The mitigation measures aimed at slowing the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic taken over the past few months have directly affected the supply, demand and daily operations of the retail sector. The retail sector includes all resale activities of new and used goods (not including motor vehicles and motorcycles) mainly to the general public for personal or household consumption or use.

The overall impact of retailing is large, due to a number of factors. The retail sector is an economic heavyweight: on average across OECD economies, about 1 in 12 workers are employed in retail, and the sector accounts for almost 5% of GDP. Moreover, it mainly serves final demand, and thus occupies an important position in value chains both as a provider to households and as an outlet for upstream sectors. It also often complements activities in other hard-hit sectors, e.g. tourism. In addition, the retail sector is very labour intensive, so any disruptions have disproportionate employment consequences. The sector also relies on low-wage and part-time, on-call and gig workers that are not well-covered by traditional social protection measures, which further strengthens the social consequences of the crisis in this sector.

At the same time, the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the retail sector is heterogeneous and depends on the combined effect of three characteristics. First, the effect of social distancing measures on individual retail businesses depends on whether they are deemed essential. On the one hand, most non-essential retail activities have been shut down; essential retail businesses, on the other hand, often operate in difficult conditions, including labour supply shortages, major disruptions in supply chains and working conditions, and sometimes large spikes in demand for specific items. For example, in the United States, while the sales of clothing retailers dropped by 89.3% in April 2020 year-on-year, the sales of grocery stores increased by 13.2% according to the Census Bureau. In the EU, while the sales of non-food products dropped by 23.8% in April 2020 year-on-year, the sales of food, beverages and tobacco has increased by 1.2% according to Eurostat. Data on Internet searches confirm diverging trends for essential and non-essential retail items in most OECD economies (Figure 1), in particular in countries that are most affected by the pandemic. Second, lockdowns and social distancing measures affect retailers with physical stores more than online retailers, and may ultimately accelerate the ongoing shift from brick-and-mortar to online retailing. For example, in France, Nielsen reports that the market share of e-commerce rapidly increased to almost 10% of total consumer goods sales during the confinement period, compared to less than 6% in 2019. In the UK, the Office for National Statistics reports that the proportion of retail expenses spent online increased from 19.1% in April 2019 to 30.7% in April 2020, reaching a record high. Third, the sector is characterised by the coexistence of businesses with strikingly different abilities to weather the crisis, linked to different liquidity positions and access to outside finance.

To help otherwise healthy firms survive the current crisis and safeguard the corresponding jobs, governments need to help the retail sector weather the three shocks it is faced with: a demand shock, a supply shock, and a productivity shock. In the short run, it is necessary to support retail firms just like other firms in the business sector. Yet, the specificities of the retail sector call for tailored policy responses.

First, governments need to make liquidity assistance quickly and readily available to retailers so as to keep them afloat. As non-essential retail activities face unprecedented drops in demand due to the lockdown, liquidity assistance will help avoid the “death by accident” of otherwise solvent retailers. Governments have already offered large and transversal emergency support; they need to ensure that it is accessible to all retail firms, be they small independent shops or large chains. Beyond the emergency, liquidity support measures should only be made available to viable firms in order to prevent adverse impact on business dynamism.

Second, governments need to help essential retailers deal with labour supply shortages. Essential retail firms are experiencing both a spike in product demand and a drop in labour supply because of containment measures and confinement restrictions. For example, in the United Kingdom, Nielsen reports that sales of shelf-stable groceries (i.e. food that can be safely stored at room temperature) more than doubled during the week leading to the lockdown compared to the same week in 2019, while the Institute of Grocery Distribution reports staff absenteeism rates of 20% or more during the early phase of the lockdown. Governments have taken four types of measures to ensure that households have access to essential goods: 1) increasing financial incentives for retail workers; 2) temporarily easing labour market or retail regulations for essential activities; 3) smoothing demand-supply matching for retail jobs; 4) providing guidance for health and safety in retail stores to address employee concerns (see Box 1 for examples). These measures should follow recognised responsible business conduct standards to prevent detrimental consequences on workers’ well-being. The effectiveness of these measures crucially depends on the quality of social dialogue between employers and their staff (see a joint declaration of retailers and trade unions, for example).

Third, governments should support retail firms with the implementation of social distancing measures intended to keep staff and clients safe. Measures include flexible opening hours or clear and specific guidance on health and safety standards for sale and delivery (see Box 1 for examples). Social distancing sharply affects retailer’s productivity, however (e.g. due to the extra costs for personal protective equipment and the lowered intensity of shopping activity). Government action can help smooth this shock to productivity by reducing informational barriers and regulatory uncertainty, ensuring a steady supply of protective equipment and supporting the communication with customers. Moreover, governments should re-assess the regulation of discount sales in physical stores. In several countries, existing rules only allow certain markdowns during short periods of time, which could both jeopardise social distancing efforts and restrict retailers’ ability to implement business strategies that can help them compensate for the COVID-19 revenue shock.

Fourth, governments need to ensure that competition remains sufficient in the retail sector following the crisis. Despite governments’ best efforts, the COVID-19 crisis may lead to the exit of many retailers. This impact is likely to be asymmetric, as the crisis weighs disproportionately on brick-and-mortar and small firms, while online and large firms are more likely to survive. Therefore, the crisis could further reduce retail’s local footprint and amplify the ongoing consolidation in the sector, where sales of the top eight business groups already reached almost 80% in 2014 (Figure 2). Moreover, in the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 crisis there are instances where co-operation between competitors is legitimate and lawful in order to overcome disruptions, especially in essential retail supply chains. Against this backdrop, governments need to ensure that competition remains sufficient to avoid negative impacts on consumers. In particular, competition authorities should challenge exploitative pricing behaviours and continue to carefully review merger activity, both during and after the crisis. Moreover, governments in several OECD countries still have scope to lower entry costs and facilitate the emergence of new retail firms by easing registration and licensing requirements (Figure 3).

Fifth, in the longer run, the retail sector will benefit from efforts to increase its resilience to shocks. Brick-and-mortar retailers can diversify their sale channels, especially by expanding their activity to online sales. For instance, in Korea, the government is strengthening its support for small businesses to enter online sale platforms. In Japan, the government will provide a business continuity subsidy, which allows firms to diversify and expand their sales channels. Beyond financial support, governments should pay attention to regulatory barriers that hinder the participation of traditional retailers in online sales (e.g. permitting and zoning rules) and to framework conditions that affect demand for online sales (e.g. digital literacy, consumer protection, security and reliability of payment systems). Finally, as COVID-19 affects food and agricultural supply in complex ways, the retail sector should also consider the resilience of its supply chain where needed, notably by relying on more diversified sources of goods, by improving inventory management and by leveraging data analytics to improve forecasts on sales and supply chain tensions.

Further reading

Bajgar et al. (forthcoming), “Supersize me: Intangibles and industry concentration”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Paper, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Del Rio-Chanona, R.M. et al. (2020), “Supply and demand shocks in the COVID-19 pandemic: An industry and occupation perspective”, INET Oxford Working Paper No. 2020-05,

ILO (2020), “COVID-19 and food retail”, ILO Sectoral Briefs,

OECD (2020), “Corporate sector vulnerabilities during the Covid-19 outbreak: Assessment and policy responses”, OECD, Paris,

OECD (2020), “COVID-19 and the food and agriculture sector: Issues and policy responses”, OECD, Paris,

OECD (2020), “Government support and the COVID-19 pandemic”, OECD, Paris,

OECD (2020), “SME policy responses”, OECD, Paris,

OECD (2020), “Tax and fiscal policy in response to the coronavirus crisis: strengthening confidence and resilience”, OECD, Paris,

OECD (2020), “Supporting people and companies to deal with the COVID-19 virus: Options for an immediate employment and social-policy response”, OECD, Paris,

OECD (2019), Unpacking E-commerce: Business Models, Trends and Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris,


This paper is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and the arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD member countries.

This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

© OECD 2020

The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at