bill n.
1 0 0 0 0 0 1
4033/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 1 1
4049/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2875/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3570/2020
Bill n.
0 1 0 0 0 1 2
3384/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
665/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4497/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4768/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
804/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
940/2020
Bill n.
0 1 1 0 0 0 2
4172/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3516/2020
Bill n.
2 0 0 0 0 0 2
4112/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1344/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4241/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1363/2019
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4142/2019
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5212/2019
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5756/2019
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5795/2019
41
CEPI FGV Direito SP
Bill n.
0 0 1 0 0 0 1
6015/2019
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6110/2019
Bill n.
0 1 0 0 0 1 2
6423/2019
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9703/2018
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
308/2020
Bill n.
0 1 0 0 1 1 3
4097/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
430/2020
Bill n.
1 0 0 0 0 1 2
2884/2019
Bill n.
1 1 0 0 0 1 3
5069/2019
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5529/2019
Bill n.
1 0 0 0 0 0 1
5622/2019
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
58/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
293/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
328/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
329/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
387/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
594/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
732/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
215/2020
Bill n.
0 0 1 0 0 0 1
391/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1155/2015
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1355/2019
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1572/2019
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 1 1
2057/2020
42
CEPI FGV Direito SP
Bill n.
0 0 1 0 0 0 1
2143/2019
Bill n.
1 0 0 0 0 0 1
2221/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2255/2019
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2545/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3498/2019
Bill n.
1 0 0 0 0 0 1
3968/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4111/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4309/2019
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10341/2018
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
57/2020
Bill n.
1 0 0 0 0 0 1
448/2019
Bill n.
0 1 0 0 1 1 3
617/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
811/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4615/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5562/2019
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5807/2019
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5819/2019
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7376/2017
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1401/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2518/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3984/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4165/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4357/2020
Bill n.
0 1 0 0 0 0 1
4477/2020
43
CEPI FGV Direito SP
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4491/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4841/2019
PLP n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
488/2018
PLP n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
516/2018
PLP n.
1 0 0 0 0 0 1
521/2018
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5558/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1553/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1584/2015
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2632/2015
Bill n.
1 0 0 0 0 0 1
2972/2015
Bill n.
1 0 0 0 0 0 1
3384/2015
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4312/2016
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5576/2016
Bill n.
1 0 0 0 0 1 2
5587/2016
Bill n.
4 0 0 0 0 1 5
5794/2016
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6514/2016
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7295/2017
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7330/2017
Bill n.
1 1 0 1 1 1 5
7579/2017
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2569/2015
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
282/2020
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
358/2021
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
732/2021
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 1 1
974/2021
44
CEPI FGV Direito SP
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1073/2021
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1152/2021
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1196/2021
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1218/2021
Bill n.
0 0 1 0 0 0 1
1603/2021
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1697/2021
Bill n.
0 0 1 0 0 2 3
1976/2021
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1979/2021
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2163/2021
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2355/2021
Bill n.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2471/2021
Totals 23 14 13 2 9 27 88
45
CEPI FGV Direito SP
ANNEX 2
Discover other publications in our research:
Icons by Freepik, Good Ware eIcons8 and taken from flaticons.com and icons8.com.br.
Thematic Briefing #3 dialogues with Argentina.

Thematic Briefing #1 2020 bills on gig economy: a
Chile Colombia and Mexico: what future of work
review of definitions and standards on working
are we talking about?
conditions, benefits and remuneration
Thematic briefing #2: work on demand at the Congress

(2010-2020): an ocean of possibilities
We have mapped and discussed Brazilian federal bills that seek to regulate the We seek to know the status of the debate in Latin
issue. In TB 1, the focus was on Bills submitted during the COVID-19 pandemic America, by dialoguing with existing discussions
period (2019-2020). TB2's focus was a bit more comprehensive. It broadened especially in Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Mexico,
the mapping and analyzed 114 bills that were processed in the National based on the analysis of legislative texts, government
Congress between 2010 and 2020 in order to understand the national legislative reports and Latin American institutions engaged in the
discussion scenario before the COVID-19 pandemic. subject.
Available at: TB1 https://hdl.handle.net/10438/29938 Available at:

TB2 https://hdl.handle.net/10438/30268 https://hdl.handle.net/10438/30269
Thematic Briefing #5: Analysis of the UK decision Thematic Briefing #4: Regulatory Issues from the
against Uber and its repercussions California Debate Analysis of Proposition 22
We analyzed the debate in California on the

The UK Supreme Court decision regarding the guarantee characterization of the legal bond between drivers and
of certain legal rights and benefits to Uber drivers in that application delivery drivers from the case of the “App-
country was examined. Based drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies
initiative”, known as Proposition 22.
Available at: Available at:

https://hdl.handle.net/10438/30826 https://hdl.handle.net/10438/30825
Thematic Briefing #6: Spanish regulation of work

Thematic Briefing #7 Social Security and Work on
on digital platforms: social dialogue and
Digital Platforms
algorithmic governance in focus
In this publication we focus on the Spanish debate

around Ley Rider, which regulates work on digital We returned to the national debate from the discussion
platforms with a focus on delivery services and was on “Social Security and Work on Digital Platforms”,
marked by the process of social dialogue, in addition to exploring all the knowledge and research developed so
highlighting the theme of algorithmic governance in the far.
context of working on platforms.
Available at: Available at:

https://hdl.handle.net/10438/30827 https://hdl.handle.net/10438/30909
46
Position paper: Working with platforms in Brazil:
from repairs to apps
CEPI FGV Direito SP
47

Gig Position en

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gig Position en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GIG ECONOMY AND

PLATFORM WORK IN BRAZIL

HOW TO CITE THIS TEXT IN ABNT (Brazilian Association of Technical

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoCo-

WHAT GIG ECONOMY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? 7

THE GIG ECONOMY ECOSYSTEM 13

PLATFORM SCENARIO IN BRAZIL 19

GIG ECONOMY IN THE LEGISLATION 31

Highlights and key findings

• It involves web-based jobs and geographically located jobs.

• A series of particularities were also observed in the platforms.

• Therefore, we observe that the gig economy corresponds to a heterogeneous ecosystem,

WHAT GIG ECONOMY ARE WE TALKING

Figure 1 – Business models in the platform economy

Social media Information Intermediation

Sharing and Gig Economy

Platforms that deliver content Companies that sell their own

Streaming platforms: Netflix,

Source: adapted from CEPAL (2018).

Crowd-based “networks” rather than centralized institutions or “hierarchies”: the supply

Figure 2 – Web-based vs geographically located work: concepts and characteristics

• Identified as crowdwork by • Identified as work on

Stefano (2016); demand via apps by Stefano

• Work performed over the (2016);

platforms that connect • Example: transportation,

Source: own preparation.

New challenges to the collective organization of

Source: own preparation.

Figure 3 - Transaction representation on online platforms

Professionals and companies Consumers and companies

Source: translated OECD (2016).

The survey carried out by Aliança Bike (2019)

Figure – Platform-specific data

Registered on the platform

Uber: 93 million users worldwide, of which

PLATFORM SCENARIO IN BRAZIL

Platform mapping: knowing the field

Figure 4 – Axes of analysis of mapped platforms

Source: own preparation.

Graph 1 – Platforms by economic activities

Cargo transportation, 8 Health and well-being, 7

Cleaning, 7 Programming and IT, 7

Delivery of products (delivery), 24 Small repairs

Source: own preparation.

Figure 5 – Platforms mapped by economic activity

Source: own preparation.

The multifaceted reality of apps

Graph 2 – Scope of action of the platforms

Regional Domestic International Not applicable/indetermined Continental Local

Source: own preparation.

forms only offer web-based services, in which Local platforms

content creation. Certain platforms operate in

Figure 6 – Platforms mapped by type of work

Passenger 99, EcoDrivers, Garupa, Homo Driver. InDriver,

99Entrega, Garupa, InDriver, UberEats,

Web-based work Cargo inDnver, Triider, Brasil Fretes, TruckPad,

Multiple activities Workana

Brokerage Quinto Andar

Health and Boa Consulta

Law and the Juridico Certo, Litive, Oi Advogado, Meu

Multiple Youtaf, GetNinjas, Helpie, Crafty, Sem

• Geographically located product delivery platform (delivery)

• There is no information about the evaluation model.