Summary

Since 2018, there has been a slight decline in the number of enterprises utilising robots in the EU, while the number of robot installations has increased. This suggests that the EU’s robot market is becoming increasingly concentrated.

Given the high capital investment requirements and the economies of scale necessary to make investments in robots profitable, large enterprises dominate the market for robots in the EU. Around 1 in 5 large enterprises in the EU use industrial robots, while only 1 in 10 use service robots.

In general, the prevalence of service robots, capable of executing more complex tasks than industrial robots with a certain degree of autonomy, is much lower than that of industrial robots.

Both service and industrial robots are mainly used in large enterprises; the manufacturing sector is leading the adoption of both types of robots. Only a small share of enterprises in other sectors are currently deploying robotic technologies.

There are numerous motivations for companies to invest in robotic applications. Eurostat data indicate that a significant share of enterprises prioritise internal factors such as productivity, safety and competitiveness as drivers of robot adoption. However, external labour market conditions, including high labour costs and challenges in personnel recruitment, also play a significant role, particularly in countries where these issues are prominent on the policy agenda.

Data suggest that the use of robots that interact with humans is associated with unfavourable working conditions, including heightened work intensity, reduced autonomy, increased surveillance and a higher prevalence of working alone. This emphasises the importance of preventing and managing psychosocial risks during the introduction and implementation of robotic technologies in workplaces.

Summary

The adoption of robotic technologies is driven by various motivations, shaping human–robot interaction and influencing design choices and implementation. Efficiency and productivity gains were the main motivations for technology adoption in the establishments that were operating more complex robotic systems. Improvements to working conditions were highlighted as a secondary motivation in most case studies. Human centricity was not a primary consideration in the design of the robotic systems and applications investigated.

In line with findings from previous case study research on automation, risk assessments for robotic systems focused primarily on physical safety in most of the establishments investigated. In addition, they were often conducted on a one-off basis at the time of technology adoption, with limited consideration for other human factors in human–robot interaction. Safety testing and piloting, typically led by IT providers, generally lacked direct worker involvement. In cases where employees were more actively involved in risk assessments or piloting, the primary focus was on technical considerations rather than ensuring human-centric design. Gaining workers’ perspectives when introducing robots to workplaces is essential for enhancing human–robot interaction.

The case study evidence highlights a focus in training on ensuring the safe and correct use of robotic solutions, with more tailored training for specific roles. The training is often led by senior staff. Notably, training provision across establishments was not integrated into comprehensive change management programmes aimed at assisting workers in adapting to new roles and work practices resulting from increasing human–robot interaction.

Research on automation, and more broadly digitalisation, has consistently demonstrated that a participatory approach to technology adoption fosters trust and a sense of co-responsibility for safety and efficiency among workers, and increases their acceptance of the technology. In all cases investigated, the decisions to introduce the robotic technology were made by top-level management, without the active consultation or involvement of employees or their representatives.

Worker representatives generally viewed the technologies positively, stating that they increased workers’ safety and reduced physically demanding tasks. They therefore did not resist or object to the technology being adopted. The representatives played an important role in communicating workers’ concerns, particularly about potential future job displacement, to management. Most pressing concerns were most effectively addressed by line managers or HR managers with established relationships with workers built on mutual trust.

Summary

The adoption of robotic technologies in the establishments investigated resulted primarily in the automation of manual and routine tasks, and did not affect entire job profiles. The most significant changes to the nature of tasks were observed in establishments that adopted more complex and interconnected robotic systems.

In establishments with complex robotic systems, the adoption of the technology necessitated the redesign of the workspace and substantial adjustments to existing workflows, with a primary focus on safety and ergonomic considerations. In these establishments, the robotic systems rely on the real-time collection and processing of large amounts of data about workers’ activities. Although it is technically feasible, the managers interviewed denied monitoring the performance of individual workers. Monitoring is typically carried out at the level of the team or production line, or the establishment.

With close human–robot interaction and in highly standardised work environments, robotic systems may further restrict their operators’ freedom to determine how to perform their jobs. In cases where the robotic technology is a discretionary tool for staff, which complements their work, no changes to job discretion were observed.

No evidence of deskilling was found in the establishments investigated; if anything, workers operating or using robotic systems reported an improvement in their digital competencies and skills, primarily acquired on the job rather than through formal training.

The implementation of robotic technologies in the establishments investigated did not result in changes to working hours; instead, the time saved was redirected towards handling an increased number of orders or allocated to value-added tasks. Work intensity varied across establishments and was often determined by management decisions or the suboptimal organisation of work, rather than the technology itself.

The case studies point to diverse impacts of robotic solutions on the social environment. Some robotic systems – such as those implemented in warehouses – tend to restrict social interaction. However, the positivity or negativity of the impact is contingent on specific applications, and, crucially, on design and management decisions.

The advanced robotic systems and applications examined were designed with embedded safety precautions and ergonomic considerations. Overall, they had a positive impact on the physical environment, by performing tasks that are repetitive or physically demanding for workers, thereby reducing physical strain and lowering the risk of injuries or accidents. Some robotic solutions were also intended to streamline and simplify tasks and in doing so reduce workers’ mental load. However, in some instances, mental load increased due to additional demands on workers operating the advanced equipment.

With regard to earnings and career prospects, the increased productivity and efficiency resulting from technology adoption across all establishments investigated did not translate into salary increases or tangible career advancement for affected workers.

There is no evidence of redundancies resulting from technological change in the establishments investigated, nor are there examples of entirely new occupations being created due to the introduction of the new robotic systems or applications. However, concerns about future job losses persist among workers in some of the establishments investigated. Despite management’s assurances, companies’ plans suggest a trend towards increased automation, potentially leading to redundancies in the not-too-distant future.