DC Edit | Gig Workers Get Relief, but Firms Need To Rethink Biz

The Union Labour Ministry’s directive asking quick commerce companies to discontinue their 10-minute delivery promise is a timely intervention. The decision was taken following a nationwide strike by gig workers against the 10-minute delivery, which was exposing them to intense mental pressure to meet unrealistic timelines, often at the cost of personal safety and public road discipline.

Quick commerce is a relatively older concept, tracing back to the late 1990s in the United States. However, most of the older companies came with a delivery promised within 30 minutes or an hour. In India, Grofers (now called Blinkit) was the first company to offer quick commerce with a promised delivery time of 90 minutes, which was in tune with industry standards.

Having faced poor reception in an already crowded e-commerce space, Grofers rebranded itself as Blinkit in 2021 and introduced the 10-minute delivery promise, which significantly changed its brand proposition. Over time, however, speed itself became the product. Within five years, quick commerce became hugely successful and made companies join the bandwagon, threatening the business of traditional retailers like never before.

The 10-minute delivery guarantee was marketed as a solution for last-minute shopping needs, positioning groceries, toiletries and snacks as urgent requirements that quick commerce will deliver at the blink of your eye. With this, however, the quick commerce industry blurred a key distinction — not every consumer inconvenience qualifies to be treated as an emergency.

Except for ambulance services, fire services and law enforcement agencies, no civilian activity on public roads can be categorised as an emergency. A family running out of groceries does not warrant deadline-driven riding through traffic. However, this is precisely what quick commerce companies did and incentivised gig workers to meet the 10-minute deadline. The result of this misplaced concept is gig workers erratically navigating congested roads, risking their lives and those of others. Mental stress became constant, while physical risk became routine.

In their defence, quick commerce companies argue that faster deliveries generate employment and consumer satisfaction. While they may be true, none of their arguments could justify normalising unsafe work conditions. Employment cannot be conditional on sustained stress for the employee, and convenience cannot come at the cost of another person’s safety.

This does not mean that quick commerce has no place to exist in the country. However, quick commerce companies must recalibrate its value proposition — reliable delivery within reasonable time frames and fair working conditions. It can aim for a delivery window that does not turn roads into racetracks.

Quick commerce companies, therefore, must take the government’s directive as an opportunity rather than a setback. It could tweak the business model by partnering with existing neighbourhood retail shops to become their fulfillment centres, which allows existing traders to thrive alongside them without creating an emergency out of nothing.

The quick commerce sector must understand that speed has its place — in emergencies — where minutes genuinely save lives. And the government has rightly reaffirmed this basic principle: In a civil society, no packet of groceries is worth a life.