







































 Humanities and Social Science Research; Vol. 8, No. 4; 2025 

ISSN 2576-3024   E-ISSN 2576-3032 

https://doi.org/10.30560/hssr.v8n4p8 

 8 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

Challenges and Solutions for Occupational Injury Protection of 

Workers in New Forms of Employment 

Yang Peng1 

1 School of Politics and Public Administration, Guangxi Normal University, China 

Correspondence: Yang Peng, School of Politics and Public Administration, Guangxi Normal University, Guilin, 

Guangxi, China. 

 

Received: June 23, 2025; Accepted: July 5, 2025; Published: July 7, 2025 

 

Abstract 

With the rapid development of the digital economy, an increasing number of people have joined the ranks of 

workers in new forms of employment. However, the current work injury insurance system cannot cover this group, 

leaving them with weak resilience against risks when facing accidents. Platforms, as the employing entities, also 

shirk their responsibilities.Given the growing size of this workforce, urgent interim measures for occupational 

injury protection should be introduced to fulfil the role of work injury insurance. Subsequently, relevant laws and 

regulations should be gradually amended to decouple entitlement to work injury insurance benefits from the strict 

requirement of establishing a formal labor relationship.This would expand coverage to more workers, effectively 

transforming work injury insurance into a de facto occupational injury insurance scheme. 

Keywords: workers in new forms of employment, occupational Injury, work injury insurance, social security  

1. Introduction 

In recent years, propelled by the rapid development of China's 'Internet Plus' initiative, workers in new forms of 

employment under various new business models have emerged rapidly, marking a new phase in China's economic 

development. Accompanying these novel economic and employment patterns are significant challenges to the 

work injury insurance system posed by complex labor environments, alongside platform workers' substantial need 

for protection against occupational injuries. Due to the tightly coupled relationship between work injury insurance 

and formal labor contracts in China, platform workers lack recognized insurance status compared to traditional 

enterprise employees, rendering the current work injury insurance system largely inapplicable[1]. Establishing 

occupational injury protection is therefore of paramount importance for this increasingly substantial workforce in 

new forms of employment. 

On March 15, 2021, at the Ninth Meeting of the Central Financial and Economic Affairs Commission, President 

Xi Jinping emphasized that China's platform economy has experienced rapid growth in recent years, with its status 

and role in overall economic and social development becoming increasingly prominent. He called for fostering an 

innovation conducive environment, resolving prominent contradictions and issues, clarifying labor protection 

responsibilities for platform enterprises, and promoting the standardized, healthy, and sustainable development of 

the platform economy.In July 2021, eight ministries including the Ministry of Human Resources and Social 

Security (MHRSS) and the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) jointly issued the Guidelines 

on Safeguarding the Labor Rights and Interests of Workers in New Forms of Employment. This document 

implements the decisions of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council, supporting and regulating new 

employment forms while effectively protecting the labor rights of new-economy workers to facilitate the 

standardized, healthy, and sustainable growth of the platform economy.According to the National Bureau of 

Statistics, by the end of 2021, China had approximately 200 million flexible workers, a figure projected to rise 

further. This situation underscores the urgent need to develop feasible occupational injury protection systems. 

2. Research Regarding Employment Relationships of New Economy Workers 

Under China's current legal framework, scholarly debate persists regarding the classification of employment 

relationships within the new business economy, primarily centering on the criteria for determining labor 

subordination. Some scholars advocate moving beyond the traditional Labor Law framework, instead applying 

the Civil Code and Contract Law to regulate platform-based work relationships. Others propose expanding the 

scope of traditional employment relationships and adapting the assessment methodologies to accommodate the 

characteristics of the new economy[2]. There are also suggestions to introduce the concept of "atypical 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 8, No. 4; 2025 

 9 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

employment relationships" and establish specialized protection mechanisms[3]. Additionally, certain research 

defines specific platform-based work arrangements as collaborative business relationships, emphasizing features 

like risk-sharing and profit-sharing[4].These debates underscore the complexity of classifying employment 

relationships and the challenges in legal application under new technological conditions. 

3. The Challenges in Occupational Injury Protection for Workers in New Forms of Employment 

3.1 The Tight Coupling of Employment Injury Protection and Labor Relations 

China's current primary mechanisms for mitigating employment-related risks consist of employment injury 

insurance and supplementary commercial insurance. The major social insurance programs—pension, medical, 

maternity, employment injury, and unemployment insurance—are typically bundled as an integrated package 

during enrolment. 

It can be argued that the entire social insurance system is predicated on the establishment of labor relations. This 

signifies a tightly coupled relationship between the social insurance framework and labor relations: once the 

prerequisite of an employment relationship ceases to exist, workers lose access to their entitled benefits. 

Under these conditions, China's current regulatory framework requires Workers in New Forms of Employment to 

establish formally recognized labor relations with their platforms through signed labor contracts to access 

employment injury insurance benefits.Compared to traditional employees' fixed work patterns, these workers 

exhibit significant flexibility and unpredictability in working hours, locations, and task assignments, retaining 

substantial labor autonomy.Recognized labor relations would entitle workers not only to employment injury 

insurance but to all social insurance benefits—including pension, medical, and maternity coverage.This would 

substantially increase labor costs for new-economy enterprises, a scenario they strongly oppose, and could 

significantly impede the industry's development.The "platform + individual" employment model fundamentally 

weakens workers' economic and personal subordination to platforms.Some even engage in such work part-time 

after regular employment to supplement income. In such cases, occupational injuries sustained may nullify 

eligibility for pre-existing employment injury coverage. 

The current tight coupling of employment injury insurance with labor relations creates a binary confrontation: 

addressing occupational injury risks for workers inherently impedes the development of the new-economy sector. 

If this dichotomy remains unresolved, workers in new forms of employment will continue to fall outside the social 

protection framework. Given their rapidly growing workforce, this situation now constitutes a grave risk to both 

economic expansion and social stability. 

3.2 "Coerced Involvement Phenomenon" among Workers in New Forms of Employment 

Although workers in new forms of employment may appear to enjoy significant autonomy in their work, they 

often face a phenomenon of "being coerced" in their actual labor process, where they are required to perform tasks 

beyond their current job scope. They frequently find themselves entrapped by platform algorithms, economic 

incentives, and customer "coercion." 

New business model enterprises often implement highly rigid rules and regulations for calculating wages, where 

any violation directly results in pay deductions. These platforms establish distinct pricing and remuneration 

systems for peak demand periods versus regular hours. While peak periods offer higher rates and apparently more 

lenient time allowances, this allotted time is consistently insufficient for workers to safely and punctually complete 

assigned tasks. Food delivery riders, for example, frequently resort to running red lights during peak hours to 

shorten delivery times. The nature of control exerted by these companies has shifted from spatial supervision to 

temporal constraints. This method aligns with the flexible work patterns characteristic of gig economy workers 

but constitutes a form of control intensely focused on outcomes. Payment is guaranteed solely upon completing 

tasks within the stipulated time frame, with no restrictions on how the work is done. The seemingly 'relaxed' time 

allowances are, in reality, meticulously calculated by corporate algorithms analyzing vast order data to produce a 

superficially reasonable time frame. In practice, however, workers aiming to maximize earnings during high-pay 

peak periods often feel compelled to 'cut corners' to save time and complete more orders. Furthermore, these 

workers typically interact directly with customers. During service delivery, some customers make requests beyond 

the defined task scope. Fulfilling these extra demands introduces unnecessary risks. For instance, a rider asked to 

'quickly pick up an extra item' faces even greater time pressure, compounded by the threat of negative customer 

ratings. This often forces riders to adopt riskier methods, such as frequent traffic violations, to meet deadlines. 

Consequently, the perceived labor autonomy of gig economy workers is largely illusory. Beneath the veneer of 

freedom, they remain entrapped by platform algorithms, economic incentives, and customer 'coercion'.  



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 8, No. 4; 2025 

 10 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

Although gig economy workers enjoy the freedom to set their own working hours, their income dependency on 

platform-allocated orders leads most full-time workers to log 8 hours or more daily. A survey of 422 food delivery 

riders in Hubei Province revealed that 87.4% work 8 hours or longer per day, with 5.5% exceeding 12 hours. 

Similarly, research involving 1,214 couriers in Beijing showed only 11.5% worked fewer than 8 hours, while over 

50% worked 8 hours or more. This study also identified widespread overwork among couriers, with 78.8% 

experiencing labor intensity at dangerous or high-risk levels. Full-time gig workers consistently exceed standard 

working hours – sometimes surpassing statutory maximums – dedicating virtually all waking hours beyond 

essential rest to work in pursuit of higher income[5]. 

3.3 Occupational Injury Coverage Faces Systemic Dilemmas 

Platform workers universally face significant occupational risks. China's Regulations on Work-Related Injury 

Insurance stipulate that compensation requires meeting the 'three-work criteria' (work-related, during work hours, 

at workplace), yet gig workers often have irregular schedules and undefined work locations. For instance, food 

delivery riders follow unpredictable routes and schedules. Even dedicated riders struggle to prove compliance with 

the 'three-work criteria' during accidents. While routes assigned by platforms could theoretically define workplaces, 

algorithmic constraints sometimes produce sub optimal paths. When riders take shortcuts and accidents occur, 

determining work-related injury status becomes legally complex. 

At present, many workers in emerging employment forms, in order to mitigate occupational risks, often need to 

purchase commercial insurance, such as personal accident insurance. However, such commercial insurance 

typically has high premiums, complex claims procedures, compensation limits, and numerous exemption clauses. 

These limitations make it difficult for such insurance to provide effective treatment and assistance comparable to 

work-related injury insurance. Therefore, in response to the flexible employment model, which is a non-standard 

employment arrangement, we need to re-examine the structure of occupational injury protection. Should we adjust 

the existing work injury insurance system by creating special provisions for flexible workers, or should we 

establish an entirely new occupational injury protection system? If we choose to extend the current work injury 

insurance scheme, considering that the premiums are paid by employers, how should the cost of occupational 

injury protection be shared in a way that reflects fairness? If new-type workers are working for multiple platforms 

at the same time, could a cost-sharing model between individuals and enterprises enhance corporate responsibility, 

encourage employers to fulfill their obligations, and increase workers’ willingness to contribute? Is it possible that 

enterprises might transfer these costs in other ways? Currently, the Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance 

provide legal protection for employees in the event of occupational accidents, but they do not apply to new-type 

workers. The Social Insurance Law, as a superior law, also lacks corresponding provisions. This may lead to 

questions of legality for pilot programs implemented in different regions. 

4. Paths for Tackling Occupational Injury Protection Issues for Workers in New Forms of Employment 

According to regional pilot outcomes, occupational injury insurance for workers in new forms of employment 

represents an insurance model integrated within China's existing work injury insurance framework. It maintains 

comparable benefit levels while introducing tailored per-order contribution mechanisms designed for these 

workers' distinctive needs. This approach preserves the stability of the current system while adapting to the 

characteristics of new employment forms. Consequently, the system should explicitly stipulate provisions in the 

following aspects. 

4.1 Fundamental Principles of Occupational Injury Protection 

First, delineation of primary responsibilities within the occupational injury protection system.The most critical 

element of occupational injury protection is establishing clear accountability boundaries. In constructing this 

system, the state must assume responsibility for institutional design and financial safeguards. The rapidly 

expanding scale of workers in new forms of employment, coupled with their high occupational risk exposure, has 

evolved into a systemic socioeconomic threat. Consequently, the state should establish corresponding occupational 

injury protections to mitigate this escalating risk rather than allowing it to accumulate unchecked.While the state 

bears responsibility for establishing the institutional framework, this does not imply direct state provision of 

benefits. Market forces may be leveraged for operational delivery mechanisms. Nevertheless, the state must retain 

authority over three core functions: initial system design, nationwide implementation oversight, and post-

deployment iterative refinements.State intervention remains imperative given the system's coverage of an 

increasingly significant economic demographic, its direct impact on expanding populations' welfare, and the 

inherent power asymmetry between workers and digital platforms within this emerging employment paradigm. 

Second, the State's Financial Safeguard Responsibility for Occupational Injury Protection.Given the distinctive 

nature of platform work, workers themselves should bear partial contribution obligations. Concurrently, since 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 8, No. 4; 2025 

 11 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

occupational injury protection fundamentally mitigates work-related risks for platform workers and generates 

positive externalities for societal stability, the state is obligated to provide fiscal subsidies. As this system will 

safeguard growing numbers of platform workers, the state must also establish a financial backstop to prevent 

systemic collapse and mitigate large-scale societal risks. 

Third, platform enterprises and workers must jointly contribute to occupational injury protection.Platform 

enterprises exercise de facto control over workers through algorithmic governance and economic incentives. Given 

that platform workers are indispensable to the platform economy, enterprises should bear the primary contribution 

burden. Concurrently, as workers enjoy substantially greater autonomy than conventional laborers, they too must 

share partial contribution obligations. Furthermore, since such algorithmic control mechanisms inherently carry 

risk-generating potential, the state must impose regulatory discipline requiring enterprises to fulfill risk prevention 

and mitigation obligations. 

Fourth, Occupational Injury Determination.Workers covered by occupational injury insurance may generally 

follow the assessment procedures outlined in the current Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance when 

establishing occupational injury claims. However, the application of the "Three Work Principles" (work-related 

time, place, and cause) must be adapted to platform workers' distinctive operational context rather than 

mechanically applied. 

4.2 Rolling out the Optimal Implementation Approach 

Currently, in the absence of a comprehensive occupational injury protection system, achieving full commercial 

insurance coverage for platform workers is imperative to mitigate occupational risks during this policy vacuum 

period. However, such coverage remains merely a stopgap solution, as commercial insurance fundamentally fails 

to meet the occupational injury protection needs of platform workers.Some scholars propose establishing a 

dedicated occupational injury insurance system for this workforce. Yet given that platform workers represent a 

minority compared to China's vast conventional labor force, creating a separate insurance framework would 

contradict the core principles of China's social insurance system—which prioritizes higher-tier pooling and 

operational synergy. Such fragmentation would inevitably lead to inconsistent administration and benefit 

disparities. 

Both the "innovative approach" and "integrated approach" currently represent more viable pathways.The 

innovative approach—establishing a government-led occupational injury insurance scheme for platform workers 

administered by commercial insurers—constitutes the path of least institutional friction given the ongoing 

ambiguity in platform workers’ employment relationships. Under government stewardship, this model can 

effectively reduce premium contributions while enhancing benefit levels. Moreover, its exceptionally low roll out 

costs and minimal operational disruption to platform businesses translate into negligible industry resistance. 

Conversely, the integrated approach of incorporating platform workers into the existing workers’ compensation 

system delivers the most comprehensive protection scope. However, this model requires precise delineation of 

responsibilities between platforms and workers, potentially triggering significant market realignment. Its 

implementation entails substantially higher costs and complexity. 

Regardless of the chosen pathway, mandatory participation remains non-negotiable. Only through compulsory 

enrollment can the occupational injury protection system achieve sustainable operation, thereby addressing the 

growing occupational risks faced by China’s expanding platform workforce. 

4.3 Revise and Refine Relevant Laws and Regulations to Establish a Robust Legal Foundation 

4.3.1 Amendments to Relevant Provisions of the Social Insurance Law 

As the higher-level legislation governing the Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance, the Social Insurance 

Law should prioritize expanding coverage through amendments to its work injury insurance chapter[3]. Being a 

cornerstone of China's social security system, work injury protection should not be confined to employees with 

formal labor contracts. Given the critical importance of safeguarding workers, those without established 

employment relationships merit equal protection. Since universal coverage has been achieved for basic pension 

insurance and basic medical insurance, work injury insurance should likewise permit individual contributions—

decoupling coverage from employment status to integrate platform workers into the work injury compensation 

framework. 

Concretely, Article 33 of the Social Insurance Law should be amended by adding: 'Platform workers, flexible 

employment personnel, and other non-standard workers may voluntarily participate in Occupational Injury 

Insurance and contribute occupational injury insurance premiums in accordance with relevant regulations. 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 8, No. 4; 2025 

 12 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

4.3.2 Amendments to Relevant Provisions of the Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance 

The Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance also need corresponding amendments regarding coverage 

scope and recognition criteria. When revising the Regulations, non-standard workers should be included in the 

coverage. 

Firstly，for Article 1, the phrase "to ensure that employees suffering from work-related accidents or occupational 

diseases obtain medical treatment and economic compensation..." should be amended to add "as well as non-

standard workers sustaining work-related injuries."For Article 2, the following should be added: "Platform 

enterprises providing services to non-standard workers shall proportionally contribute occupational injury 

insurance premiums for laborers without established employment relationships."This maintains consistency with 

China's legislative terminology while expanding protection to platform workers and flexible employment 

personnel. The translation follows standard legal drafting conventions for social insurance regulations. 

Secondly, the criteria for recognizing work-related injuries require corresponding amendments. Given the 

uncertain working hours and locations characteristic of non-standard workers, accident injury assessments for this 

group cannot strictly follow the traditional "three-work principle". Take food delivery riders as an example: every 

delivery initiated when they activate delivery services through their apps should be recognized as working 

time.Regarding Article 10: The provision stating "Employees do not contribute to work-related injury insurance 

premiums" should be revised to require proportional cost-sharing between non-standard workers and platforms for 

occupational injury insurance. This approach not only enhances platform accountability but also exempts 

individuals from full payment, thereby increasing their willingness to contribute.For Article 18, which currently 

requires submitting "proof of an employment relationship with the employer", such documentation mandates 

should be waived for non-standard workers to accommodate flexible employment arrangements.All other 

regulatory provisions shall continue to apply to non-standard workers where contextually appropriate. 

5. Conclusion and Future Perspectives 

As a rapidly expanding labor force in the digital economy, non-standard workers remain vulnerable to occupational 

accidents due to their exclusion from conventional work-related injury insurance systems. Given their growing 

population, a transitional approach should be implemented: Occupational injury insurance must first emerge as a 

subsystem of the existing work-related injury insurance framework, then progressively merge with it, ultimately 

transforming work-related injury insurance into a de facto occupational injury insurance system. This new scheme 

must retain its social insurance attributes while gradually expanding coverage through pilot programs that adapt 

to non-standard workers' unique needs. Concurrent amendments to relevant provisions in the Social Insurance Law 

and Work-Related Injury Insurance Regulations will provide legal grounding for these pilots, enabling their phased 

nationwide scaling.  

References 

[1] Ai, L. (2021). Protection of the rights of online platform employees in case of occupational injuries. Journal of 

Shenzhen University (Humanities & Social Sciences), 38(04), 98–105. 

[2] Chang, K., & Zheng, X. (2019). Employment relationship or equal partners? — An analysis on the nature of 

employment relationship in the internet economy. Journal of Renmin University of China, 33(02), 78–88. 

[3] Tu, Y. (2021). Research on labor rights and interests of gig workers: Comments on extraterritorial practice and 

its references to China. Journal of Political Science and Law, (02), 64–76. 

[4] Bluestone, B., & Harrison, B. (1982). The deindustrialization of America: Plant closings, community 

abandonment, and the dismantling of basic industry. New York: Basic Books. 

[5] Wang, Z., & Chen, Y. (2022). Theoretical basis and system construction of occupational injury security system 

in new business. Journal of Xi'an University of Finance and Economics, 35(02), 74–83. 

[6] Huang, L., & Han, R. (2022). The dilemma and countermeasures of occupational injury protection for platform 

worker — On the enlightenment of occupational disaster insurance system in Taiwan. Journal of North China 

Electric Power University (Social Sciences), (01), 82–92. 

 

Copyrights 

Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. 

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 

license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 


