IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0290403.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How has COVID-19 affected the work environment of delivery workers?: An interpretative phenomenological analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Jeehee Pyo
  • Eun Jee Park
  • Minsu Ock
  • Won Lee
  • Hye Jin Lee
  • Sungkyoung Choi

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has sparked a rapid worldwide increase in the utilization of delivery services. This study delves into the experiences of delivery workers as one of the activley developed industries during the COVID-19 pandemic in South Korea and sheds light on the effects of the pandemic on their working conditions. Through in-depth interviews with 10 Korean delivery workers, data analysis employed the hermeneutic phenomenology research method developed by Van Manen. The findings indicate a substantial rise in income levels and a positive societal perception of delivery labor post-COVID-19. The pandemic also attracted many new workers to the industry due to low entry barriers and work flexibility. However, challenges persisted as delivery workers grappled with an uncertain legal status and sometimes jeopardized their safety to boost earnings in shorter time frames. The pivotal role played by delivery workers in enhancing communal quality of life and connectivity during the pandemic cannot be overlooked. As we step into a post-COVID-19 era, comprehensive efforts are needed to enhance the working environment for delivery workers globally. Notably, clarifying the relationship between delivery workers and companies within the novel digital labor landscape is essential, alongside establishing institutional frameworks to safeguard workers’ basic rights, including health and safety provisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeehee Pyo & Eun Jee Park & Minsu Ock & Won Lee & Hye Jin Lee & Sungkyoung Choi, 2023. "How has COVID-19 affected the work environment of delivery workers?: An interpretative phenomenological analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(9), pages 1-14, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0290403
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290403
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0290403
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0290403&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0290403?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mariana Luísa da Costa Lage & Antonio Carlos Rodrigues, 2021. "Pandelivery : Reflections on black delivery app workers experiences during COVID‐19 in Brazil," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(S2), pages 434-445, July.
    2. Jim Stanford, 2017. "The resurgence of gig work: Historical and theoretical perspectives," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 28(3), pages 382-401, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mandal, Minakshi Punam & Santini, Alberto & Archetti, Claudia, 2025. "Tactical workforce sizing and scheduling decisions for last-mile delivery," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 323(1), pages 153-169.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John Burgess & Julia Connell, 2020. "New technology and work: Exploring the challenges," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 31(3), pages 310-323, September.
    2. Inga Laß & Mark Wooden, 2019. "Non-standard Employment and Wages in Australia," RBA Annual Conference Papers acp2019-04, Reserve Bank of Australia, revised Jul 2019.
    3. repec:osf:socarx:vstm4_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Sabine Pfeiffer & Sandra Kawalec, 2020. "Justice expectations in crowd and platform-mediated work," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 31(4), pages 483-501, December.
    5. Louis Florin & François Pichault, 2022. "Between entrepreneurs and workers: Cleavages and compromises in rationales and policy solutions regarding ‘dependent contractors’," Economic and Industrial Democracy, Department of Economic History, Uppsala University, Sweden, vol. 43(4), pages 1789-1816, November.
    6. Heiland, Heiner, 2020. "Workers' Voice in platform labour: An Overview," WSI Studies 21, The Institute of Economic and Social Research (WSI), Hans Böckler Foundation.
    7. Krenz, Astrid & Strulik, Holger, 2025. "Automation and the fall and rise of the servant economy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    8. Baumber, Alex & Scerri, Moira & Schweinsberg, Stephen, 2019. "A social licence for the sharing economy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 12-23.
    9. Meagher, Kate, 2020. "Illusions of inclusion: assessment of the World Development Report 2019 on the changing nature of work," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103000, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Tan, Zhi Ming & Aggarwal, Nikita & Cowls, Josh & Morley, Jessica & Taddeo, Mariarosaria & Floridi, Luciano, 2021. "The ethical debate about the gig economy: A review and critical analysis," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    11. Jesús M Artero & Cristina Borra & Rosario Gómez-Alvarez, 2020. "Education, inequality and use of digital collaborative platforms: The European case," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 31(3), pages 364-382, September.
    12. Ernest Cañada & Carla Izcara & María José Zapata Campos, 2023. "Putting Fairness into the Gig Economy: Delivery Cooperatives as Alternatives to Corporate Platforms," Societies, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-19, March.
    13. Ensar Balkaya & İkram Yusuf Yarbaşı & Muhammed İkbal Tepeler, 2023. "Determinants of Demand in Digital Platform-Mediated Service Work in Turkey: An Empirical Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-18, July.
    14. Paul Dalziel, 2019. "Wellbeing economics in public policy: A distinctive Australasian contribution?," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 30(4), pages 478-497, December.
    15. Terri L. Griffith & Emma S. Nordbäck & John E. Sawyer & Ronald E. Rice, 2018. "Field study of complements to supervisory leadership in more and less flexible work settings," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 7(1), pages 1-26, December.
    16. Fahin Faras & Balwant Singh Mehta & Amrita Datta, 2025. "Platform-based Gig Work in India’s Labour Statistics," The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Springer;The Indian Society of Labour Economics (ISLE), vol. 68(1), pages 323-337, March.
    17. Troy, Laurence & Wolifson, Peta & Buckley, Amma & Buckle, Caitlin & Adkins, Lisa & Bryant, Gareth & Konings, Martijn, 2023. "Pathways to home ownership in an age of uncertainty," SocArXiv vstm4, Center for Open Science.
    18. Rahul Menon, 2019. "Short-term contracts and their effect on wages in Indian regular wage employment," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 30(1), pages 142-164, March.
    19. Baumber, Alex & Schweinsberg, Stephen & Scerri, Moira & Kaya, Ece & Sajib, Shahriar, 2021. "Sharing begins at home: A social licence framework for home sharing practices," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    20. Yvonne Lott & Clare Kelliher & Heejung Chung, 2022. "Reflecting the changing world of work? A critique of existing survey measures and a proposal for capturing new ways of working," Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, , vol. 28(4), pages 457-473, November.
    21. Andrew Stewart & Jim Stanford, 2017. "Regulating work in the gig economy: What are the options?," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 28(3), pages 420-437, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0290403. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.