Innovation or inequality?: The social cost of sidewalk robots

Sidewalk delivery robots weaving through busy city streets may look like a simple story of automation replacing human effort. But new research suggests the reality is far more complex. Behind every small autonomous vehicle rolling past cafés and office towers lies an intricate web of human labor, regulatory intervention, and political ambition that sustains the appearance of robotic independence.

In the study titled “Is Robot Labor Labor? Delivery Robots and the Politics of Work in Public Space,” published in the Proceedings of the 21st ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’26), researchers challenge the dominant narrative of seamless automation. Based on extensive ethnographic fieldwork in Seoul, South Korea, the researchers argue that delivery robots do not eliminate labor. Instead, they reorganize and redistribute it, often rendering human contributions less visible while elevating the robot as a symbol of technological progress.

Hidden human labor behind robot autonomy

At first glance, delivery robots appear self-sufficient. They navigate sidewalks, cross intersections, and announce their presence with polite recorded messages. Yet The authors’s fieldwork reveals that this autonomy is staged rather than absolute.

Over 120 hours of observation across two smart-city districts in Seoul, combined with interviews with shop owners, field operators, delivery riders, and pedestrians, uncovered a dense network of human support that underpins each successful delivery . Field operators quietly shadow robots, ready to intervene when navigation systems fail or obstacles block the path. These workers manually reposition robots at the start and end of shifts, monitor performance metrics, and troubleshoot unexpected breakdowns. Their presence is deliberately understated to preserve the illusion of autonomy.

Retail staff also absorb new responsibilities. Instead of handing orders to human riders who adapt flexibly to packaging and timing constraints, store employees must coordinate with robot-specific apps, load cargo compartments themselves, respond to automated alerts, and sometimes divide large orders across multiple units. The robots’ limited carrying capacity and rigid operating parameters introduce new workflow burdens. What appears to customers as efficient automation often translates into additional coordination and time pressure for small businesses.

This redistribution of labor extends beyond physical tasks. Platform systems track preparation times and response rates, generating algorithmic oversight that adds new forms of monitoring to everyday retail work. Automation, in this sense, does not dissolve labor. It reframes it, dispersing responsibility across multiple actors while presenting the robot as the central performer.

The authors argue that robot labor should be understood as a collective achievement rather than an isolated technological act. The delivery robot’s visible movement depends on invisible human scaffolding.

Robot privilege and the reordering of public space

The study moves beyond workplace dynamics to examine how delivery robots reshape shared urban environments. In Seoul’s sidewalks, researchers observed a recurring pattern: pedestrians routinely yield to robots.

When a robot approaches, people slow down, step aside, or alter their path. The robot, by contrast, continues forward, sometimes signaling with a horn or voice message requesting passage. The burden of adjustment falls on humans. This asymmetry led the authors to introduce the concept of robot privilege.

Robot privilege refers to the tacit expectation that humans accommodate robots in public space. It is not merely a technical issue of navigation but a political one. Design choices determine who yields and who proceeds. Robots are programmed to signal humans blocking their route, yet they silently maneuver around nonhuman obstacles. This selective communication reinforces a hierarchy in which people are treated as responsive agents expected to comply.

Such interactions may appear minor in isolation, but collectively they normalize new spatial norms. Sidewalks, historically negotiated among pedestrians, cyclists, and street vendors, now include robotic actors whose presence is backed by corporate deployment and regulatory approval. The micro-politics of everyday movement reflect broader shifts in authority and infrastructure.

Importantly, perceptions of robots varied by social position and context. Casual passersby often described the machines as charming or endearing. In slower residential areas, families and older residents engaged with curiosity. In high-traffic business districts, office workers treated robots as minor obstacles in fast-paced routines.

Street-level workers, including delivery riders and sanitation staff, developed more pragmatic views. They observed robots’ limitations in rain, on uneven pavement, and in dense crowds. Most did not perceive them as immediate job threats, noting operational constraints that differentiate robotic delivery from motorcycle-based systems. Their daily coexistence generated a nuanced understanding absent from surface impressions.

Smart city testbeds and the politics of technological progress

The deployment of delivery robots in Seoul does not occur in a regulatory vacuum. Both field sites studied by The authors function as officially designated smart-city testbeds supported by South Korea’s regulatory sandbox program . This framework grants temporary exemptions from certain traffic and data regulations, enabling robots to operate legally in public space.

The authors situate robot deployment within South Korea’s broader history of state-led technological development. From semiconductor manufacturing to high-speed broadband, the nation has long positioned innovation as a pillar of economic identity. Delivery robots become part of this sociotechnical imaginary, embodying a vision of a future-oriented, technologically advanced society.

Businesses participating in robot pilots often cited promotional visibility rather than direct profit gains as motivation. Being associated with autonomous delivery signaled modernity and alignment with national innovation goals. Media attention reinforced this symbolism, presenting robots as markers of progress.

Yet this public performance masks fragility. Robots stalled at curbs, hesitated at drainage grates, and required human intervention during unpredictable interactions. Despite these constraints, public narratives emphasized autonomy and seamless operation.

The authors describe this dynamic as staged autonomy. The robot becomes both a logistical tool and a public spectacle, its presence legitimized by state endorsement and corporate branding.

Rethinking labor in the age of urban automation

The issue is not whether robots qualify as workers under traditional definitions. It is how automation redistributes labor, visibility, and value.

Delivery robots do not receive wages or negotiate contracts. Yet their operation is entangled with human effort, institutional design, and regulatory permission. The labor process shifts rather than disappears. Shop staff shoulder coordination burdens. Field operators manage technical breakdowns. Pedestrians perform micro-adjustments in shared space. Policymakers construct legal frameworks that enable deployment.

For the Human-Robot Interaction research community, the authors call for deeper engagement with labor sociology, urban studies, and policy analysis . Evaluating robots solely through metrics of task success or user satisfaction risks overlooking the broader political economy that sustains them.