It would be difficult to think of a more basic or instructive standard for assessing the vulnerability of platform workers (aka delivery drivers) than the number of deaths or accidents within a given period. Yet, according to its board, Naspers does not disclose this information for its 15,000 Takealot and 7,000 Mr D delivery workers because there is no “industry guidance and no standardised reporting”.
The good news is that the group is working on it. “What we are doing, in the absence of industry guidance and standardised reporting, and with the data across the sector inconsistent, is engaging stakeholders to identify meaningful disclosure for the future, while we continue to advance our internal reporting efforts,” Debra Meyer, independent non-executive director of Naspers, told shareholders at the recent annual general meeting.
Meyer was responding to questions from Kwanele Ngogela, head of social impact at the NPO Just Share, who had pointed out that Naspers discloses a vulnerability assessment for iFood’s 400,000 couriers in Brazil, while Prosus had co-authored the World Economic Forum’s “Global Principles for the Platform-enabled Economy” in January.
Evidently, Ngogela said, the group has the methodology and expertise. “What it does not have is any equivalent published assessment for South Africa, the one market where this board [Naspers], not the Prosus board, is directly accountable.”
Ngogela’s questions seemed reasonable enough. How many Takealot and Mr D delivery workers were injured or killed on South African roads in financial 2026 and what did the group pay out in claims, medical costs or compensation? Also, what proportion of the delivery fleet do foreign nationals, asylum seekers or refugee permit holders make up? And what assessment has the social, ethics & sustainability committee received on how the July anti-migrant protests affected those workers’ earnings, safety and continued access to the platform?
For hard-nosed investors who feel these so-called soft social issues are of little concern to the profit trajectory of the group, Ngogela had news. They are about to shift from marginal to central. Three recent developments are behind the shift, Ngogela told the meeting. “In June, the International Labour Organisation adopted Convention 193, the first binding global standard on platform work, with specific provisions on migrant and refugee workers. In February the South African government gazetted the Labour Law Amendment Bill, whose presumption of employment goes directly to Mr D’s contracting model and cost base. And in July, anti-migrant protests took delivery platforms offline across Johannesburg.”
All-in-all, there appears little chance of escaping dramatic changes to what Meyer describes as the fastest-growing sector of the global economy. And it’s not just a South African thing. While the labour law amendment and the anti-migrant protests are specific to South Africa, there are similar shifts across the globe. Last week the Italian arm of food delivery platform Deliveroo said it would hike pay for its workers 40%. This was months after prosecutors in Milan placed the company under court administration for alleged labour exploitation. Deliveroo, which is owned by US-based DoorDash, was accused of paying its 20,000 workers below the poverty line. To escape court administration, the company said it would increase its minimum pay to €14 an hour from €10 and would introduce a number of safety measures, including a cap on working hours for its riders.
In May, the Italian arm of Spanish delivery service Glovo, which had been placed under court administration a few months earlier, also announced a 40% pay hike to at least €14 an hour. Elsewhere in Europe, countries are working on implementing the EU platform work directive, which was adopted in October 2024 and creates a presumption of employment for platform workers across all 27 EU states.
So it shouldn’t have been surprising that the working conditions of delivery drivers were the second most interrogated topic — after remuneration — at both Prosus and Naspers’s AGMs. And it’s not just South African activists who are concerned. One Europe-based investor referred the Prosus board to the Pope’s latest encyclical, “Magnifica Humanitas”, which talks of dangers of unrestrained AI as well as modern-day slavery.
Presumably the Naspers board will be better prepared to answer shareholder questions next year. It assured Ngogela that “the majority of our drivers are not foreign nationals” and that Takealot and Mr D provide insurance coverage, including income protection, and disability and maternity support. Meyer also said drivers were taken care of during the anti-migrant campaign.
But other than assurances, Naspers provided little useful information. Certainly, Meyer’s response to a request from Ngogela’s Just Share colleague Rachael Nyirongo for details of Mr D drivers’ earnings — after fuel, vehicle, data and other operating expenses — will have to be beefed up for future AGMs. It seems Naspers does have an indication of what they earn but wouldn’t disclose details other than to say that compared with “similar formal and informal sector work, our delivery drivers earn more”.
From a competitive perspective, Naspers’s hesitance is understandable. Why should it have to disclose details that such competitors as Checkers, Woolworths and Pick n Pay aren’t required to? As Meyer said, Naspers is getting ready to increase its disclosures, and at the same time it is “engaging other stakeholders in the South African market to ensure that, when we disclose, people can make comparisons that make sense”. It certainly sets the stage for an insightful AGM in 2027.
