argumentative essay about using robots in the workplace

Argumentative Essay On Robots

Arguments have gone on regarding the progress of artificial intelligence and questions of whether robots will replace humans in everyday tasks commonly known as the robot revolution. Artificial intelligence is defined as the ability of a digital computer or computer-controlled robot to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent beings. There are two extreme point of views: one being that robots are a threat to us and our economy and the other that robots are our saviors. Numerous companies have recently been investing their money in these technologies as they are deemed to lead to success in the future .

This was shown by an increase in the industrial robot sales by 137 percent compared to the previous decade and more than 229,000 itself in 2014. Currently, these automation devices are on factory assembly lines, Wall Street, and hospital operating rooms. Artificial intelligence is rapidly changing how the world thinks and works. Patrick Marshall’s “Robotics and the Economy” states that “robotics proponents say automation will improve productivity, lower labor costs and make companies stronger and more competitive with overseas rivals”(Marshall).

Robots Taking Over Jobs

There is no doubt that robots are becoming increasingly prevalent in our society. They are being used in a variety of industries, from manufacturing to healthcare, and their capabilities are only expanding. This raises the question: could robots eventually take over human jobs?

It’s not hard to imagine a future where robots are doing many of the jobs currently done by humans. In fact, there are already some examples of this happening. For instance, Robots are now being used to carry out simple tasks in factories, such as moving and sorting items. They are also being used in hospitals to assist with surgeries and other medical procedures.

As robots become more advanced, it is likely that they will take on more complex jobs. For instance, they could potentially replace lawyers and financial analysts, who spend much of their time analyzing large amounts of data. Robots may also be able to complete jobs that are currently considered too difficult for humans, such as exploring the deep sea or outer space.

While there are certainly some concerns about robots taking over human jobs, it is important to recognize the benefits that they bring as well. Robots can help make certain processes more efficient and reduce errors, which in turn improves productivity and lowers costs for businesses. They could also enable people with disabilities to perform certain tasks that would otherwise be impossible for the

At this point, it’s hard to say whether robots will actually take over human jobs in the long run. However, one thing is clear: robotics is a rapidly evolving field, and the potential for growth is enormous. As such, it will be important for businesses and policymakers to stay up-to-date on the latest developments in this area, and be prepared to adapt as necessary.

These are all just projections that have yet to be seen and the potential is great, but more research and development has to occur for this robot revolution to even occur. Consequently, Marshall elucidates that “other proponents say robotics will allow some companies to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States because automation lowers labor costs and allows firms to compete with low-wage competitors overseas” (Marshall). The fact that there has been no proof of this makes it hard to believe especially because as of now the opposite is taking place regarding bringing in jobs.

Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly growing field of technology that has the potential to transform our everyday lives in countless ways. From driverless cars and intelligent robots to smart homes and virtual assistants, AI promises to revolutionize how we interact with the world around us.

However, as with any powerful new technology, there are also significant risks associated with artificial intelligence. Critics have raised concerns about the impact that widespread use of AI could have on society and jobs, arguing that it could lead to mass unemployment or even create an oppressive “robot overlords” scenario. Others point out that as AI continues to evolve, its creators may face difficult ethical challenges related to issues such as privacy and data security.

Despite these concerns, many experts remain optimistic about the future of artificial intelligence. They believe that AI will ultimately help us solve some of the world’s most pressing problems, from climate change to healthcare. With proper regulation, they argue, AI can be a force for good that helps us create a better future for all.

The conversation of artificial intelligence spotlights that the issue seems to be largely a case of ethics and if it is right or wrong to allow these machines to take over human jobs. For example, in an article, the author asks, “Is it wrong then to replace humans with robots in these cases? ”(Victor). There is no ethical justification for possibly taking another person’s job and causing unemployment in the long-run. Since robotics is changing our society so much and advancing so quickly, many ethical issues arise since we do not have the time to adjust to these changes.

However, Robin Hanson, a professor at George Mason University, contends that they will not replace humans completely and that it will be a “slow” and “predictable transition”(Marshall). He fails to recognize that it will still lead to unemployment as the middle class will be largely affected with these automation devices performing mid-level or even high-level tasks to some extent. Therefore, when questions of ethics arise and fixed on such questions, it may be easy for people to make judgements that there is a problem with automation devices possibly taking human jobs, but until this occurs it will be hard to know.

Marshall’s essay indicates that these technological devices that are already present are improving rapidly and there are both positives and negatives for the implications of artificial intelligence. Rather than discussing the ethics of the issue, we should expand our thinking and focus on whether or not this will actually happen in the next few years. Until small steps are taken to the rise of more automation devices, there will be no way to know the exact effect. Ultimately, the projection of robots to take over the majority of human jobs is more of a long-term project.

Although the technological advancements are upcoming, these automation devices will not be in full effect for another few decades. With late headways in different key advances identified with equipment and programming, the making of humanlike robots is progressively getting to be and designing reality. Sar A. Levitan, a professor from George Washington University, states “While computer automation has been theoretically feasible for more than a decade… and automated machinery could not easily be adapted to serve various production functions”(Levitan 10).

Robots In The Future

Robots are becoming increasingly prevalent in our lives, and experts predict that they will play an even greater role in the future. Some believe that robots will completely replace humans in a wide range of jobs and industries, while others argue that they will simply complement human workers to boost productivity.

Regardless of what the future holds, there is no doubt that robots have already had a significant impact on our world. They have revolutionized manufacturing processes, allowing companies to produce goods more quickly and cheaply than ever before. Robots have also made deep inroads into other fields such as medicine, where they have been used for everything from performing delicate surgery to delivering medication to patients.

As we look forward to the future, it is clear that robots will continue to play an important role in shaping our world. Some believe that they will eventually become so advanced that they are able to think and act independently, raising questions about what it means to be human. Others believe that robots will simply supplement the work of humans, helping us to solve complex problems and achieve greater progress than ever before.

Whatever the future holds for robots, one thing is certain: They are here to stay, and we must find ways to harness their power while ensuring that they do not pose a threat to society. Whether we embrace them as our partners or fear them as our competitors, there is no doubt that robots are poised to have a significant impact on all of our lives in the years ahead.

This implies that these robots would have impacted us earlier; however, there was not enough research and effort put in for this to be achieved. Moreover, the ones in effect still have some problems which need to be resolved in order for the robots to decide the future of work. Also, concerning the fear of the loss of jobs, there are current robots which work hand in hand with humans, so they do not cause unemployment. The robot revolution is certainly coming and will cause yet another Industrial Revolution.

Currently, there are different types of devices at different stages of production. For instance, the Robot Institute of America proclaims that “the emerging versions of robots are varied”(Levitan 11). For example, there are robots that simply stamp signatures on letters, other robots that act as nurses and help handicapped patients, and lastly robots that simply speak and advertise. In addition, different types of technological innovations take various amounts of time to be implemented, so they will be marketable at different times.

The author states that “these theoretical estimates of the potential for the automation, which reach as high as 65 to 75 percent of the factory work force, do not reflect the rate at which the new technology will actually be introduced to the workplace”(Levitan 11). The pace of advancement will rely on upon the relative expenses of work and mechanized advances, and additionally on the more extensive levels of supply and interest for goods and services. There are many factors which are unaccounted for that can lead to the regression of the immediate impact of these devices.

Predictions of immediate and massive jobs losses tend to ignore the market forces which slow the pace of technological change. Research conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics led to the conclusion that the size of required investment, the rate of capacity utilization and the institutional arrangements within industries all can act as “economic governors”, slowing the adoption of automated technologies(Levitan 12). In particular, these technologies present financial constraints which will postpone the availability of these new gadgets.

For this promising technology to effectively take human jobs, companies must be financially flexible to acquire these complex devices. Lastly, artificial intelligence cannot provide the same type of care as humans such as providing bedside care to a patient in a hospital bed. For instance, when I volunteered at the local hospital, I was able to provide a sense of comfort for an old man who was dialysis patient and hadn’t been home in nearly 7 months, but these robots could not have done this task as they would be programmed to act out a certain task.

Opposing viewpoints contend that robots will lead to our demise in this decade. Conducted research from Oxford University has shown that robots are about to take over 45% of all jobs in the upcoming decade. This study was conducted by looking at current jobs and projecting which ones can be replaced by computer or robotics. There may be possible flaws as this is is not as accurate. In correlation with this, there is a mass sense of hysteria that robots will take all the jobs and lead to the collapse of civilization.

Katherine Mangu-Ward, author of “The Robot Revolution Is Here” believes that “robots are already here and humans are doing what we have always done in the face of change: anticipating and adapting where we can”(Mangu-Ward). The population of industrial robots were more than 1. 1 million in the manufacturing industry according to the International Federation of Robots. Little do people know that the implementation of robots are already underway.

For instance, a Botlr robot, deployed in some properties of the Starwood hotel chain, delivers extra towels and forgotten toiletries to hotel guests and Singapore’s Timbre restaurant group have robots delivering food and drink to customers. Even the Uber CEO has proclaimed that he plans to replace human drivers with self-driving cars as soon as possible. The robot-ridden future may sound ambiguously frightening, yet it’s unrealistic to be horribly not quite the same as the robot-ridden present.

Subsequently, Annabel Hennessy from the Sunday Times, holds the same stance as artificial intelligence is being implemented into major industries, there is destined to be a robot revolution. Stefan Hajkowicz, a principal CSIRO scientist, claims that “It’s already happening and the technology is there, the only lag factor is associated with town planners, engineers, lawyers and city administrators that haven’t put in place the systems to make it operable and viable”(Hennessy).

The expenses associated with these automated machines are incredible and it takes time for the implementation. As emphasized before, the number of jobs which will be lost to robots are tremendous. Particularly, repetitively manual jobs in retail and accounting and legal offices will be replaced. Nevertheless, the International Federation of Robotics, believes that robotics will be a major creator of jobs based on a study conducted by a market research firm.

In the six countries which consist of China, Brazil, Germany, Japan, Korea Republic, and USA there has been nearly double the rate of robotics use and the proportion of unemployment has barely changed over the eight years. A much bigger source of work, in any event halfway because of robotics, is the recently made downstream action important to support manufacturing which must be done by robots. The best case is the communication business, from distribution to retailing.

In the USA, this piece of retailing is of the request of 1 million. In world terms this records for 3 to 5 million of employments which would not exist if computerization had not been created to permit generation of a large number of electronic items, from phones to Playstations. As per the study, the robot industry itself generates of the order of 150,000 jobs worldwide, to which can be added the support staff and operators, another 150,000 people. These robots participate in work which are tough for humans to complete.

For instance, where a product cannot be made satisfactorily with precision and cheap without the use of robotics. Overall, both arguments illustrate that the outcomes of the robot revolution can be achieved soon, but also there are huge drawbacks which can delay their implementation into the workforce. Simply because artificial intelligence is advancing does not mean that we should always use it in society. We are amazed with the new robotics technology that we forget about the ethical implications that it may cause.

Implementing robots into the workforce is an issue that is vital to our society through an economical view regarding jobs; however, we are still unaware when they will be inputted into society to impact humans fully. In reality, the market forces and required investment will regress the time when robots will be in the workforce to approximately another 10 to 20 years. Therefore, this discussion regarding automation devices possibly taking human jobs is of little use.

More Essays

• Artificial Intelligence: Can Small Insect Like Robots Rule the AI World?
• Artificial Intellegence: Identification And Description Of The Issue
• Artificial Intelligence: Identification And Description Of The Issue
• Technology and the Future of Work
• Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws Of Robotics Essay
• Technology In The Future Essay
• Technology In The Workforce Essay
• Essay about Movies And Gender Roles
• Personal Narrative: My Robotic Team Essay
• Social Science Fiction’ in Asimov’s work

Smart. Open. Grounded. Inventive. Read our Ideas Made to Matter.

Which program is right for you?

Through intellectual rigor and experiential learning, this full-time, two-year MBA program develops leaders who make a difference in the world.

A rigorous, hands-on program that prepares adaptive problem solvers for premier finance careers.

A 12-month program focused on applying the tools of modern data science, optimization and machine learning to solve real-world business problems.

Earn your MBA and SM in engineering with this transformative two-year program.

Combine an international MBA with a deep dive into management science. A special opportunity for partner and affiliate schools only.

A doctoral program that produces outstanding scholars who are leading in their fields of research.

Bring a business perspective to your technical and quantitative expertise with a bachelor’s degree in management, business analytics, or finance.

A joint program for mid-career professionals that integrates engineering and systems thinking. Earn your master’s degree in engineering and management.

An interdisciplinary program that combines engineering, management, and design, leading to a master’s degree in engineering and management.

Executive Programs

A full-time MBA program for mid-career leaders eager to dedicate one year of discovery for a lifetime of impact.

This 20-month MBA program equips experienced executives to enhance their impact on their organizations and the world.

Non-degree programs for senior executives and high-potential managers.

A non-degree, customizable program for mid-career professionals.

How AI helps acquired businesses grow

Leading the AI-driven organization

New AI insights from MIT Sloan Management Review

Credit: Shutterstock / Marish

Ideas Made to Matter

A new study measures the actual impact of robots on jobs. It’s significant.

Jul 29, 2020

Machines replacing humans in the workplace has been a perpetual concern since the Industrial Revolution, and an increasing topic of discussion with the rise of automation in the last few decades. But so far hype has outweighed information about how automation — particularly robots, which do not need humans to operate — actually affects employment and wages.

The recently published paper,  “Robots and Jobs: Evidence from U.S. Labor Markets,” by MIT professor Daron Acemoglu and Boston University professor Pascual Restrepo, PhD ’16, finds that industrial robots do have a negative impact on workers.

The researchers found that for every robot added per 1,000 workers in the U.S., wages decline by 0.42% and the employment-to-population ratio goes down by 0.2 percentage points — to date, this means the loss of about 400,000 jobs. The impact is more sizable within the areas where robots are deployed: adding one more robot in a commuting zone (geographic areas used for economic analysis) reduces employment by six workers in that area.

To conduct their research, the economists created a model in which robots and workers compete for the production of certain tasks.

Industries are adopting robots to various degrees, and effects vary in different parts of the country and among different groups — the automotive industry has adopted robots more than other sectors, and workers who are lower and middle income, perform manual labor, and live in the Rust Belt and Texas are among those most likely to have their work affected by robots.

“It’s obviously a very important issue given all of the anxiety and excitement about robots,” Acemoglu said. “Our evidence shows that robots increase productivity. They are very important for continued growth and for firms, but at the same time they destroy jobs and they reduce labor demand. Those effects of robots also need to be taken into account.”

“That doesn't mean we should be opposed to robots, but it does imply that a more holistic understanding of what their effects are needs to be part of the discussion … automation technologies generally don't bring shared prosperity by themselves,” he said. “They need to be combined with other technological changes that create jobs.”

Industrial robots are automatically controlled, reprogrammable, multipurpose machines that can do a variety of things like welding, painting, and packaging. They are fully autonomous and don’t need humans to operate them. Industrial robots grew fourfold in the U.S. between 1993 and 2007, Acemoglu and Restrepo write, to a rate of one robot per thousand workers. Europe is slightly ahead of the U.S. in industrial robot adoption; the rate there grew to 1.6 robots per thousand workers during that time span.

Improvements in technology adversely affect wages and employment through the displacement effect , in which robots or other automation complete tasks formerly done by workers. Technology also has more positive productivity effects by making tasks easier to complete or creating new jobs and tasks for workers. The researchers said automation technologies always create both displacement and productivity effects, but robots create a stronger displacement effect. 

Acemoglu and Restrepo looked at robot use in 19 industries, as well as census and American Community Survey data for 722 commuting zones, finding a negative relationship between a commuting zone’s exposure to robots and its post-1990 labor market outcomes.

Adding one robot to a geographic area reduces employment in that area by six workers.

Between 1990 and 2007, the increase in robots (about one per thousand workers) reduced the average employment-to-population ratio in a zone by 0.39 percentage points, and average wages by 0.77%, compared to commuting zones with no exposure to robots, they found. This implies that adding one robot to an area reduces employment in that area by about six workers.

But what happens in one geographic area affects the economy as a whole, and robots in one area can create positive spillovers. These benefits for the rest of the economy include reducing the prices of goods and creating shared capital income gains. Including this spillover, one robot per thousand workers has slightly less of an impact on the population as a whole, leading to an overall 0.2 percentage point reduction in the employment-to-population ratio, and reducing wages by 0.42%. Thus, adding one robot reduces employment nationwide by 3.3 workers.

In a separate study of robot adoption in France , Acemoglu and his co-authors found that French manufacturing firms that added robots became more productive and profitable, but that increases in robot use led to a decline in employment industrywide.

Disproportionate impacts

The impact of robots varies among different industries, geographic areas, and population groups. Unsurprisingly, the effect of robots is concentrated in manufacturing. The automotive industry has adopted robots more than any other industry, the researchers write, employing 38% of existing robots with adoption of up to 7.5 robots per thousand workers.

The electronics industry employs 15% of robots, while plastics and chemicals employ 10%. Employees in these industries saw the most negative effects, and researchers also estimate negative effects for workers in construction and retail, as well as personal services.  While the automotive industry adopted robots at a quicker pace and to a greater degree than other sectors, that industry did not drive the study’s results. The impact of robots was consistent when that industry was taken out of the equation, the researchers write. 

The automotive industry employs 38% of existing industrial robots.

Robots are most likely to affect routine manual occupations and lower and middle class workers, and particularly blue-collar workers, including machinists, assemblers, material handlers, and welders, Acemoglu and Restrepo write. Both men and women are affected by adoption of robots, though men slightly more. For men, impacts are seen most in manufacturing jobs. For women, the impacts were seen most in non-manufacturing jobs.

Robots negatively affect workers at all education levels, though workers without college degrees were impacted far more than those with a college degree or more. The researchers also found robot adoption does not have a positive effect on workers with master’s or advanced degrees, which could indicate that unlike other technology, industrial robots are not directly complementing high-skill workers.

Some parts of the United States saw relatively small adoption of robots, while in other states, including Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Texas, and Virginia, robots have been adopted more along the order of two to five robots per thousand workers. In some parts of Texas, that number goes up to five to 10 per thousand workers, the researchers found. Detroit was the commuting zone with the highest exposure to robots.

Overall, robots have a mixed effect: replacing jobs that relatively high-wage manufacturing employees used to perform, while also making firms more efficient and more productive, Acemoglu said. Some areas are most affected by the mixed impact of robots. “In the U.S., especially in the industrial heartland, we find that the displacement effect is large,” he said. “When those jobs disappear, those workers go and take other jobs from lower wage workers. It has a negative effect, and demand goes down for some of the retail jobs and other service jobs.”

Acemoglu and Restrepo emphasize that looking at the future effect of robots includes a great deal of uncertainty, and it is possible the impact on employment and wages could change when robots become more widespread. Industries adopting more robots over the last few decades could have experienced other factors, like declining demand or international competition, and commuting zones could be affected by other negative shocks.

Related Articles

But the researchers said their paper is the first step in exploring the implications of automation, which will become increasingly widespread. There are relatively few robots in the U.S. economy today and the economic impacts could be just beginning.   

Robotic technology is expected to keep expanding, with an aggressive scenario predicting that robots will quadruple worldwide by 2025. This would mean 5.25 more robots per thousand workers in the U.S., and by the researchers’ estimate, a 1 percentage point lower employment-to-population ratio, and 2% lower wage growth between 2015 and 2025. In a more conservative scenario, the stock of robots could increase slightly less than threefold, leading to a 0.6 percentage point decline in the employment-to-population ratio and 1% lower wage growth.

The economic crisis spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic will further exacerbate the good and bad impacts of robots and technology, Acemoglu said. “The good because we are really dependent on digital technologies. If we didn't have these advanced digital technologies, we wouldn't be able to use Zoom or other things for teaching and teleconferencing. We would not be able to keep factories going in many areas because workers haven't fully gotten back to work,” he said. “But at the same time, by the same token, this increases the demand for automation. If the automation process was going too far or had some negative effects, as we find, then those are going to get multiplied as well. So we need to take those into account.”

Read "Robots and Jobs: Evidence from U.S. Labor Markets" 

Robots and your job: how automation is changing the workplace

A new study shows that robots are changing the workplace in unexpected ways. Image:  REUTERS/Arnd Wiegmann

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Knowledge @Wharton

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Artificial Intelligence is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, future of work.

• A new survey-based study has explored how automation is changing the workplace.
• In spite of popular beliefs, robots are not replacing workers, with data showing that increased automation actually leads to more hiring overall.
• However, as a result of technology which reduces human error, managers of high-skilled workers may not be required as much.
• Lynn Wu co-author of The Robot Revolution study encourages leaders to prepare for automation, to maximize the new benefits.

If you’re worried that robots are coming for your job, you can relax — unless you’re a manager.

A new survey-based study explains how automation is reshaping the workplace in unexpected ways. Robots can improve efficiency and quality, reduce costs, and even help create more jobs for their human counterparts. But more robots can also reduce the need for managers.

The study is titled “The Robot Revolution: Managerial and Employment Consequences for Firms.” The co-authors are Lynn Wu , professor of operations, information and decisions at Wharton; Bryan Hong , professor of entrepreneurship and management at the University of Missouri Kansas City’s Bloch School of Management; and Jay Dixon, an economist with Statistics Canada. The researchers said the study, which analyzed five years’ worth of data on businesses in the Canadian economy, is the most comprehensive of its kind on how automation affects employment, labor, strategic priorities, and other aspects of the workplace.

Wu recently spoke with Knowledge@Wharton about the paper and its implications for firms.

More robots, more workers

Contrary to popular belief, robots are not replacing workers. While there is some shedding of employees when firms adopt robots, the data show that increased automation leads to more hiring overall. That’s because robot-adopting firms become so much more productive that they need more people to meet the increased demand in production, Wu explained.

“Any employment loss in our data we found came from the non-adopting firms,” she said. “These firms became less productive, relative to the adopters. They lost their competitive advantage and, as a result, they had to lay off workers.”

Armed with facts about automation, firms need to consider a bigger-picture strategy when bringing in robots, she said.

“The story is really about how do you leverage technology better to become more productive, to become more competitive? And how do you change your managerial firm practices so you can get the most out of your robot technologies?” Wu said.

Have you read?

Will robots be good or bad for our jobs here are lessons from japan, robots will soon be a necessity but they won't take all our jobs, ai and robots could create as many jobs as they displace, robots render some managers obsolete.

Certain kinds of managers become superfluous as businesses increase automation, according to the study. The drop is simply an effect of modern technology, Wu said. As different tasks and processes are automated, human error is drastically reduced. So, too, is the need for close monitoring of that work by managers.

“Technology can generate reports on what the robots did, what material they used, and they can aggregate it at the firm level, division level, to get lots of different operational metrics very easily,” Wu said. “And those are the kinds of things that managers tend to do.”

But it’s a bit more complex than that. The managerial decrease comes from the changing composition of employment. Although robot adoption results in increased employment, the increase is not uniform across skills, Wu said. Low-skilled workers, such as box packers, and high-skilled workers, such as engineers, grow in numbers, but middle-skilled workers become endangered.

“When you see a huge decrease in middle-skilled work and an increase in those extremes — high- and low-skilled labor — it means the type of managers you need to manage this new workforce will be different.”

Someone who supervises low-skilled workers can manage a lot more people when the firm brings in robots because of the standardization and efficiency. But the change is more ambiguous for managers of high-skilled workers. Those employees are typically responsible for innovation, rather than operations, which is harder to measure.

“Highly-skilled professionals are very good at what they do, better than their managers. They don’t need managers to tell them how to do their jobs or make sure they arrive to work on time,” Wu said. “Managing high-skilled workers is much more like coaching or advising. Managers advise them to help them to achieve the best they can at work, and that kind of skill is very different from supervising work.”

The revolution is inevitable

Wu said the robot revolution is “inevitable” given the leaps in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other technologies rapidly transforming the workplace. She encouraged business leaders to embrace the change and explore strategies to maximize the benefits. For example, the study found that robots were associated with greater use of performance-based pay because automation reduces variance. In other words, it’s easier to meet production quotas when robots are on the job. Robots also reduce workplace injuries, according to the study.

“In the next couple of years, you’re going to see huge industry turbulence, if you haven’t seen it already,” she said. “The firms that figure it out, either by luck or by ingenuity, are going to kill it. And the firms that don’t figure it out are not.”

The Top 10 Emerging Technologies of 2023 report outlined the technologies poised to positively impact society in the next few years, from health technology to AI to sustainable computing.

The World Economic Forum’s Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution is driving responsible technology governance, enabling industry transformation, addressing planetary health, and promoting equity and inclusion.

Learn more about our impact:

• Digital inclusion: Our EDISON Alliance is mobilizing leaders from across sectors to accelerate digital inclusion, having positively impacted the lives of 454 million people through the activation of 250 initiatives across 90 countries.
• AI in developing economies: Our Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution Rwanda is promoting the adoption of new technologies in the country, enabling over 4,000 daily health consultations using AI.
• Innovative healthcare: Our Medicine from the Sky initiative is using drones to deliver medicine to remote areas in India, completing over 950 successful drone flights.
• AI for agriculture: We are working with the Government of India to scale up agricultural technology in the country, helping more than 7,000 farmers monitor the health of their crops and soil using AI.

Want to know more about our centre’s impact or get involved? Contact us .

Wu also urged business leaders to be mindful of their low-skilled workers. As a company automates and the middle-skill level shrinks, those entry-level workers lose upward mobility.

“In our old paradigm, we don’t expect people to stay on those jobs forever,” she said. “But now you notice that the career ladder is broken. There is no middle skill to go to. There are no supervisory jobs to go to. That means that the contract, where there is an implicit understanding that you will move up eventually from your low-skilled work, needs to be revisited because it’s changing.”

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:

The agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} weekly.

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Future of Work .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

The six drivers of employee health every employer should know

Jacqueline Brassey, Lars Hartenstein, Patrick Simon and Barbara Jeffery

April 3, 2024

Remote work curbs salaries - new data

Victoria Masterson

March 25, 2024

Women inventors make gains, but gender gaps remain

March 19, 2024

6 work and workplace trends to watch in 2024

Kate Whiting

February 6, 2024

How using genAI to fuse creativity and technology could reshape the way we work

Kathleen O'Reilly

January 24, 2024

What do workers need to learn to stay relevant in the age of AI? Chief learning officers explain

Aarushi Singhania

January 19, 2024

• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

The future of robots in the workplace: The impact on workers

For this 2015 working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, researchers tested economic models to predict how much smart machines may eventually replace human labor.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Rachael Stephens, The Journalist's Resource August 11, 2015

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/economics/robots-in-the-workplace/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Not so long ago the idea of robots patrolling neighborhoods or caring for children was the domain of science fiction. While robots have yet to replace police and daycare workers, technology has become so advanced that automated systems are taking on greater roles in society and the workplace.

Academic research has explored the diverse impacts of technology on employment — what happens when jobs shift elsewhere or when they’re atomized through Internet-enabled technologies. A 2015 study from Uppsala University and the London School of Economics looked the economic impact of industrial robot use in 17 countries from 1993 to 2007 and found that robots contributed to the economy, partly by helping humans do their work better.

A 2015 study for the National Bureau of Economic Research, “Robots Are Us: Some Economics of Human Replacement,” uses an economic model to explore the potential impact of increased workplace automation. The authors — Seth Benzell, Laurence Kotlikoff and Guillermo LaGarda of Boston University and Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University — develop a model that calculated the initial and final states of an economy with two inputs to production (capital and code) and two types of workers (low-tech and high-tech). They then tested the impact that variations on workplace conditions and industrial policies will have on the economy.

Key findings of the study include:

• Increased workplace automation could produce both “economic misery” and prosperity. Specifically, three consequences were found to be highly probable: “A long-run decline in labor share of income (which appears underway in OECD members), tech-booms followed by tech-busts, and a growing dependency of current output on past software investment.”
• As technology improves and its use in the workplace expands, the demand for high-tech workers falls. At the end of the simulation, nearly 68% of high-tech workers end up in the service sector, earning approximately 14% less than they did previously.
• As high-tech workers return to the service sector, the wages of low-tech workers rise 41%, then fall to 17% above the initial steady state wage — higher than the initial state, but lower than during the “boom.” In effect, the drop in high-tech worker compensation generates a boom-bust in low-tech worker compensation.
• In the long run, national income increases in the short term, but then falls by 17%.
• Adding a “positive tech shock” — a technical innovation that increases reduces costs or increases productivity — to the model causes a 13% short-term increase in national income, but national income then falls again by 28%, ending up lower than in the initial steady state.
• During a positive tech shock, labor’s share of national income also rises in the short-term but then falls, from 75 to 57%.
• The positive tech shock also causes consumption of goods to decrease by 28%, and the price of services to decrease by 43% as compared to before the technological breakthrough.
• Some public policy options were found to reduce the negative long-term impacts on workers and the economy. For example, a high national saving rate mitigates the impacts of a positive tech shock, resulting in workers earning very near their initial steady state wages (rather than far less), but able to consume 20% more with those wages than they were before the shock.
• Some policies to mitigate the negative effects were found to be likely to backfire, including requiring that all code be open source or restricting the labor supply — these solutions were found to further hurt wages, savings and capital stock.

The authors conclude: “Our simple model illustrates the range of things that smart machines can do for us and to us. Its central message is disturbing. Absent appropriate fiscal policy that redistributes from winners to losers, smart machines can mean long-term misery for all.”

Keywords: technology, artificial intelligence, AI, robotics

About The Author

Rachael Stephens

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Farhad Manjoo

In the Battle With Robots, Human Workers Are Winning

By Farhad Manjoo

Opinion Columnist

Why do I still have a job?

It’s a question readers ask me often, but I mean it more universally: Why do so many of us still have jobs?

It’s 2022, and computers keep stunning us with their achievements. Artificial intelligence systems are writing , drawing , creating videos , diagnosing diseases, dreaming up new molecules for medicine and doing much else to make their parents very proud. Yet somehow we sacks of meat — though prone to exhaustion, distraction, injury and sometimes spectacular error — remain in high demand . How did this happen? Weren’t humans supposed to have been replaced by now — or at least severely undermined by the indefatigable go-getter robots who were said to be gunning for our jobs?

I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently. In part it’s because I was among the worriers — I started warning about the coming robotic threat to human employment in 2011 . As the decade progressed and artificial intelligence systems began to surpass even their inventors’ expectations , evidence for the danger seemed to pile up. In 2013, a study by an Oxford economist and an A.I. scientist estimated that 47 percent of jobs are “at risk” of being replaced by computers. In 2017, the McKinsey Global Institute estimated that automation could displace hundreds of millions of workers by 2030, and global economic leaders were discussing what to do about the “robocalypse.” In the 2020 campaign, A.I.’s threat to employment became a topic of presidential debates .

Even then, predictions of robot dominance were not quite panning out, but the pandemic and its aftermath ought to radically shift our thinking. Now, as central bankers around the world are rushing to cool labor markets and tame inflation — a lot of policymakers are hoping that this week’s employment report shows declining demand for new workers — a few economic and technological truths have become evident.

First, humans have been underestimated. It turns out that we (well, many of us) are really amazing at what we do, and for the foreseeable future we are likely to prove indispensable across a range of industries, especially column-writing. Computers, meanwhile, have been overestimated. Though machines can look indomitable in demonstrations, in the real world A.I. has turned out to be a poorer replacement for humans than its boosters have prophesied.

What’s more, the entire project of pitting A.I. against people is beginning to look pretty silly, because the likeliest outcome is what has pretty much always happened when humans acquire new technologies — the technology augments our capabilities rather than replaces us. Is “ this time different ,” as many Cassandras took to warning over the past few years? It’s looking like not. Decades from now I suspect we’ll have seen that artificial intelligence and people are like peanut butter and jelly: better together.

It was a recent paper by Michael Handel, a sociologist at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that helped me clarify the picture. Handel has been studying the relationship between technology and jobs for decades, and he’s been skeptical of the claim that technology is advancing faster than human workers can adapt to the changes. In the recent analysis, he examined long-term employment trends across more than two dozen job categories that technologists have warned were particularly vulnerable to automation. Among these were financial advisers, translators, lawyers, doctors, fast-food workers, retail workers, truck drivers, journalists and, poetically, computer programmers.

His upshot: Humans are pretty handily winning the job market. Job categories that a few years ago were said to be doomed by A.I. are doing just fine. The data show “little support” for “the idea of a general acceleration of job loss or a structural break with trends pre-dating the A.I. revolution,” Handel writes.

Consider radiologists, high-paid medical doctors who undergo years of specialty training to diagnose diseases through imaging procedures like X-rays and MRIs. As a matter of technology, what radiologists do looks highly susceptible to automation. Machine learning systems have made computers very good at this sort of task; if you feed a computer enough chest X-rays showing diseases, for instance, it can learn to diagnose those conditions — often faster and with accuracy rivaling or exceeding that of human doctors.

Such developments once provoked alarm in the field. In 2016, an article in The Journal of the American College of Radiology warned that machine learning “could end radiology as a thriving speciality.” The same year, Geoffrey Hinton, one of the originators of machine learning, said that “people should stop training radiologists now” because it was “completely obvious that within five years deep learning is going to be better than radiologists.”

Hinton later added that it could take 10 years, so he may still prove correct — but Handel points out that the numbers aren’t looking good for him. Rather than dying as an occupation, radiology has seen steady growth; between 2000 and 2019, the number of radiologists whose main activity was patient care grew by an average of about 15 percent per decade, Handel found. Some in the field are even worried about a looming shortage of radiologists that will result in longer turnaround times for imagining diagnoses.

How did radiologists survive the A.I. invasion? In a 2019 paper in the journal Radiology Artificial Intelligence, Curtis Langlotz, a radiologist at Stanford, offered a few reasons . One is that humans still routinely outperform machines — even if computers can get very good at spotting certain kind of diseases, they may lack data to diagnose rarer conditions that human experts with experience can easily spot. Radiologists are also adaptable; technological advances (like CT scans and MRIs) have been common in the field, and one of the primary jobs of a human radiologist is to understand and protect patients against the shortcomings of technologies used in the practice. Other experts have pointed to the complications of the health care industry — questions about insurance, liability, patient comfort, ethics and business consolidation may be just as important to the rollout of a new technology as its technical performance.

Langlotz concluded that “Will A.I. replace radiologists?” is “the wrong question.” Instead, he wrote, “The right answer is: Radiologists who use A.I. will replace radiologists who don’t.”

Similar trends have played out in lots of other jobs thought to vulnerable to A.I. Will truck drivers be outmoded by self-driving trucks? Perhaps someday, but as The Times’s A.I. reporter Cade Metz recently pointed out, the technology is perpetually just a few years away from being ready and is “a long way from the moment trucks can drive anywhere on their own.” No wonder, then, the end of the road for truck drivers is nowhere near — the government projects that the number of truck-driving jobs will grow over the next decade.

How about fast-food workers, who were said to be replaceable by robotic food-prep machines and self-ordering kiosks? They’re safe too, Chris Kempczinski, the C.E.O. of McDonald’s, said in an earnings call this summer. Even with a shortage of fast-food workers, robots “may be great for garnering headlines” but are simply “not practical for the vast majority of restaurants,” he said.

It’s possible, even likely, that all of these systems will improve. But there’s no evidence it will happen overnight, or quickly enough to result in catastrophic job losses in the short term.

“I don’t want to minimize the pain and adjustment costs for people who are impacted by technological change,” Handel told me. “But when you look at it, you just don’t see a lot — you just don’t see anything as much as being claimed.”

Office Hours With Farhad Manjoo

Farhad wants to chat with readers on the phone . If you’re interested in talking to a New York Times columnist about anything that’s on your mind, please fill out this form. Farhad will select a few readers to call.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here's our email: [email protected] .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram .

Farhad Manjoo became an Opinion columnist for The Times in 2018. Before that, they wrote the State of the Art column. They are the author of “True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society.” @ fmanjoo • Facebook

The Robot Report

Intelligent robots in the workplace – present and future outlook

By Dan Kara | March 1, 2021

The COVID-19 pandemic forced businesses to innovate, including utilizing workplace robots. From telepresence capabilities to UV disinfection, mobile robots empowered people and provided business value. But even as the infection fades, their use will continue and expand.

The pandemic fueled the need for new business thinking, along with the utilization of new technologies, including workplace robots. But the adoption and use of robots in the workplace will not be temporary. Workplace robots not only solve complex, short-term challenges, they can also help drive operational productivity and cultural sustainability for years to come. Workplace robots empower people, enable business processes, and improve the workplace.

With the onset of the Covid pandemic, businesses sought more robust solutions to better support their increasingly distributed workforce. As a result, telepresence robots received significant attention.

For many businesses, having remote team members can make it difficult for some to feel truly present in conversations and in-office activities. Remote workers can miss out on interactional nuances that promote morale and team chemistry. In addition, business outcomes suffer when people disconnect or question their ability to make an impact.

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, businesses sought more robust solutions to better support their increasingly distributed workforce. As a result, telepresence robots received significant attention.

Remote Presence and Collaboration Telepresence robots empower people to be more ‘present’ during virtual interactions. With robotic telepresence systems, remote users can autonomously navigate to a desired workplace location and seamlessly interact with others through advanced video conferencing capabilities. Spontaneous, personalized interaction allows for a more immersive, meaningful way for people to collaborate and connect.

While COVID-19 has highlighted the importance of UV disinfection, this technology has been used prior to the pandemic (to fight other pathogens, including MRSA, for example), and will be used well into the future as cleanliness and employee safety continue to be top of mind.

Critical Capabilities and Business Value While there are a variety of mobile telepresence systems in the marketplace, not all are created equal. To provide truly effective collaboration and an immersive experience for both remote users and those who are on-location, a number of critical capabilities, that distinguish a valuable business solution from video conferencing on wheels, must be supported. They include:

• Navigation and Mobility – The ability to navigate a workplace autonomously is critical to the user experience. Telepresence robots that provide advanced mapping capabilities and collision avoidance allow operators to efficiently and autonomously navigate to desired locations with ease. Operators are not required to the exact layout of an oftentimes unfamiliar space. Also, on-site team members remain free from any manual headaches.
• Ease of Use – Easy-to-use interfaces allow for more control and customization of the experience. Position adjustments such as sitting, standing, looking up or down and moving closer empower employees, customers, and clients to feel physically present in the space and immersed in the experience.
• Video Quality – The experience for both the operator and those physically present depends on the quality of the video. Having a crystal-clear view of one’s surroundings and reliable audio can be the difference between seamless collaboration and feeling disconnected from the team.

Disinfection for Workplace Health & Safety While telepresence applications are addressing collaboration challenges, other mobile robotics systems that can autonomously navigate are providing business value in other ways. For example, ultraviolet (UV) disinfection robots are used to deliver new workplace health and safety protocols and expectations. Autonomous UV robots, which can disinfect both air and surfaces, can supplement HVAC and manual cleaning services already in place at many businesses.

COVID-19 has revealed the importance of UV disinfection, but the technology has been in use before the pandemic (to fight other pathogens, including MRSA, for example), and will be employed well into the future as cleanliness and employee safety continue to be top of mind. While there is no silver bullet disinfection solution, mobile robots can become a new business best practice for workplace health and safety.

UV disinfection robots provide value that goes beyond destroying COVID-19 and general cleaning. They are becoming part of a larger, sustained trend toward increased corporate responsibility and people-focused workplace solutions. The ultimate goal is to help businesses do everything in their power to keep anyone in their workplace as safe as possible, increasing both employee and customer trust and confidence in the process.

A More Intelligent Workplace The workplace experience is currently being evaluated and evolved with a critical eye — a process that is long overdue. Technology solutions like mobile telepresence systems and UV robots, whose adoption has been accelerated by the massive business and social transitions brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, will emerge as mainstays in the workplace, not to replace people, but to work for and with them. These same systems also provide businesses with a real opportunity to transform operationally, as well as culturally, putting productivity and people at the forefront.

About the Author

About The Author

Dan Kara is Vice President, Research & Analyst Services at WTWH Media. He can be reached at [email protected].

Related Articles Read More >

Kiwibot acquires AUTO to strengthen delivery robot security

NEURA and Omron Robotics partner to offer cognitive factory automation

Top 10 robotics news stories of March 2024

OmniOn looks to power, network next-gen delivery robots

Search the robot report.

• Batteries / Power Supplies
• Cameras / Imaging / Vision
• Controllers
• End Effectors
• Microprocessors / SoCs
• Motion Control
• Soft Robotics
• Software / Simulation
• Artificial Intelligence
• Human Robot Interaction / Haptics
• Mobility / Navigation
• Collaborative Robots
• Self-Driving Vehicles
• Unmanned Maritime Systems
• Investments
• Mergers & Acquisitions
• Agriculture
• Manufacturing
• RBR50 Winners 2023
• RBR50 Winners 2022
• RBR50 Winners 2021
• Realizing a Data-Driven Warehouse
• Supporting the Growth of AGVs and AMRs in the Warehouse
• Digital Issues
• Automated Warehouse
• Collaborative Robotics Trends
• Mobile Robot Guide
• Search Robotics Database
• Webinars / Digital Events
• RoboBusiness
• Robotics Summit & Expo
• DeviceTalks
• R&D 100
• Robotics Weeks

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
• PMC10123460

The Use of Robots in the Workplace: Conclusions from a Health Promoting Intervention Using Social Robots

Sara l. lopes.

1 Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (Iscte-IUL) & Business Research Unit (BRU-IUL), Iscte-IUL, Lisbon, Portugal

Aristides I. Ferreira

2 INESC-ID & Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

Workplace wellness programs constitute a preventive measure to help avoid healthcare costs for companies, with additional benefits for employee productivity and other organizational outcomes. Interventions using social robots may have some advantages over other conventional telemedicine applications, since they can deliver personalized feedback and counseling. This investigation focused on a health-promoting intervention within work environments, and compared the efficacy of the intervention on two distinct groups, one guided by a human agent and the other by a robot agent. Participants (n = 56) were recruited from two Portuguese organizations and led through eight sessions by the social agent, the goal being to encourage health behavior change and adoption of a healthier lifestyle. The results indicate that the group led by the robot agent revealed better post-intervention scores than the group led by the human agent, specifically with regard to productivity despite presenteeism and regard of their level of mental well-being. No effects were found concerning the work engagement level of participants in either group. By demonstrating the potential of using social robots to establish therapeutic and worth relationships with employees in their workplaces, this study provides interesting new findings that contribute to the literature on health behavior change and human–robot interaction.

Introduction

The last few years have been marked by the emergence and establishment of Industry 4.0 and with it, several technological advances that are making robotics more and more ubiquitous in everyday life. This has opened up new possibilities and applications regarding the use of social robots, including in health applications [ 1 ]. Social robots can be useful in a variety of ways and settings, such as in hospitals, in healthcare and therapy, as well as for promoting the adoption of health behaviors [ 2 ]. What is more, social robots could also have some advantages over other telemedicine applications, since they can deliver personalized behavioral change interventions [ 3 ], and may be able to meet individuals’ needs and help them achieve their personal goals. Workplace wellness and health promotion programs constitute preventive measures that can help companies to avoid healthcare costs, increase productivity, and enhance other organizational outcomes, as well as improving employees’ well-being [ 4 ]. Such programs, based on health behavior change, are developed to help individuals adjust their health behaviors and, ultimately, to adopt healthier lifestyles [ 5 ]. In general, workplace interventions focus on chronic health conditions and their associated multiple health risk factors [ 6 ]. Some of these conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, high cholesterol, smoking, stress and sedentarism, are among the most common and preventable health concerns, since they are directly related to lifestyle risk factors [ 6 ]. However, most workplace intervention programs are not theory-driven and very few provide personalized feedback [ 7 ]. Many are based on the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA), which is a theoretical framework designed to understand health behavior change [ 8 ]. Taking a broader view, health behavior change programs have been linked to improvements in workers’ satisfaction, lower absenteeism, promoting a sense of community, and improvements in long-term health [ 9 ].

Workplace health promotion programs are also linked to lower levels of presenteeism [ 10 ]. Presenteeism is the term used to describe the act, or culture, of employees working while not in full health [ 11 ], which often has hidden costs for organizations. Several approaches have been linked to presenteeism, such as the job demands-resources (JD-R) model [ 12 ]. This model states that presenteeism may arise because of a lack of resources in the workplace, causing stress to employees and forcing them to deal with extreme job demands [ 13 ]. As an innovative solution to address the issue of increased presenteeism, it has been suggested that intervention programs should focus on helping workers learn how to cope better with job demands while, at the same time, ensuring adequate workplace resources [ 13 ]. With this in mind, it is possible that robots could be used as an important workplace resource to reduce the demands that contribute to presenteeism and help employees to adopt healthier behaviors.

Past research has already endeavored to determine the possibilities of social robotics helping to prevent presenteeism behaviors. The work of [ 14 ] acknowledged that social robots have the potential to be more readily accepted than a human colleague in situations where individuals are working ill. Consequently, they can assist workers whose health status makes it difficult for them to accomplish work demands.

Although some health conditions can be improved by health behavior change, that behavioral change can be difficult to maintain, especially over the long term, as reported in previous research [ 5 , 7 , 9 , 36 ]. When compared with other telemedicine applications, interventions using social robots may prove to provide greater benefits since they promote human–robot interaction, where social robots can ask questions, give feedback, and can offer advice that is personalized to the user [ 1 , 19 , 22 , 25 ]. However, these advantages may only occur if interactions with the social robot agent are incorporated in several sessions over a longer period of time.

Bearing this in mind, and with presenteeism and the theoretical background of the HAPA in the frame, the purpose of this present investigation was to develop a longitudinal health promoting intervention using both a social robot and a human in the roles of health-promoting agents. We focused on four groups of lifestyle risk factors: physical inactivity, nutrition habits, tobacco consumption and stress management. These are the ones related to a higher incidence of chronic ill-health [ 6 ], besides also being those that are more prevalent in workplace scenarios [ 15 ]. We compared participants’ outcomes against a set of variables that were measured before the investigation (Time 1) and after the intervention with the social agent (Time 2) to assess the role of a robotic agent versus a human agent in a health-promoting intervention.

This research aims to contribute to presenteeism literature by using an intervention to show the impact that workplace illness has on productivity and other organizational outcomes, such as work engagement and role ambiguity. Moreover, we are also interested in contributing to the HAPA theoretical framework by providing an application of this model through a robotic agent, following previous work using HAPA-driven technological health interventions [ 16 , 17 ]. This can also contribute to the JD-R model [ 12 ], by providing managers with an innovative solution for reducing the job demands associated with presenteeism. Finally, this work can contribute to our knowledge of the socio-cognitive aspects involved in interaction between humans and robots and to the field of human–robot interaction overall.

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

Social robots as health-promoting agents.

The use of social robots to provide guidance for health behavior change can offer greater flexibility than ‘normal’ telemedicine methods can [ 2 ]. This study follows the definition of a social robot given by the authors Bartneck and Forlizzi (p. 2) [ 18 ]: “a social robot is an autonomous or semi-autonomous robot that interacts and communicates with humans by following the behavioral norms expected by the people with whom the robot is intended to interact”. Social robots have been used to provide therapeutic assistance in healthcare for a wide range of users, from children to adults and even for the elderly [ 19 , 20 ]. They can be used to motivate, coach, educate, provide feedback and social support, and thus improve compliance with health behavior change programs. Previous research has previously established that social robots can “humanely care” for people suffering from physical or mental problems [ 21 ]. In this way, since social robots can establish personalized and affective relationships with users, they can help them meet specific targets, such as mental and behavioral goals [ 2 ], and they can also help improve individuals’ quality of life [ 22 ]. Given the difficulties that organizations and public health systems encounter with regard to providing face-to-face individualized health counseling [ 23 ], using social robots may afford opportunities to improve access to health promotion programs and encourage health behavioral change [ 24 ].

The literature on human–robot interaction is rich in interventions showing that robots can be used to improve individuals’ psychological and physical health. A meta-analysis by Costescu et al. [ 22 ] revealed the medium-size significant effect of robot-enhanced therapy on improving behavioral and cognitive aspects for individuals involved in psychotherapy treatments. Another meta-analysis regarding the use of social robots in mental health and wellness interventions revealed significant differences in patients' mood and quality of life, after intervention with the robot [ 3 ].

Another investigation that used a social robot to provide personalized feedback for health promotion found that patients reported being just as comfortable discussing health-related topics with a robot as with a human [ 25 ]. Furthermore, a pilot randomized controlled trial found that people reduced the average number of high-calorie foods and drinks after completing an intervention with the robot, without any human involvement [ 26 ].

Despite these interesting findings, there are nevertheless still some gaps in the literature on human–robot interaction. First, most of the studies are published in robotics journals, where the focus is almost exclusively on the technical details of robots, rather than on the intervening variables and methodological details [ 22 ]. With the present investigation, we aim to emphasize some psychological and organizational aspects that can be relevant in the interaction between humans and robots. Moreover, we intend to make a comparison between two groups of participants, one where the intervention is led by a robotic agent and the other by a human agent. To our knowledge, although this constitutes an unusual methodological approach, it provides an important opportunity to shed light on the key differences between interaction with humans and interaction with robots. In line with that, the use of robots for therapy and counseling purposes has so far been limited to education and engagement concerning healthcare issues [ 24 ]. Dialogue and interaction between a human and a robot have not been a crucial focus, although recent investigations have demonstrated that individuals report feeling more comfortable discussing health issues with robots than with a human counselor, since robots are perceived as nonjudgmental [ 24 ]. In order, therefore, to thoroughly understand the effect this may have on health behavior change, this study centers on the dialogue and interaction between the participants and the robot agent. What is more, social robots might possess characteristics that could lead individuals to perform better in health-promoting interventions led by them rather than by human counselors.

The field of human–robot interaction has been guided by debates concerning the capability of humans to establish empathetic and trustworthy relationships with social robots [ 27 ]. These processes have been analyzed extensively in human–robot interaction research through socio-cognitive explanations, and a large body of research has found that people do empathize with and even trust robots [ 28 , 29 ]. Moreover, social robots can also engage in actions to reduce individuals’ stress, in the form of social supportive behaviors [ 29 ]. This means that although robots do not possess a real consciousness, they can demonstrate empathetic and trustworthy behaviors [ 30 ]. This happens because humans apply the same socio-cognitive processes when interacting with social robots as when interacting with other humans [ 31 , 32 ]. Therefore, interaction with social robots can be easy if social robots display rich social behavior and social feature levels similar to those of humans [ 33 ]. All of this provides further evidence to suggest that people feel more comfortable discussing health-related issues with robots than with human agents, since robots are considered to be more tolerant, nonjudgmental, and capable of demonstrating empathic behaviors [ 1 ].

However, the ethical issues raised by interactions between humans and robots have been repeatedly and rightly raised. It is up to businesses to take the first steps in ensuring that robots in the workplace truly help users and are not used solely to reduce an organization's operational costs. Employees need to feel that they can trust these robotic agents, in order for these types of interventions to produce positive outcomes [ 34 ]. Robotic systems are designed by humans, and the majority of social robots require human assistance, so this can inspire confidence that robots are not here to replace us, but to help and assist us [ 34 ]. Companies must also guarantee data use and privacy. Aside from that, organizations must recognize and accept that some employees may be afraid of interacting with social robots and would prefer only human interaction/collaboration. Nevertheless, prior research has already established that individuals are willing to accept social robots in their work environments [ 14 , 25 , 26 ].

Furthermore, little is known about the potential social robots have to improve the health and well-being of individuals in working populations (Sebo et al. [ 35 ]). As work environments are places where individuals spend the majority of their time, they are ideal settings for the application of human–robot interventions. Given the previously mentioned gaps in the literature and following recent recommendations concerning the use of robots in workplaces (e.g., [ 35 ]), this investigation focuses on the potential of using a social robot as a health-promoting agent within work environments. Ultimately, although most health behavior change interventions track health outcomes throughout multiple sessions or over time, this has not been the case with robotic interventions. These are usually developed in single-one contexts [ 25 ], which may lead to a dim view being taken of using robots as health-promoting agents. In this present intervention, we aimed to make it longitudinal, with multiple sessions and multiple interactions with the health promoting agent.

The HAPA Model and Healthy Behaviors in the Workplace

The HAPA model, developed by Schwarzer [ 8 , 36 ] suggests that the adoption, initiation, and maintenance of health behaviors result from a set of social-cognitive predictors that operate by translating intentions into behaviors [ 37 ]. The distinguishing aspect of this research resides in applying the HAPA model in an intervention delivered by an artificial intelligence machine, with the purpose of promoting healthier behaviors among employees. Although several other investigations have applied HAPA to health behavior change interventions, to the best of our knowledge none of those HAPA interventions have compared the efficacy of the intervention with a human agent versus a robot agent, much less with a set of individual and organizational variables. Our goal is to compare the role of a human agent and a robotic agent in a health-promoting intervention, by comparing participants’ results against a set of variables that were measured prior to the investigation (Time 1) and after the intervention (Time 2).

People often engage in lifestyle risk behaviors that can compromise their physical and psychological health [ 6 ]. Beyond the direct consequences for the individual, these behaviors impose a substantial burden on society’s health care resources [ 24 ] and, in turn, on organizations and companies. Workplace health programs, which are interventions designed to reduce health care costs, focus on discouraging unhealthy behaviors, such as physical inactivity, tobacco consumption, poor dietary habits, and stress & anxiety [ 4 ]. Health risk behaviors such as these are highly related to the most common chronic illnesses in the workplace, such as cardiovascular diseases, cancer, diabetes, cholesterol, and obesity, which are also the most preventable of all health concerns [ 6 ]. Health interventions in work environments are needed to help individuals change their health behaviors, yet companies often encounter difficulties along the way that impede the widespread implementation of such programs. One such obstacle is insufficient employee interest, especially among those workers with high-risk factors who would benefit most from participating [ 6 ].

Workplace health programs to encourage behavior change can embrace different types of interventions, from biometric screening to provide clinical measures of health, to wellness activities designed to promote healthy lifestyles through physical activity, healthier eating habits, and gambits to help stop smoking and manage stress [ 4 ]. Most participants engaged in health style programs mention the lack of motivational support to adopt and maintain lifestyle changes [ 24 ]. However, some of the obstacles encountered may come from the work environments themselves. A previous investigation revealed that workloads, temptations around the office and time constraints were reported as being the workplace obstacles most associated with a lack of engagement in adopting healthy lifestyles [ 15 ]. For that reason, it is particularly vital to not only understand how such factors in the workplace can influence workers’ health behaviors, but to also investigate their relationship with some key organizational variables [ 15 ]. Below, we explore some relationships between health behaviors and some organizational and individual outcomes.

The Relationship Between Health, Productivity, Engagement and Mental Well-Being

There is abundant evidence in the literature that suggests individuals’ health and well-being are related to several productivity outcomes affected by both presenteeism and absenteeism [ 4 , 38 , 39 ]. Investing in workers’ health, by means of preventive interventions aimed at discouraging unhealthy behaviors may improve employees’ on-the-job performance and productivity. Since poor employee health is directly related to lower productivity [ 40 ], wellness programs targeting physical activity and nutrition have been applied in organizations and have yielded satisfactory results concerning productivity outcomes [ 41 ]. Many previous studies have shown that health-related problems are associated with higher absenteeism and presenteeism [ 41 – 43 ]. This means that besides the evident benefits for individuals, workplace health programs can result in productivity gains for companies. Social robots can be used in workplace health programs, with the additional advantage that they may be able to reduce the demands that contribute to presenteeism.

There is evidence in the field of human–robot interaction that individuals’ productivity can improve when a robotic agent is present, as opposed to situations with no robotic presence [ 44 , 45 ]. As stated earlier, previous work has established that people can engage in empathetic and trustworthy relationships with robots because they are perceived as supportive, reliable, and tolerant [ 1 ]. These aspects may help to improve the intervention scores of the individuals followed by the robot agent. More specifically, this may result in better health-related outcomes, and consequently, higher productivity. Thus, we formulate the following hypothesis:

The intervention with the robot agent will be associated with an improvement in individuals’ productivity despite sickness presenteeism at Time 2. Specifically, those participants will have post-test scores for productivity despite presenteeism, that are significantly higher than the scores of the group with the human agent.

Employee engagement has been an organizational variable conceptualized in several ways, all of which incorporate behavioral, cognitive and affective dimensions [ 46 ]. For this paper, we focused on workers’ emotional and behavioral reactions, analyzing both physical and emotional engagement. Physical engagement concerns the investment of effort, physical energy, and hard work with regard to task completion, whereas emotional engagement concerns emotional and affective reactions related to the work role itself [ 47 ].

Previous research [ 41 ] raised awareness of the relationship between health conditions and the correlations with employee engagement, and other investigations have clearly shown that work engagement is associated with a wide range of work and health outcomes which, in turn, are associated with workers’ increased quality of life and positive work-related behaviors [ 48 ]. Engagement has been conceptualized as an organizational variable with specific behavioral, cognitive and affective dimensions that help individuals commit to their work [ 49 ].

Overall, there has been a little effort to integrate work engagement in the literature on human–robot interaction. Indeed, the literature has so far revealed that individuals can become emotionally attached to robots, which may lead them to become more engaged in their tasks [ 50 ]. Since better health is related to greater engagement levels [ 48 ], we can consider that the health-intervention with the robot agent would improve individuals’ engagement levels and consequently improve post-intervention scores. We rely again on the assumption that the interaction with the robot agent will lead to better post-intervention scores than the intervention with the human agent, since social robots possess affective attributes that can help sustain people’s engagement, motivation, and provide social support [ 1 ]. The robot agent may also be a valuable resource for reducing the demands associated with presenteeism, such as in the case of work engagement [ 13 ]. For this reason we postulate:

The intervention with the robot agent will be associated with an improvement in individuals’ engagement at Time 2. Specifically, those participants will have post-test scores for engagement significantly higher than the scores of the group with the human agent.

There is growing interest in the concept of mental well-being and its overall implications with regard to aspects of human life, including work-life aspects [ 51 ]. While it may be evident that physical activity, good dietary habits and no tobacco consumption can directly improve general well-being and quality of life [ 52 ], their association with mental well-being may not be particularly clear. Mental well-being is described as a complex construct focused on the subjective experience of life satisfaction, happiness, self-realization, and aspects of psychological functioning [ 51 ]. Indeed, being linked to some behavioral risk factors such as tobacco consumption, obesity, lack of physical activity and poor dietary habits [ 53 ], mental well-being has emerged as an important predictor of general health and longevity. Therefore, given that poor mental well-being is generally associated with physical diseases and unhealthy lifestyles, it has become an important public health concern [ 53 ].

Interestingly, a notable number of studies on human–robot interactions have revealed that social robots can assist people to easily improve their psychological outcomes [ 3 , 22 ]. Social robots can provide comfort, listen without interrupting, and give support [ 24 ]. They are also seen as being free from the “social baggage” associated with human counsellors and therapists, making them appear nonjudgmental in a way that nurtures willingness to disclose [ 1 ]. Moreover, social robots can be used as a job resource (in the form of social support) that can assist individuals in some aspects of the psychosocial work environment that may have an impact on their mental health. For these reasons, we consider that the participants guided by the social robot will have better well-being levels at post-intervention scores than the group guided by the human agent. We hypothesized:

The intervention with the robot agent will be associated with an improvement in individuals’ mental well-being level at Time 2. Specifically, those participants will have post-test scores for mental well-being significantly higher than the scores of the group with the human agent.

Overall, one of the main purposes of the present investigation is to compare the effect a health behavior intervention has on two distinct groups: one guided by a robotic agent and the other guided by a human agent. As can be seen from our hypotheses 1 to 3, we are interested in investigating what effect the type of agent has on each of the outcome variables. More specifically, we wish to determine whether the effect of the robotic agent is associated with better results for the outcome measures (productivity despite sickness presenteeism, engagement and mental well-being), or whether intervention guided by the robotic agent may be related to some outcomes but not others. For the last hypothesis, we intend to test whether the type of agent (robot or human) can influence post-intervention scores in all outcome measures:

The type of agent will influence the levels of productivity despite presenteeism, the levels of engagement and the levels of mental well-being in the post-intervention scores.

Participants

Sixty-eight participants were recruited from two Portuguese organizations, from services and retail providers, and invited to participate in a health promotion program. Prior to the beginning of the study, the research team obtained written consent from participants. Ethical approval was gained from the ethics committees of the two universities involved in the investigation (code 69/2019 and code 17/2019), confirming that the robot’s behavior did not involve considerable risks for the participants. Specifically, the two ethical approvals were centered on participant anonymity, data confidentiality, informed consent, and the absence of risk for the participants during contacts with the robot or human agent. Additionally, the ethics committees at both universities believed that holding the debriefing at the conclusion of the study would lessen any discomfort the participants may have experienced throughout the sessions. Ten participants dropped out over the course of the sessions and two did not complete the final assessment at Time 2, resulting in a final dataset of fifty-six valid participants. From this fifty-six, thirty-seven were randomly assigned to the robot agent condition and nineteen were randomly assigned to the human agent condition. Concerning the participants’ distribution throughout the 4 health-related conditions, this was as follows: 23 subjects for the physical activity intervention (16 for the robot agent condition and 7 for the human agent condition), 18 for the nutrition habits (11 for the robot agent condition and 7 for the human agent condition), 4 subjects for tobacco consumption intervention (3 for the robot agent condition and 1 for the human agent condition), and 11 for stress and anxiety (7 for the robot agent condition and 4 for the human agent condition). This distribution was established at the end of the first session, because participants had the opportunity to confirm or modify the health-related focus of their participation during this session. The participants received no reward or compensation of any kind.

Ages ranged between 22 and 53 years old ( M  = 37.66; SD  = 8.67). 74.5% of the sample were female and 25.5% were male. The majority of the participants were married (40%), or living in a non-marital partnership (29.1%). In terms of academic qualifications, the sample is highly qualified—56.4% reported to have at least completed an undergraduate degree. 92.6% also reported having a permanent contract with the company. Several independent sample t tests were performed in order to ensure there were no significant differences between the two groups concerning age ( t (48)  = .677, p  = .252), gender ( t (53)  = − .926, p  = .179) and academic qualifications ( t (53)  = − .450, p  = .327).

It is important to state that, for the robot agent condition, the research team asked whether each participant had previously interacted with a social robot. None of the participants said yes, this was the first experience for everyone.

Materials—EMYS Robot (for the Robot Agent Condition)

The robot used in this research is EMYS, a social robot with a system designed to simulate certain features of the human mind (Fig.  1 ). Although EMYS can operate autonomously, it does not always need to act autonomously, sometimes it can be assisted by a human. In order to meet the investigations’ purposes, the research team chose to operate EMYS in a semi-autonomous system, so the dialogues and feedback provided by the robot could be more similar to those of a human.

The EMYS robot used in the present investigation

EMYS has a head and no body, it can move its head, speak, and use certain facial expressions to connect with the user. The robot has been especially designed for human–robot interaction experiments. The paradigm used to operate the robot was the “Wizard of Oz” paradigm. This method involves simulating autonomy with a human "assistant", manipulating the robot's behavioral features, in particular, its speech. The EMYS robot is commonly applied in interventions in the field of human–robot interaction (e.g., [ 54 , 55 ]). Although the participants believed the robot was completely autonomous, in reality, it was controlled by a researcher. The intention was that the participants would not realize this.

Intervention Design and Content

The intervention lasted 3 months, from completion of the baseline assessment to completion of the post-intervention questionnaire. During the baseline assessment, each participant was able to choose a health-related behavior they would like their participation to focus on. There were four possibilities: physical activity, nutrition habits, tobacco consumption and stress and anxiety. Afterwards, they were randomly distributed between the two conditions (robot agent condition or human agent condition). During the first session with the agent (human or robot), participants had the chance to confirm or modify the health-related focus of their participation.

In total, each participant had eight sessions with the agent over eight weeks (one session of 20–30 min per week). Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, all the sessions occurred in a videoconference format, via Microsoft platform Teams. With the participants’ consent, all the sessions were recorded. In the final assessment, when responding to a question regarding the videoconference format of the investigation, 78.6% of the participants responded that the research format had not compromised their commitment to, or performance of the investigation. A t test was performed in order to ensure there were no differences between the participants who answered that the research format had not compromised their commitment and those who answered that it might have compromised it ( t (54)  = .048, p  = .481).

The intervention targeted multiple behavior change techniques that mapped onto the constructs in the motivational and volitional phases of the HAPA framework [ 8 ]. This socio-cognitive model aimed at describing, explaining and modifying health behaviors within individuals has been applied in several interventions, with good results in promoting health behavior change [ 16 , 56 ]. In this intervention, participants were guided by the agents to set goals, monitor their behavior, elaborate action plans and coping strategies, and increase their self-efficacy by watching videos and reading testimonials. Specifically, throughout the eight sessions, the social agent (human or robot) targeted the following constructs: outcome expectancies (e.g., the agent encouraged the individuals to formulate their own potential pros and cons of the health behavior change); self-efficacy (e.g., instructions were given and effective behaviors were role-modeled); risk perceptions (e.g., the agent gave information about the existence of health risks); social influences (e.g., the agent asked individuals to demonstrate support for their co-workers who were also engaged in the intervention); action planning (e.g., individuals were asked to make concrete plans of when and how they should perform the health behavior, using the if-then formulation); coping strategies (e.g., individuals were asked to identify obstacles and possible solutions by developing coping strategies); and action control (e.g., the agent provides a digital calendar for individuals to monitor and indicate (daily or weekly) the times they practise the health behaviors). Besides that, at the beginning of each session the social agent discussed with the participants what they had done since the last session to move the plan forward and then provided appropriate feedback. This was the only content that was not standardized between both conditions and between the participants, because it had to be adapted to the experience of each participant and the actions that he/she developed throughout the week. This means that each session under both conditions (human agent or robot agent) was planned in advance by the research team to ensure that each participant could receive the right feedback regarding the health-behavior actions they had taken the week prior. For the robot agent condition specifically, multiple sentences were developed and added to the robot’s software. During the sessions, the human assistant only needed to select the most suitable response or question for the robot to display. For the human agent condition, the human agent was instructed to ask/response a specific set of several sentences that were highly comparable to the robot’s sentences, in order to maintain content similarity between the conditions. Regarding the seven constructs that were the focus of the study (outcome expectancies; self-efficacy; risk perceptions; social influences; action planning; coping strategies and action control), all participants were exposed to them in the exact same sessions, whether being followed by the human agent or the robot agent.

The datasets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

All assessments listed below were self-report measures that were completed online in response to emails that included links to the surveys. This approach allowed participants to complete the assessments in their own time to reduce the research burden, and allowed the assessments to be both independent of the research team and separate from the intervention with the social agent. All measures were assessed prior to the intervention (Time 1) and one month after the intervention (Time 2). At both times, all measures presented satisfactory internal consistency.

Productivity Despite Presenteeism

Productivity despite presenteeism was measured using an adaptation of the original version of the Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS-6), developed by Koopman et al. [ 57 ]. The SPS-6 measures individuals’ capacity to complete work tasks and avoid distraction. Examples of the items include “I would feel desperate with regard to accomplishing certain tasks” and “My job would be much harder to handle”. The Likert scale ranges from 1- strongly disagree to 5- strongly agree. Cronbach’s α was .81 at Time 1, and .87 at Time 2.

Work Engagement

Engagement was measured on a 12-item scale [ 58 ] designed to measure two global dimensions of the engagement construct, namely emotional engagement and physical engagement. Emotional engagement assesses the extent to which people experienced positive feelings about their work in general (e.g., “I am proud of my work”), and physical engagement assesses to what extent they invested physical energy and effort in their task (e.g., “I have devoted a lot of energy to my work.”). This scale ranges from 1- never to 5- always. Cronbach’s α was .93 at Time 1 and .92 for Time 2.

Mental Well-Being

Mental well-being was measured in accordance with the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale [ 51 ] comprising 14 items that evaluate mental well-being in the general population, and covers both the feelings and functioning aspects of mental well-being. Examples of the items include “I’ve been dealing with problems well” and “I’ve been feeling optimistic about the future”. The scale ranges from 1 (never) to 5 (always), where higher levels are associated with better mental well-being. Cronbach’s α was .91 at Time 1 and .92 for Time 2.

All analyses were performed using SPSS version 26. Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables can be found in Table ​ Table1 1 .

Descriptive statistics and correlations among studied variables

SD  standard deviation

** p  < .01; * p  < .05

Concerning the first hypothesis, which predicted that the use of the robot agent would improve participants’ productivity despite sickness presenteeism at Time 2, we can observe that for the robot agent group, the post-test mean levels of productivity were significantly higher than at pre-test (M T1  = 3.19, M T2  = 3.73, t (1,46)  = 9.041, p  < .001, d = .89). For the human agent group, levels of productivity despite sickness presenteeism at Time 2 were not statistically different from those at Time 1 (M T1  = 3.12, M T2  = 2.82, t (1,41)  = .05 p  = .62, d = .59). We tested our first hypothesis by comparing the change in productivity despite sickness presenteeism of the robot agent group with the change that occurred in the productivity despite sickness presenteeism of the human agent group at the same assessment moments, which was from the pre-intervention measurement at T1 to the T2 measurement (post-intervention measurement). In a paired t test, the difference in change in productivity despite sickness presenteeism for the two groups was significant (t (47)  = − 25.953, p  < .001). To understand the relationship between the type of agent and individuals’ productivity despite presenteeism at Time 1 versus Time 2, a repeated-measures ANOVA was performed. The results revealed that the type of agent had a significant effect on the productivity levels ( F (1, 46)  = 9.041, p  < .005; η 2  = .26). These results support our first hypothesis by showing that the intervention with the robot agent was effective in increasing participants’ productivity at Time 2.

Regarding the second hypothesis, it predicted that the use of the robot agent would be associated with a positive change in participants’ engagement level at Time 2. Thus, our expectation was that the scores of the participants’ engagement would change significantly from Time 1 to Time 2. A t test showed that there were no differences in the levels of engagement between Time 1 and Time 2 for either the robot agent condition (M T1  = 4.21, M T2  = 4.12, t (33) 1.161, p  > .05), or the human agent condition (M T1  = 3.87, M T2  = 4.05, t (18) − 1.722, p  > .05). To test whether there were significant differences between the type of agent and the participants’ engagement level at Time 1 and Time 2, a further analysis of these results was carried out using a repeated measures ANOVA. The results showed that there were no significant differences ( F (1, 49)  = .5176, p  > .005). Overall, these results do not corroborate hypothesis 2.

Our third hypothesis predicted that the intervention with the robot agent would be associated with a positive change in participants’ mental well-being level at Time 2. Thus, our expectation was that the scores of the participants’ mental well-being would change significantly from Time 1 to Time 2. Moreover, we expected that this change would be greater for the robot agent condition than the one observed for the human agent condition. The post-mean levels determined that the mean scores for mental well-being differed significantly across the two assessment moments for the robot agent condition (M T1  = 3.57, M T2  = 3.99, t (37)  = − 4.130, p  < .001, d = .61). For the human agent condition, the mean scores were not statistically significant (M T1  = 3.46, M T2  = 3.50, t (18)  = .408, p  > .005, d = .56). In a paired t test, the difference in change in mental well-being for the two groups was significant (t (54)  = − 3.412, p  < .001). This means that participants in the robot agent condition showed higher levels of well-being at Time 2 than the participants in the human agent condition. To understand the relationship between the type of agent and individuals’ well-being at Time 1 versus Time 2, a repeated-measures ANOVA was performed. The results revealed that the type of agent had a significant effect on the well-being levels ( F (1, 53)  = 4.517, p  < .005; η 2  = .079). These results support our third hypothesis by showing that the intervention with the robot agent was effective in increasing participants’ well-being levels.

Regarding our fourth hypothesis, which predicted that the type of agent would influence the levels of productivity despite sickness presenteeism, mental well-being and engagement in the post-intervention scores, a One-Way MANOVA was performed, with the type of condition included as a covariate. There was a statistically significant difference in the outcome variables based on the type of agent ( F (1, 43)  = 8.997, p  < .001, Wilk’s Λ = .597, partial η 2  = .40). In particular, the type of agent had a statistically significant effect on productivity despite presenteeism post-intervention scores ( F (1, 45)  = 17.628, p  < .001; partial η 2  = .29) (Fig.  2 ), and on mental well-being post-intervention scores ( F (1, 45)  = 11.009, p  = .002; partial η 2  = .20) (Fig.  3 ), supporting H4 for these variables. No statistically significant differences were found between the type of agent and engagement post-intervention scores ( F (1, 45)  = .872, p  = .352; partial η 2  = .02).

Effect of the type of agent on productivity despite presenteeism level

Effect of the type of agent on mental well-being level

This longitudinal investigation compared the efficacy of a robot agent with that of a human agent with regard to promoting health in work contexts. The main focus of the study was to analyze which type of agent would be associated with better results in a set of individual and organizational outcomes. Our results showed that the intervention with the robot agent was associated with improvements in individuals’ productivity despite sickness presenteeism and well-being levels. However, neither type of agent had any effect on the engagement levels of the participants.

Thus, demonstrating the potentialities of using social robots to establish therapeutic and worth relationships with employees in their workplaces, while improving their health status, constitutes interesting new findings for the health behavior change literature [ 7 , 17 ], the HAPA theoretical framework [ 8 ], the JD-R approach to presenteeism [ 12 , 13 ], and the literature on human–robot interaction [ 25 ]. Furthermore, our results may also contribute to the presenteeism literature, by demonstrating the potentialities of a health promotion program using social robots to enhance productivity despite presenteeism. This may lead to an increase in workers’ productivity and well-being levels, and consequently an improvement in related health and quality of life. Below, we explore in more detail the theoretical and practical implications of this research.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

The results of our research extend previous findings from the health behavior change literature and the HAPA framework, and their application in the context of technology-driven interventions [ 5 , 22 , 24 , 25 ]. Furthermore, there are potential advantages to using social robots over other technology-delivered applications in workplace contexts, it being suggested that robots can encourage health behavior change in individuals as well as engage in therapeutical relationships with individuals [ 24 ]. This could be especially relevant for scenarios such as medical and therapy settings, by demonstrating that even when there is no human interaction, the use of robots may not compromise individuals’ health-related outcomes. Moreover, this investigation also contributes to the JD-R model, by showing that social robots can be used in workplace interventions to reduce job demands associated with presenteeism [ 13 ], helping workers to adopt healthier behaviors. Specifically, social robots may be powerful resources in workplaces when employees are facing higher job demands (whether because of task characteristics or because of their personal health status). This support given by robots can be cognitive support, motivational or physical collaboration, as stated previously by [ 14 ]. The results of this same investigation have shown that social robots have the potential to be more readily accepted than a human colleague in situations where individuals are working ill. Our investigation is in line with the goals and results of previous research on an attempt to determine the potential possibilities of social robotics for tackling presenteeism. Our research acknowledged that individuals are open to taking on board the recommendations of a social robot concerning health-related issues, and this may improve their productivity despite presenteeism. In general, we argue that social robots may possibly be used in workplaces not to substitute human agents or therapists, but to reduce workloads and job demands.

As previously stated, the health-promoting intervention with the robot was not associated with improvements in engagement levels. Although we did not expect these results, they are in line with some previous research in healthcare settings, where it is usual to find better results when a robot is used to complement or mediate the relationship between the therapist and the patient, and to mediate the activities of the therapist [ 22 ]. Following this line, our study’s findings can also contribute to improve the quality of training delivered by human agents in healthcare interventions. Similarly, other recent studies advance that robots can be a viable way to raise awareness of health education and health behaviour change, but their full integration into the clinical process may not be required [ 25 ]. Although this might be a possible explanation, engagement has not been as thoroughly studied in human–robot interaction research [ 59 ], especially in workplace scenarios. To the best of our knowledge, this investigation constitutes one of the first attempts to link social robots to some organizational outcomes such as work engagement, so additional research on human–robot interaction within work environments is needed, as mentioned by previous authors [ 35 , 59 ]. Such further research would likely give rise to interesting new findings regarding the advantages of using social robots within workplaces.

Our findings that the intervention guided by the robot led to improvements in participants’ productivity despite presenteeism, and in their mental well-being are in line with a previous body of research that links human–robot interaction interventions with better productivity outcomes and individuals’ psychological well-being [ 3 , 22 , 50 ]. This evidence that the power of artificial intelligence machines can be harnessed to deliver health interventions that promote employee productivity and well-being contributes valuable information to the presenteeism literature.

Based on our current findings, we can recommend that practitioners and managers embrace the use of social robots in work environments. In line with the literature [ 35 , 50 ], there are clearly plenty of opportunities to test the implementation of social robots in workplaces. Even while not completely independent and working autonomously, social robots can complement interventions with practitioners [ 26 ], and thus contribute to the productivity and vitality of the workforce. Even from the point of view of a manager or a therapist, social robots may help to reduce the workload for humans, while assisting individuals to reach their goals and improve their health and quality of life [ 22 ]. They can engage people of all ages in deeply personalized experiences, attending to their health needs and goals [ 1 ] to induce them to accept and follow recommendations to improve their health and well-being levels. Furthermore, the introduction of social robots as health promoting agents within workplaces may help managers to deal with the phenomena of presenteeism and absenteeism, both of which can have such a high cost for companies [ 43 ].

Organizations can gain a competitive advantage from engaging in health-promoting programs, especially in light of the current worldwide labour shortages exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. This study provides a solid argument for companies to implement interventions using social robots to help create a healthy, productive, and resilient workforce.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

We acknowledge some limitations of the study. First, participation in this research was voluntary, which means that we may not have reached the workers who could actually benefit the most (i.e., individuals with higher health-related risk factors). Unhealthy employees may gain the most from participating in this type of health promotion program, and yet they are less likely to engage in these interventions [ 6 ]. By the same token, the voluntary nature of this research means that this sample is not representative of all employees who may or may not be interested in health behavior change. Furthermore, since each participant had the option to select the focus of their health behavior intervention, there is the possibility of bias in the subject distribution of the four health behavior interventions.

Upcoming research should focus on performing a similar health-promoting intervention, particularly one involving artificial intelligence machines, on a larger sample. This should lead to firm conclusions about changes in health outcomes resulting from long-term interactions with a social robot.

A further weakness concerns the Wizard-of-Oz method applied in this research. Using the Wizard-of-Oz method raises concerns regarding the social deception and making the robot more like a human proxy without full autonomy than an autonomous machine [ 60 ]. However, previous studies have suggested the clear strengths of this method: it allows the robot to execute more complex actions in its interactions and dialogues with people; individuals can imagine what future interactions with robots will be; and it allows researchers to test design and communication features [ 60 ]. Nevertheless, future research needs to focus on the interaction between autonomous robot agents and individuals [ 35 ] in contexts of health intervention programs.

Moreover, research in human–robot interaction is particularly vulnerable to the novelty effect [ 61 ], thus we cannot rule out the possibility that this occurred in our study. Specifically, since it was the first time that all the participants were interacting with a robot, they may have behaved differently than they would normally do. This may be a possible explanation as to why the robot agent condition had better results than the human agent condition. Upcoming investigations must include a control mechanism to prevent the novelty effect, similar to the work of [ 62 ]. Additionally, it may be possible that the Hawthorne effect may have also occurred. In an effort to overcome these constraints, future health-promoting interventions including social robots might include a second group of participants that interact with some other form of novel element instead of the robot, such as a serious game.

Lastly, due to the COVID-19 pandemic situation and the adoption of remote work by most organizations, this intervention was undertaken in a non-presential context, where each participant had their sessions with the social agent in a videoconference format, instead of face-to-face interaction. We can relate this to the small sample size of our research, which limits the generalizability of the findings. We believe that if workers could interact face-to-face with the robot, they would be more interested in our research. Thus, if possible, the researcher intends to conduct this investigation in a presential context with another set of participants. This would allow a comparison of the differences between interventions performed presentially and non-presentially and, we hope, produce interesting data to report.

This investigation compared the impact of a health behavior change intervention guided by two types of social agents (a human agent and a robot agent) on a set of organizational and individual outcomes. The results show that the robot agent was associated with better post-intervention scores in individuals’ productivity and mental well-being despite sickness presenteeism. Although these are preliminary results, they nevertheless show that robots can be used to provide virtual support for health behavioral change. At this critical junction, where the pandemic crisis caused by the COVID-19 virus is forcing long-distance relationships like remote work and tele-consulting, robotic partners may provide a great opportunity to enhance social interactions and improve people’s health outcomes.

Acknowledgements

The authors want to thank to Melinda Eltenton for proofreading the article.

The authors like to sincerely thank to reviewers and editor for taking the necessary time and effort to review the manuscript. We truly appreciate all their valuable comments, suggestions and constructive criticism, which helped us in improving the quality of the manuscript.

Open access funding provided by FCT|FCCN (b-on). This work was supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) [Grant Number SFRH/BD/134420/2017, UIDB/00315/2020 and UIDB/50021/2020]. This work was also part of the project Digital Talent Ecosystem (DTE) [code LISBOA-01-0247-FEDER-04521].

Declarations

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Change history

A Correction to this paper has been published: 10.1007/s12369-023-01021-0

Contributor Information

Sara L. Lopes, Email: tp.lui-etcsi@aslls .

Aristides I. Ferreira, Email: [email protected] .

Rui Prada, Email: [email protected] .

• By Job Titles
• By College Majors
• By Companies
• By Location
• Job Search Advice

The Pros and Cons of Having Robots in the Workplace

Robots were once known only for the manufacturing business but today they are very much part of many workplaces. The future is even more promising for this wonder of artificial intelligence.

Imagine a robot doing some of the major tasks of managers like using data to evaluate problems, making better decisions, monitoring team performance, and even setting goals.

Technology is playing a pivotal role in helping humans work more effectively. Since automation has become an integral part of business operations, we can predict that robots are soon going to replace many jobs that are today performed by humans. Now that the corporate world is also on the cusp of entering the robotic age, let’s see what pros and cons this technology offers business world.

Key Takeaways:

Robots can be efficient and cost-effective when utilized correctly.

Robots are also susceptible to errors and malfunctions and cannot adapt to unexpected situations.

While technology in the workplace can be useful, humans are still essential.

Advantages Of Robots In The Workplace

Can be cost effective. The first and the foremost advantage of having robots in workplaces is their cost. There are many situations where robots are cheaper than humans. This is becoming more common as the cost of robots is now decreasing.

Increased capabilities. It’s a fact that we cannot compare human abilities with robots but robotic capabilities are now growing quickly. For example, if you run an essay writing service, you can use robots to perform every kind of research related to any subject.

Work longer hours. Because robots are more active and don’t get tired like humans, the collaboration between humans and robots is reducing absenteeism. The pace of human cannot increase hence robots are helping humans.

More precise. Robots are more precise than humans; they don’t tremble or shake as human hands. Robots have smaller and versatile moving parts which help them in performing tasks with more accuracy than humans.

Stronger and faster. There is no doubt that robots can be designed to be significantly stronger and faster than humans. This is especially helpful in areas where the limits of the strength and speed of humans limits productivity, such as in manufacturing.

Specialized for tasks. Robots come in any shape and size, depending upon the need of the task. As technology advances, more and more specializations emerge for robots.

Can work in dangers environments. Robots can work anywhere in any environmental condition whether it is space, underwater, in extreme heat or wind etc. Robots can be used everywhere where human safety is a huge concern. For example, robots used in chemical manufacturing help avoid injuries and death for human workers.

Disadvantages Of Robots In The Workplace

Increased unemployment. Where robots are increasing the efficiency in many businesses, they are also increasing the unemployment rate. Because of robots, human labour is no longer required in many factories and manufacturing plants. Automation’s affect on unemployment is one of society’s biggest concerns as technology develops further.

Cannot handle unexpected situations. Robots require programming, which means all their behavior has to be pre-determined. Although some robots have the ability to “improvise”, they typically cannot handle unexpected situations. That is to say, if they are not programmed for the situation, they cannot work around it.

Lack critical thinking. Going off the previous point, robots cannot think critically. Critical thinking is an important problem solving skill that aids humans facing unexpected challenges, as well as in making decisions among many choices.

Can cost more. The ROI of your business may suffer if your operation relies on too many robots. They have higher expenses than humans, so at the end of the day you may not always achieve the desired ROI.

Require installation and maintenance. Robots installed in workplaces still require manual labor attached to them. Training those employees on how to work with the robots definitely has a cost attached to it. Also, robots need regular maintenance to function properly, which creates another additional cost.

Lack empathy. Empathy is critical in successful human interaction, especially in people-oriented industries such as customer service. Robots cannot perform the nuances of empathetic interaction as well as humans.

Security risks. Robots that are entrusted with responsibility and data without proper protections are security risks. Malware and other cyber attacks on robots in the workplace can threaten the safety of others.

Environmental risks. Robots have an inevitable impact on the environment. They can cause pollution or contribute to climate change. Also, errors can result in harmful damage.

Examples Of Robots And Automation In The Workplace

Robots are increasingly more common in the workplace. You would be hard pressed to find any industry that has not at least explored some form of automation.

Robots can be found in many industries, including:

Auto manufacturing. Robots play a big role in the assembly lines of car and truck manufacturing. Their precision and strength allow them to handle material at a far more effective rate. This allows for greater detail and speed in production.

Warehouse packing. Robots can help organize warehouses through processing and packaging. These robots have extensive knowledge of the warehouse, including its layout. This means they can find inventory faster, as well as find open areas for storage.

Agricultural maintenance. Many large scale farms now incorporate automated farm technology, such as pesticide drones, to help with the upkeep.

Industrial cleaning. Robots can aid in cleaning industrial areas, particularly floors. They are able to work at a consistent rate that helps keep areas in order.

Inspection and security. Due to advancements in cameras and software, robots can review products and environments to make sure they meet safety guidelines. Robots can also act as security systems that alert humans of any wrong doing.

• Job Abandonment
• Absenteeism
• Disciplinary Actions
• Employee Write-up Form
• Insubordination in the Workplace
• How to Suspend an Employee
• Robots in the Workplace
• Dealing With Unhappy Employees
• How to Stay Motivated Working Alone
• Signs of a Bad Recruiter
• How To Spot A Psychopath At Work
• What Constitutes A Hostile Work Environment
• Gatekeepers In The Workplace
• What Is Disparate Treatment?
• Mansplaining In The Workplace
• What Is EEOC Conciliation?
• Pronouns In The Workplace
• Microaggressions At Work
• Workplace Safety Tips
• How To Respond To A Negative Review
• How Much Does A Billboard Cost

Jack Flynn is a writer for Zippia. In his professional career he’s written over 100 research papers, articles and blog posts. Some of his most popular published works include his writing about economic terms and research into job classifications. Jack received his BS from Hampshire College.

Find Your Next Hire Out Of Over 5 Million Candidates

Get connected with quality candidates whose resumes on Zippia best fit your job description.

Related posts

Power Dynamics In The Workplace

How To Manage Stress At Work

What Is Business Sustainability? (And Why You Should Embrace It)

13 Signs You’ve Made a Bad Hire (And What To Do After)

• Zippia For Employers >
• Hiring Hub >
• Life At Work >
• The Pros And Cons Of Having Robots In The Workplace

Home — Essay Samples — Information Science and Technology — Digital Era — How Robots Are Changing The Workplace

How Robots Are Changing The Workplace

• Categories: Digital Era Impact of Technology Robots

About this sample

Words: 1112 |

Published: Feb 8, 2022

Words: 1112 | Pages: 2 | 6 min read

Bibliography

• https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/nov/05/robot-revolution-rise-machines-could-displace-third-of-uk-jobs
• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/02/robot-doctors-lawyers-professions-embrace-change-machines
• https://www.cnet.com/videos/meet-the-robots-making-amazon-even-faster/
• https://www.bbc.com/news/av/technology-34231931/could-a-robot-do-your-job

Should follow an “upside down” triangle format, meaning, the writer should start off broad and introduce the text and author or topic being discussed, and then get more specific to the thesis statement.

Provides a foundational overview, outlining the historical context and introducing key information that will be further explored in the essay, setting the stage for the argument to follow.

Cornerstone of the essay, presenting the central argument that will be elaborated upon and supported with evidence and analysis throughout the rest of the paper.

The topic sentence serves as the main point or focus of a paragraph in an essay, summarizing the key idea that will be discussed in that paragraph.

The body of each paragraph builds an argument in support of the topic sentence, citing information from sources as evidence.

After each piece of evidence is provided, the author should explain HOW and WHY the evidence supports the claim.

Should follow a right side up triangle format, meaning, specifics should be mentioned first such as restating the thesis, and then get more broad about the topic at hand. Lastly, leave the reader with something to think about and ponder once they are done reading.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Information Science and Technology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 972 words

2 pages / 683 words

1 pages / 653 words

2 pages / 985 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Digital Era

The question of whether students should have limited access to the internet is a complex and timely one, given the pervasive role of technology in education. While the internet offers a wealth of information and resources, [...]

Clarke, Roger. 'Dataveillance by Governments: The Technique of Computer Matching.' In Information Systems and Dataveillance, edited by Roger Clarke and Richard Wright, 129-142. Sydney, Australia: Australian Computer Society, [...]

The provision of free internet access is a topic of growing importance in our increasingly digital society. The internet has transformed the way we communicate, access information, and engage with the world. However, access to [...]

In the digital age, we find ourselves immersed in a sea of information and entertainment, bombarded by a constant stream of images, videos, and messages. Neil Postman's prophetic book, "Amusing Ourselves to Death," published in [...]

It was a time when personal computer was a set consisting of monitor and single choice of technology, but it wasn’t good like using only one thing on technology. And after that was a revolutionary change of different computing [...]

Technology revolves around us; our lives have improved considerably with technology but, relying on them too much can have harmful effects. A research has shown that people can be addicted to these devices very much like [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Robots: The Use in Everyday Tasks Essay

The recent advancements in robotics and artificial intelligence have the potential to automate a wide range of human activities and to dramatically reshape the way people live and work in the coming decades. Initially, robots were only limited to the manufacturing industry, but today they are increasingly becoming part of people’s everyday tasks. It is evident that nowadays, more people are relying on intelligent technological types of equipment compared to the past due to advancement in technology. According to Smith and Anderson (2017), the robotics industry around the globe is constantly innovating, integrating artificial intelligence with vision to suit the needs of aging population. It other words, the industry is constantly looking for new ways of making people’s work a bit easier, faster and efficient. In essence, robots are a gift from science to mankind because of their high productivity rate coupled with an increased speed of production, quality and greater workplace safety.

First, the use of robots increases productivity when they are applied to perform tasks that require more efficiency. In the recent past, many industries have shifted their focus to implementing robots that improve productivity and fulfill the demands in the market. Most of them argue that robots work by eliminating the element of human error,thus allowing them to perform tasks at the same level of consistency. In fact, many organizations are already using them to help maximize inventory and, at the same time, improve quality. According to Scheiber (2019), Amazon has implemented palletisers, which are robotics arms with grippers, in their 26 fulfillment centers worldwide to lift the heavy totes and packages from conveyor belt. These palletisers provide robotic muscle for daily operations: they substitute man-hands for their productivity in the effort to cut down on human wear-and-tear. Overall, robots increases productivity by performing tasks at a faster rate but with the same consistent level of quality and quantity than humans.

Secondly, robots are increasingly being adopted in task-performance because of their high speed: they do not easily get distracted. Companies around the globe are focusing more on meeting customers’ demands which explains why high-speed robots are being sort after due to their ability to work 24/7 without any breaks or vacations (RobotWorx, 2021). In fact, it is common to find robots that move at a high speed than humans making them more preferable in ensuring fast production lines,especially in manufacturing companies. A good example of how robots work by improving speed is in the case of Factory Automation System Inc., located in Atlanta which is part of the Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services Industry (Mena Report, 2021). With automation, the company has managed to supply parts to agricultural manufactures with the growth of 150 percent than before while meeting their targets within three hours—five hours less than manual operations (RobotWorx, 2021). It therefore follows that high speed-robots ensures products are produced within the specified time.

Thirdly, the use of robots always brings quality to production which, for many years, has been an issue of concern for many manufacturers. It is important to note that poor quality products tend to have a negative impact on organization’s reputation and bottom line. Therefore, robots help resolve this because they are programmed to manufacture a particular product more precisely without any error, whereas humans tend to make mistakes. A good example here is the Motoman Inc. which uses reciprocating painting machine to paint car and truck on the same line (Yaskawa, 2021).With human tendency, the company used to get different and mixed results as far as production is concerned, but since the adoption of robots, product quality and perfection have improved greatly. Overall, the use of robots in the future as mandatory in everyday tasks stem from the fact that they do not get fatigue or lose focus, thus preventing unnecessary errors that leads to low quality.

Finally, the use robots is critical, especially since they provide greater workplace safety. In the manufacturing sector, robots are increasingly being used to reduce the risk of falls. A good example is where robots are used in the warehouse to help minimize injuries—the robotic machinery is able to reach items that are too high. Similarly, exoskeleton robots are already being used in the manufacturing industry to perform repetitive work associated with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Hyundai Motor Group is one such company that has adopted the use of exoskeleton robots (Menyhárt, 2019). With its Vest Exoskeleton (VEX), the company has managed to reduce fatigue of workers—the wearable vest imitates the movement of human joints.

However, those against the use of robots in everyday tasks claim that many industries, in the effort to maximize profits, are replacing human labour with automated machines. They also argue that the future of artificial intelligence (AI) and robots is volatile: many jobs will be lost throwing millions of people into poverty. Many of them express concern that having AI in workplaces will lead to high levels of income inequality caused bymillions people who are not employable. This, in the end, will lead to breakdown in the social order. Their fears have been validated by detailed analyseswhich shows how increasing automation in workplace impact jobs. A good example is the analysis carried out by Bruegel whose findings showed that “about 54 percent of EU jobs are at risk of computerization” (Tavis, 2015, p. 78). Bruegel’s analysis of European data led him to conclude that job losses will be significant and that people should prepare for large scale disruptions.

The opponents also argue that robots are taking over meaningful work which they consider to be important and valuable. They maintain that doing meaningful work is what leads to high job satisfaction and employee well-being. Their views were echoed by Smids et al.’s (2020) study where the authors followed the work schedules of metro drivers in Paris. The company outsourced robots which led to the introduction of self-driving metros. In return, the company’s drivers were offered alternative positions as managers. While these new positions gave the employees formal responsibilities, a follow-up survey showed that the drivers felt deprived of meaningful work. The workers claimed that, instead of being able to respond immediately to emergency situations, they were only being indirectly informed of the incidences. Smids et al. (2020) results also showed that the workers, by not being directly responsible for the lives of the people, “felt a loss of responsibility in adjusted jobs” (p. 12). In other words, the introduction of robots in everyday tasks tends to disrupt people’s normal work routines.

While it is true the introduction of robots in workplaces might lead to loss of jobs and meaningful work, the future is still promising. First, robots do not have the ability to perform complex tasks such as negotiation and persuading. According to Huang et al. (2021), robots are not as efficient in creating new ideas as they are at solving them despite having higher intelligence levels. In essence, work which require creativity, emotional intelligence and social skills will be on high demand—they are less likely to be performed by robots. With regard to meaningful work, employees being given alternative positions should receive adequate training. Training and development ensures employees such the metro drivers identify the knowledge and skills they require. With evidence-based programs, employers can educate their workers about new skills and the benefits associated with their positions. Most importantly, employees should be encouraged to exercise their capacities for understanding and decision making to higher extents as this would them finds meaning in their work.

In conclusion the use of robots in the future as mandatory in everyday tasks stems from the many benefits associated with it. As evidenced above, robots have been found to increase productivity, speed, quality, and workplace safety. For instance, robots provide greater workplace safety by reducing the risk of fall. Hyundai is currently using Vest Exoskeleton (VEX) with the aim of reducing fatigue of workers: the wearable vest imitates the movement of human joints. However, it is important to note that the use of robots also has its own limitations such as cutting off the manpower and meaningful work. While this is case, employers are encouraged to provide training and development programs aimed at ensuring employees appreciate their new positions.

Huang, M. H., & Rust, R. T. (2021). Engaged to a robot? The role of AI in service. Journal of Service Research , 24 (1), 30-41.

Menyhárt, J. (2019). Artificial Intelligence possibilities in vehicle industry. International Journal of Engineering and Management Sciences , 4 (4), 148-154.

RobotWorx. (2021). Robot savings time. Web.

Services for the Manufacture of Links of the Agricultural Excavator. (2021). Mena Report , NA. Web.

Scheiber, N. (2019). Inside an Amazon Warehouse, Robots’ Ways Rub Off on. Web.

Smids, J., Nyholm, S., & Berkers, H. (2020). Robots in the workplace: A threat to—or opportunity for—meaningful work?. Philosophy & Technology , 33 (3), 503-522.

Smith, A., & Anderson, M. (2017). Automation in everyday life: Where will the jobs go? Industrial Safety & Hygiene News, 51(11), 10–14

Tavis, A. A. (2015). Rise of robots: Technology and the threat of a jobless future. People & Strategy , 38 (4), 77-79.

Yaskawa.(2021). Robotic painting & dispensing. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, December 14). Robots: The Use in Everyday Tasks. https://ivypanda.com/essays/robots-the-use-in-everyday-tasks/

"Robots: The Use in Everyday Tasks." IvyPanda , 14 Dec. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/robots-the-use-in-everyday-tasks/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Robots: The Use in Everyday Tasks'. 14 December.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Robots: The Use in Everyday Tasks." December 14, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/robots-the-use-in-everyday-tasks/.

1. IvyPanda . "Robots: The Use in Everyday Tasks." December 14, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/robots-the-use-in-everyday-tasks/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Robots: The Use in Everyday Tasks." December 14, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/robots-the-use-in-everyday-tasks/.

• Exoskeleton Hand for Rehabilitation
• Powered Exoskeleton in Military & Space Industries
• Wearable Exoskeletons for Industry Use
• Skeleton: The Most Surprising Issues
• Therapeutic Vests for Children With Disabilities
• Robotic Visual Recognition and Robotics in Healthcare
• Is the Robotics Development Helpful or Harmful?
• Assistive Technologies for Individuals with Disabilities
• Characteristics of Robotics
• Robotics' Sociopolitical and Economic Implications
• Robotization and Employment: An Ethical Analysis
• Robot Revolution in the Contemporary Society
• Healthcare Robots: Entering the Era of a Technological Breakthrough
• “A Robot Can Be Warehouse Worker’s Pal” by Jennifer Smith
• Autonomous Un-Guided Vehicle Usage

Advertisement

Ethical concerns with replacing human relations with humanoid robots: an ubuntu perspective

• Original Research
• Open access
• Published: 20 June 2022
• Volume 3 , pages 527–538, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Cindy Friedman   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4901-9680 1  

9961 Accesses

6 Citations

16 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This paper considers ethical concerns with regard to replacing human relations with humanoid robots. Many have written about the impact that certain types of relations with robots may have on us, and why we should be concerned about robots replacing human relations. There has, however, been no consideration of this issue from an African philosophical perspective. Ubuntu philosophy provides a novel perspective on how relations with robots may impact our own moral character and moral development. This paper first discusses what humanoid robots are, why and how humans tend to anthropomorphise them, and what the literature says about robots crowding out human relations. It then explains the ideal of becoming “fully human”, which pertains to being particularly moral in character. In ubuntu philosophy, we are not only biologically human, but must strive to become better, more moral versions of ourselves, to become fully human. We can become fully human by having other regarding traits or characteristics within the context of interdependent, or humane, relationships (such as by exhibiting human equality, reciprocity, or solidarity). This concept of becoming fully human is important in ubuntu philosophy. Having explained that idea, the main argument of the paper is then put forward: that treating humanoid robots as if they are human is morally concerning if they crowd out human relations, because such relations prevent us from becoming fully human. This is because we cannot experience human equality, solidarity, and reciprocity with robots, which can be seen to characterise interdependent, or humane, relations with human beings.

Similar content being viewed by others

Understanding anthropomorphism in service provision: a meta-analysis of physical robots, chatbots, and other AI

Markus Blut, Cheng Wang, … Christian Brock

Artificial Intelligence, Values, and Alignment

Iason Gabriel

Human/AI relationships: challenges, downsides, and impacts on human/human relationships

Anne Zimmerman, Joel Janhonen & Emily Beer

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

In the 2019 documentary film Hi AI! , we meet Chuck and Harmony, who are portrayed as attempting to start a romantic relationship. We see them doing things such as sharing a morning coffee, sitting and talking around a campfire, taking a road trip, and generally behaving as if they are trying to get to know one another and are genuinely interested in becoming a couple. This may not seem very remarkable, thus described—but what makes it remarkable is that whereas Chuck is a man from Texas, Harmony is a humanoid robot. Chuck is anthropomorphising Harmony and, more than that, he has replaced a potential human partner, with a robotic one.

Humanoid robots are robots that are designed and created to specifically look like, and imitate, human beings [ 39 ]. Anthropomorphising humanoid robots involves treating humanoid robots in a way that projects humanlike attributes to the robot [ 11 ] i.e., it involves treating these robots as if they are human. Is there potentially something ethically problematic about interacting with robots in this way? Especially if such interaction replaces human relations?

Various researchers, in different ways, have emphasised the importance of human–human relations, thereby drawing attention to why replacing human relations with robotic ones is concerning [ 4 , 5 , 12 , 40 , 41 , 49 , 52 , 56 ].

Drawing upon ubuntu philosophy, this paper puts forward a novel perspective for why we should be concerned about robot relations replacing, and possibly even crowding out, human relations, by emphasising the important role that human relations have in the development of human morality. The thought of humanoid robots crowding out human relations in the sense of completely replacing any kind of human interaction for the human population, is a fairly remote possibility. However, in the context of this paper, the notion of crowding out does not refer to a world which is overrun with humanoid robots. Rather, it refers to isolated instances wherein individual people may interact with a humanoid robot on a regular basis, and for various reasons, therefore interact much less with other people. There will be more discussion of this notion of “crowding out” in Sect.  3 .

Ubuntu philosophy postulates that we become “more human” through interdependent [ 19 ], or humane relations [ 44 , 45 ] with other human beings. Becoming human in the context of ubuntu philosophy relates to one’s morality as a human being. This is because we are not “fully human” only because we are biologically human. We must also exhibit moral characteristics in interdependent relations with other human beings to be considered fully human. Thus, being fully human means that one is, particularly, moral in character.

Given the importance that ubuntu places on interdependent human relations in the context of morality, and the concern about robots replacing human relations, ubuntu provides a strong framework from which to analyse why the crowding out of human relations with robotic ones is concerning. Moreover, it stands in contrast to many Western philosophies that have a more individualistic approach to what it means to be human [ 38 , 59 ].

The robots we see today take on a variety of shapes and forms, and display various capacities which allow them to play different roles in our lives. This paper, however, specifically focuses on humanoid robots because of the higher likelihood for people to anthropomorphise these robots, form social and emotional bonds with them and, therefore, possibly allow them to crowd out human relations. Although people do anthropomorphise and form bonds with robots that are not humanoids [ 6 , 39 , 42 ], the more humanlike something looks and behaves, the more likely we are to anthropomorphise and relate to it in a humanlike way [ 11 , 16 ].

This paper proceeds as follows: Before tackling the main aim of the paper, we first need a clear explanation of what humanoid robots are, as well as the nature of our relations with them. As such, the following section (Sect.  2 ) will explain just this. In Sect.  3 , I briefly discuss some current literature that discusses how robots may replace and crowd out human relations, and why we should be concerned about this. In Sect.  4 , I provide an overview of what it means to be human in the context of ubuntu philosophy, and how being human relates to becoming a more moral being. Section  5 will consider the issue of anthropomorphising humanoid robots from the perspective of ubuntu, and argue that we cannot become more fully human through relations with robots. In Sect.  6 , given that we cannot become more fully human through relations with robots, I argue that the crowding out of human relations with robotic ones is, from the perspective of ubuntu, morally concerning. Lastly, in Sect.  7 , I conclude by briefly summing up my main argument and explaining what it is that we should ultimately take away from my argument.

2 Humanoid robots and the nature of our relations with them

2.1 what are humanoid robots.

Humanoid robots are robots that are “specifically made to look and act like human beings” [39: 8]. To provide a clearer understanding of what humanoid robots are, as compared to other robots that currently exist, Sven Nyholm [ 39 ] suggests that we can place robots on a spectrum. On the one end of the spectrum are robots that are not at all human-like in their appearance, nor in the way they function. Examples of such robots include vacuum cleaning robots (such as the well-known Roomba vacuum cleaner), as well as self-driving cars, warehouse robots or assembly-line robots.

On the opposite end of this spectrum are humanoid robots, as defined above. These robots are created to be as realistically humanlike as possible, with the intention for them to possibly be mistaken as human beings. Although we are not yet at the point of seeing humanoid robots that could be mistaken for human beings, this is the intention behind their design. A famous example of a humanoid robot is Sophia. Footnote 1 Although the back of Sophia’s head is transparent, thus showing the electronics that “bring her to life”, Sophia’s face is highly humanlike, and she can simulate a range of human facial expressions. Other examples of humanoid robots include Hiroshi Ishiguro’s robotic replica of himself, Footnote 2 Ai-Da, a robot artist created by gallerist Aiden Meller in collaboration with Engineered Arts, Footnote 3 Ameca, also created by Engineered arts, Footnote 4 as well as sex robots such as Harmony 3.0, created by Realbotix. Footnote 5

In the middle of the spectrum, are “paradigmatic robots”. These robots may have some humanlike features (such as arms, legs, torsos and a faces) but are otherwise highly artificial and mechanical in their appearance. Thus, they are not designed with the intention for them to be mistaken as human beings. An example of such a robot is Pepper created by SoftBank Robotics, Footnote 6 which (although it has a face, arms, and a torso) has a shiny, white, mechanical appearance. The focus of this paper is, as mentioned above, on humanoid robots and, specifically, on current humanoid robots, such as the likes of Sophia—that is, robots designed and created to be as realistically humanlike as is currently possible.

In order for these robots to be as realistically humanlike as possible, not only are these robots designed to look human, but they are also designed to be able to behave in humanlike ways, by imitating human behaviour. For example, these robots can speak in a humanlike way through a chatbot function, and can both exhibit and read facial expressions that correlate with human emotion [ 42 ].

These capacities are important with regard to making communication between humans and robots effective [ 42 ] such that these robots can be as close to being “believably” human as possible. This makes it possible for people to unconsciously behave as if they are communicating with another human being [ 26 ], meaning that although human interactants are aware that the robot is not actually human, they respond to it as if it is human. As noted by Nicole Lazzeri et al. [ 28 : 393]:

“On first encounter, the believability of a robot is communicated through its physical embodiment which strongly influences people’s expectations about how it behaves. Later on the perception of believability of the robot is given by its expressiveness, behaviour and reactions to external stimuli which can make a human-robot interaction more or less natural and lifelike”.

Therefore, if the intention behind humanoid robots is for them to be mistaken as human beings, then not only should these robots look human, but they need to also exhibit humanlike behaviour.

Humanoid robots are, therefore, a type of social robot . A social robot is a robot that is “capable of communicating and interacting in such a sociable way that the robot allows its users to: (1) understand the robot in human social terms; (2) relate to the robot; and (3) to empathize with the robot” [ 16 : 589].

Since the intention behind the design and creation of humanoid robots is for them to possibly be mistaken for human beings, both their humanlike appearance and ability to behave in a humanlike way, are important. Both contribute to the “perception of believability” [ 28 ] that these robots are more human than they are machine [ 16 ]. This “perception of believability” is possible due to the tendency humans have to attribute human characteristics to things that are not human i.e., the tendency to anthropomorphise.

2.2 The nature of our interactions with humanoid robots

Anthropomorphisation is the tendency to attribute human characteristics to something that is non-human [ 11 ]. Luisa Damiano and Paul Dumouchel [ 11 ] discuss how anthropomorphism is an “evolutionary adaption”: it helped early humans to distinguish between friends and enemies, recognise predators, and form alliances with members of other tribes. It was, therefore, an important survival mechanism. The more humanlike something looks, the greater the possibility for anthropomorphisation to occur. Damiano and Dumouchel [ 11 ] note that the tendency to anthropomorphise has traditionally been viewed negatively as a “bias, a category mistake, an obstacle to the advancement of knowledge, and as a psychological disposition typical of those who are immature and unenlightened” [ 11 : 468].

Social roboticists, however, cast anthropomorphisation in a different light: it is seen as a tool which can be utilised to support and improve social exchanges between humans and robots [ 11 ]. In the context of humanoid robots, Damiano & Dumouchel note, strong realism in either the humanlike appearance of a robot or autonomous movement/behaviour “allows a robot to reach the ‘social threshold’ where humans experience its presence as that of another social agent and are disposed to socially interact with the machine” [ 11 : 468]. Takayuki Kanda et al. state that robots with a humanlike body “cause people to unconsciously behave as if they were communicating with humans” [ 26 : 1839] and Maartje de Graaf [ 16 ] explains that the physical presence of social robots, such as humanoid robots, as well as their capacity to speak and use humanlike gestures or facial expressions encourages people to interact with these robots as if they are human, and not simply a type of technology. David J. Gunkel [ 23 : 115] writes that the tendency to anthropomorphise is “not a bug to be eliminated or fixed; it is a feature of human sociality”. Therefore, social roboticists, in their quest to improve social exchange between robots and humans, take advantage of this feature of human sociality.

Due to the fact that the more humanlike these robots are, the greater the chance for anthropomorphisation is, the tendency to anthropomorphise humanoid robots is significant. More than this, there is also the possibility for people to form emotional bonds with social robots, such that they “establish feelings of reciprocity and mutuality in their interactions with robots” [ 16 : 593] even though these relationships are “unidirectional emotional bonds initiated from the human user” [ 16 , see also 42 ]. Footnote 7 This is the case with Chuck and his sex robot, Harmony, to whom we were introduced in the introduction.

3 The potential for humanoid robots to crowd out human relations

Humanoid robots themselves are a controversial technology, sparking fierce debate amongst scholars who have strong opinions when it comes to how, or whether, this technology should be integrated into society. One need only take note of the controversy that surrounded Sophia the robot in 2017, to gauge the variegated opinions that people hold when it comes to humanoid robots, and the ethical implications of our interactions with them. That year, Sophia was granted honorary Saudi Arabian citizenship, met world leaders (such as Angela Merkel), made an appearance at a UN assembly meeting, and attended the Munich Security Conference. Following this, in some academic circles, Sophia was harshly criticized. In others, however, Sophia, and the way she was being integrated into society, received enthusiastic support [ 39 ].

When it comes to humanoid robots in general, some topics of discussion about the ethical implications of our relations with them include: whether these robots are deceptive and whether this deception is ethically problematic [ 9 , 52 ]; whether these robots could have moral status [ 14 , 15 , 37 ] and, accordingly, whether such robots could, or should, be treated morally well and even granted rights [ 2 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 30 ]. Specifically, the ethical implication upon which this paper focuses, is whether we should be concerned about humanoid robots replacing human relations.

Several researchers have expressed ethical concerns about this. Some worry about how these human–robot relations may impact people’s wellbeing and quality of life [ 49 , 52 , 56 ]. Others are also concerned about how human–robot relations may impact how the people, who are in these human–robot relations, may come to relate to other people [ 4 , 5 , 12 , 40 , 41 ]. This section will provide a brief overview of some of the literature that speaks to these concerns of robots replacing human relations, so as to situate my own argument within the debate.

In the context of care robots for the elderly, Robert Sparrow and Linda Sparrow [ 52 ], and Amanda Sharkey and Noel Sharkey [ 49 ] worry that care robots could lead to the elderly being socially isolated as they will have less human contact. This is concerning because of how important human contact is for our wellbeing as it reduces stress and helps prevent cognitive decline [ 49 ]. Jennifer A. Parks [ 41 ] is concerned that replacing human care workers with robots may negatively impact the elderly with regard to a relational understanding of autonomy i.e., the understanding that “we do not become autonomous persons despite our relationships with others, but because of them” [ 41 , see also 2 & 27 ]. From this perspective, autonomy develops out of our relationships with others. In the context of care for the elderly, Parks points out that the notion of relational autonomy is “certainly reflected in the long-term care setting, where residents’ selves are tied to the quality of relationships with their caretakers and families” [ 41 : 111].

Joanna J. Bryson [ 5 ], drawing upon Robin Dunbar [ 18 ], argues that “humans have only a finite amount of time and attention for forming social relationships” [ 5 : 5] and that this drive to form social relationships is increasingly fulfilled via “non-productive faux-social entertainment”. Thus, in developing relations with robots, we may have less time to spend on relations with other people i.e., robotic relations will crowd out our relations with other people. This is why Bryson [ 5 ] is concerned about people mis-identifying with AI i.e., humanising robots.

Sherry Turkle [ 56 ] writes about the “robotic moment”, which is the term she uses to describe the point we have reached wherein important human relationships are being replaced by robotic ones, such as nanny robots that look after children, or carer robots that look after the elderly. In this “robotic moment” people are socially isolated given that technology only offers an illusion of companionship—hence, we are “alone together”.

John Danaher [ 12 ] argues that robots (including humanoid robots) could reduce the willingness of people to go out into the world and express their moral agency. This is because people may be more comfortable within the confines of their robotic relationships because the technology bestows upon them pleasurable benefits that they otherwise would have to exercise their moral agency to receive i.e., interact with other people, and take part in modern civilisation. For example, someone who is in a “relationship” with a sex robot (such as Chuck is with Harmony) may lose the motivation to go out into the world and interact with other people because they get all the pleasure they desire from their sex robot. As such, Danaher [ 12 ] is concerned that we will become “passive recipients of the benefits that technology bestows” and reduced to mere moral patients in the world. This is concerning because, as Danaher [ 12 : 129] notes, “the ability and willingness to act as a responsible agent is central to the value system in modern liberal democratic states” and, therefore, the reduction of people to mere moral patients has “broad civilization level significance”.

In the context of sex robots, Sven Nyholm and Lily Frank [ 40 ] write about their concern that these robots may block off relationships with other people. Nyholm and Frank [ 40 ] make their case by drawing on Kaspar the robot as an example. Footnote 8 Kaspar is a robot designed to “open up autistic children to social interaction with other human beings” [ 40 ]. However, they report that the team behind Kaspar is concerned about the possibility that Kaspar could do the opposite i.e., children could become less open to communicating with people should they find interaction with Kaspar to be more comfortable. Nyholm and Frank [ 40 ] have the same concern with regard to sex robots. If people form emotional bonds with sex robots, we should be concerned that these robots may block off human–human relationships which, they argue, are more valuable than a human–robot relationship. Also in the context of sex robots, Piercosma Bisconti [ 4 ] writes about why and how relations with sex robots may impact human–human relations. The author argues that relations with sex robots may impact relations with other humans in the sense that robots are objects that are always readily available for sex. However, despite being objects, relations with these robots simulate intersubjective relations that we experience with other human beings. As such, Bisconti states that relations with sex robots:

“produce a dangerous relational dynamic, which may gradually transpose the expectation of objects availability in subjects availability. It mixes objectual relations with intersubjective ones. The more robots reproduce human relationality, the greater this concern is” [ 4 : 569].

Lastly, in the context of robots in the workplace, a recent study by Sangseok You and Lionel P. Robert [ 61 ] indicated that workers can become attached to robots, in a way that may be detrimental to relations between colleagues. This is because human–robot teams may fracture into subgroups, such that these groups function as competing teams, rather than as one coherent team. This negatively impacts teamwork within the workplace. One may, then, be concerned about how teamwork dynamics may be affected should robots become a more common occurrence in workplace settings.

These authors have written about different types of robots, primarily focusing on social robots. Since humanoid robots are a type of social robot, the same concerns may arise in the context of interacting with humanoid robots in particular. This is a brief overview of an expansive topic that considers the possible negative impacts of robots replacing human relations. The rest of the paper will now enter this current discussion from a novel perspective, namely, an ubuntu perspective. This is a perspective that has not yet been discussed extensively within the ethics of technology. Interest in this perspective is, however, increasing. For example, Virginia Dignum [ 17 ] and Mark Coeckelbergh [ 10 ] suggest that the relational perspective on ethics that the ubuntu tradition embodies has a potential to significantly contribute to the ethics of human-technology interaction. And, specifically in the context of robots, Nancy S. Jecker et al. [ 25 ] have considered the moral standing of robots from an ubuntu perspective.

So, let us first explore what ubuntu is more generally and then relate it to the topic at hand.

4 Ubuntu and what it means to be human

Before we consider what ubuntu is, it should be noted that I will neither offer a defense, nor critique, of ubuntu philosophy in this paper. Instead, I will simply take the ubuntu perspective as my starting point, and leave critical evaluation of it to some other occasion. With this noted, let us now consider some of the key ideas from this rich and fascinating philosophical tradition. I will offer some general context and then focus on the ubuntu ideas most relevant for the main argument of this paper.

Firstly, Ubuntu originated with Bantu (meaning African people). It is a genre of philosophy that can be referred to as an African form of ethics, which, here, is described as “values associated with the largely black and Bantu-speaking peoples residing in the sub-Saharan part of the continent, thereby excluding Islamic Arabs in North Africa and white Afrikaners in South Africa, among others” [ 34 ].

There is no single definition of ubuntu, given that there is no clear English translation for the word “ubuntu” (which is a Zulu Footnote 9 word). Moreover, many scholars have written about ubuntu, providing various insights into what ubuntu is, and how it can be mobilised in society [ 31 ]. Through a review of literature on ubuntu, however, Cornelius Ewuoso and Sue Hall [ 12 ] note that “ubuntu has something to do with what it means to be truly human”. The oft-cited Zulu aphorism “umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu” is associated with ubuntu, and roughly translates to “I am because we are”, meaning that one is only truly human through one’s relationships with other human beings. Thus, at the core of ubuntu philosophy, is the overriding importance of interdependent relationships with other human beings [ 19 ]. Therefore, ubuntu, in emphasising the relation between the individual and the community, is a communitarian form of philosophy. This communitarianism grounds ubuntu’s relational approach to ethics [ 24 ], that stands in contradistinction to many individualistic approaches of the West.

Dorothea Gädeke explains that there are three contexts in which the notion of ubuntu is mobilised:

“First, Ubuntu as an actual and/or reconstructed worldview and practice ascribed to (precolonial) African societies [ 36 ]; second, Ubuntu as a political discourse, which originated in the fight for liberation in Zimbabwe and South Africa around the idea of mobilizing Ubuntu as a resource to forge a new identity; and third, Ubuntu as a philosophical concept that provides a contribution to philosophical debates, particularly (though not exclusively) with regard to normative issues [ 34 , 38 , 45 , 50 ]” [ 21 : 270–271].

Considering what it means to be human according to ubuntu pertains to the third context in which ubuntu is mobilised i.e., ubuntu as a normative philosophy and, particularly, ubuntu as a “perfectionist ideal aiming to develop good character” [ 21 : 271]. This means that ubuntu serves as a philosophical theory which can provide guidance on how human beings can be better, more moral, versions of themselves. Ubuntu as a normative philosophy can also provide an account for morally correct actions [ 34 ]. However, perfectionist accounts Footnote 10 are dominant in ubuntu literature [ 34 ], and it is the perfectionist account on which this paper is focused, since I am particularly concerned with the moral development of human beings in the context of interacting with humanoid robots.

What it means to be human in ubuntu philosophy has a moral character. To be truly human, or fully human, one must not only be biologically human, but must also display certain traits or characteristics [ 44 ]. In particular, one becomes “more” human by “exhibiting moral traits that humans are in a position to exhibit in a way no other beings can, and secondly, through interdependent relationships” [ 19 ]. Thus, in this moral sense, one can be more, or less, human. This is not to say that one literally (biologically speaking) is not human. Rather, it means that one is not fully moral in the way that ubuntu prescribes, and, thus, not fully human in this regard. Therefore, when we want to give someone high praise, we may say that someone has ubuntu Footnote 11 [ 19 ].

Fainos Mangena [ 31 ] notes that Martin H. Prozesky [ 43 ] has identified ten traits that are characteristic of ubuntu: humaneness, gentleness, hospitality, empathy or taking trouble for others, deep kindness, friendliness, generosity, vulnerability, toughness and compassion. This list, however, is not exhaustive. What is vital, however, is that these traits are exhibited through interdependent relationships with other humans or, as Mogobe Ramose [ 44 , 45 ] terms as “humane relations”. These humane relations are established by recognising the human-ness of others, and are characterised by human equality, reciprocity, and solidarity [ 13 ]. In other words, we are human beings only in relation to other human beings. As Ramose puts things in an almost poetic turn of phrase “one human being is deemed to be the same thing, namely, a human being in relation to another human being” [ 45 : 99].

Thus, this understanding of what it means to be human can be, as was noted above, characterised as a perfectionist account: through displaying “other regarding” [ 19 ] traits in the context of interdependent relationships, we become more human. Thus, in becoming more human, we become morally better versions of ourselves. The notion to strive to become more human is particularly important in ubuntu philosophy. So much so that Augustine Shutte writes that according to ubuntu philosophy, we are actually morally obligated to become fully human, stating that “[our] deepest moral obligation is to become more fully human. And this means entering more and more deeply into community with others” [ 50 : 30].

Notably, such a conception of what it means to be human stands in stark contrast to Western understandings that have typically dominated academia [ 38 ]. This is because most Western accounts have a strong focus on individual goods and individual autonomy as grounding for what it means to be human [ 60 ]. For example, and as noted by Munyaradzi Felix Murove: “Cartesian rationality has been seen as representative of modern western individualism which emphasizes the individual’s incommunicability and singularity as something indispensable to what it means to be a person” [ 38 : 42]. According to ubuntu, however, what it means to be human “is not an incorrigible property of the individual but something that is shared with others and finds nourishment and flourishing in relationships with others” [ 38 : 42].

Now having an understanding of what it means to be fully human in ubuntu philosophy, we may consider how, from the perspective of ubuntu, the crowding out of human relations by robot relations may be morally concerning. Given ubuntu’s emphasis on humane, or interdependent, relations with other human beings, this approach to ethics provides an interesting, and strong, framework to analyse why we should be concerned with robots replacing, and possibly crowding out, human relations.

5 We cannot become fully human through relations with humanoid robots

Given that, according to ubuntu, we become more fully human through interdependent, or humane, relations with other human beings, the question arises: what does this perspective imply for someone, such as Chuck, who has replaced a human partner with a robotic one? Does this impact Chuck’s potential to become more fully human given that, according to ubuntu, one can be more or less human (as discussed in Sect.  4 )? In the following section, I provide an argument for why we cannot become more human through relations with humanoid robots and, therefore, cannot become more moral versions of ourselves within these robotic relations. Formulating this argument allows me to provide an ubuntu perspective on why we should be concerned about robots crowding out human relations, thus adding to the already variegated discussion that surrounds this concern. The argument comprises of two premises and a conclusion, each of which I will state, and then elaborate upon in relation to the sections above.

5.1 Premise 1: we become more fully human through humane relations with other human beings

As was noted above, there is no single way to explain how one becomes fully human in ubuntu philosophy. However, the essence is the same i.e., by having other regarding traits or characteristics within the context of interdependent, or humane, relationships. There is no exhaustive list of what these traits or characteristics actually are. As such, I will focus on the characteristics of human equality, reciprocity, and solidarity, upon which Gädeke [ 21 ] focuses. Gädeke [ 21 ] does not explicitly define these terms individually. However, it is stated that these terms specifically reflect the idea that “one human being is deemed to be the same thing, namely, a human being in relation to another human being” [45: 99]. I specifically focus on these characteristics because they lend themselves well to being applied in the context of human–robot relations, thus making my arguments clear.

Returning to the premise, what is important to note here is that one can only experience genuinely human equality, reciprocity, and solidarity with another human being. Thus, one can only have humane relations with other human beings, meaning that one can only really become more fully human through relations with other human beings.

Thinking about only being able to experience humane relations with human beings, takes me to my next premise as I begin to think about whether we could have humane relations with humanoid robots, given the tendency we have to anthropomorphise and emotionally bond with them in a humanlike way.

5.2 Premise 2: we cannot have humane relations with humanoid robots

Humanoid robots are not human. When thinking about what it means to be human, we may consider the topic from a purely biological perspective i.e., we are human beings because we are a part of the human species. However, debates surrounding what it means to be human also consider capacities humans have, that make them distinct from other species. For example, Jeremy Waldron [ 57 ] argues that what makes us equally human is, ultimately, “personal autonomy, the ability to reason, the capacity for moral thought and action, and the capacity for love”. Which capacities are most important and why is, however, disputed.

As far as certain capacities are concerned, humanoid robots may be able to imitate humanlike capacities. For example, thinking about the capacities mentioned above, a robot could behave as if it loves someone. Harmony may, for example, behave as if she loves Chuck. These robots, however, do not actually have the capacity to love a human. Thus, the relationship between a human and a robot is unidirectional in nature: although a human may build an emotional bond with a robot, and possibly feel a loving sentiment towards it, the robot cannot reciprocate this sentiment. This is because robots do not have the capacity feel emotions, such as love [ 16 , 47 ].

Regarding autonomy, robots may have functional autonomy, in the sense that they can, to an extent, perform some tasks on their own. Thus, a robot may seem to have personal autonomy. However, functional autonomy does not equate to the autonomous agency humans beings have, since the autonomous agency human beings have refers to “agency involving a certain amount of independent thinking and reasoning guided by some particular outlook on life, the capacity to reflect self-critically on one’s actions and decisions, and so on” [ 39 : 54]. Thus, in this regard, robots cannot be said to be autonomous, the way in which humans are autonomous.

Regarding rationality, some put forward that self-consciousness is a necessary requirement for rational thought: “rationality requires self-knowledge which itself implies self-consciousness” [ 51 ]. Currently, robots are not self-conscious and, therefore, from this perspective, cannot be said to be rational [ 51 ]. And Dieter Schönecker, from a Kantian perspective, argues that robots cannot be said to even think the way in which humans do, thus they cannot have any rational thoughts [ 48 ]. We can also argue that current robots do not have the capacity for moral thought and action, the way humans do i.e., they are not moral agents, the way human beings are, since robots cannot be considered to be full moral agents. According to Peter Asaro, considering today’s technology, robots could possibly have “dynamic moral intelligence”, meaning that an ethical system has been designed into the robot. However, these robots are not full moral agents, given that full moral agency would require “further elements such as consciousness, self-awareness, the ability to feel pain or fear death, reflexive deliberation and evaluation of its own ethical system and moral judgements, etc.” Footnote 12 [ 1 : 11]. Moreover, Coeckelbergh [ 8 ] notes that rationality is a condition for moral agency. As such, if robots cannot be considered rational, then they cannot be considered as moral agents. Rationality is a condition for moral agency.

Thinking about certain capacities that one needs to have to be considered human, brings up objections about human beings who may not have these capacities, or the fact that some human beings have these capacities in varying degrees. In this regard, it can be argued that what matters is the fact that, biologically speaking, human beings share organic features that enable them to at least develop these relevant capacities [ 40 ]. Robots, however, are not biologically human. Thus, they cannot be said to currently have the potential to develop these capacities. Therefore, they cannot be considered to be human, if we consider a capacities approach to what it means to be human.

In an attempt to create artificial intelligences (AIs) and robots that can possibly have human capacities, however, there are some on-going research projects that are aimed at reverse engineering the human brain so as to create human-like artificial intelligence, such that we could see AIs and robots with human capacities. One such is example is the EU-funded Human Brain Project, at least as that project was conceived at its beginning. Footnote 13 If such projects are indeed ultimately successful, perhaps then we could create artificially intelligent robots that are indistinguishable from humans as far as their capacities are concerned.

If robots were to have capacities typically associated with what it means to be human, would this then call into question what it means to be human, and whether such robots could be seen as members of the human species? This is an interesting and very important debate, and the subject matter of a lot of fascinating science fiction. However, this paper focuses exclusively on current robotic technology. Since we do not have robots that can be biologically a part of the human species, nor do we have robots that genuinely have human capacities, we may argue that present-day humanoid robots are not human Footnote 14 in both these senses. Returning to premise 2, since humanoid robots are not human, we cannot have humane relations with them, because relations with robots cannot be characterised by human equality, solidarity and reciprocity. I will consider each characteristic to make clear why this is the case.

Firstly, the relation cannot be characterised by human equality given that these humanoid robots are not themselves a part of the human species. This is the case from an ubuntu perspective and, generally, from a Western perspective too, given that robots are not biologically human, nor do current robots have capacities that could grant them status as human. This was explained above. As such, we are not equal in nature.

Danaher [ 13 ] argues for the contrary view: namely, the possibility for there to be equality between humans and robots in the context of friendship. For Danaher [ 13 ], equality means that the human and the robot have similar powers or similar capacities. Although many robots may not now have similar powers or capacities, it is not a technological impossibility that they may one day do so. However, given that I am focused on current humanoid robots, it is safe to say that we do not currently have robots with similar powers and capacities as compared to human beings. As Danaher [ 13 : 10] himself notes, as things are now, “… we are their masters and they are our creations. Until they achieve some greater-than-human powers, they will always be subservient to us”. This is not to say that human beings necessarily treat these robots as being subservient. Someone such as Chuck may not. However, that we have created and designed them for our own use, means that humans and robots do not have equal standing.

Moreover, Nyholm [ 39 ] notes that the kind of equality we demand in the context of friendship rather relates to equality in terms of equal moral standing. Helen Ryland [ 46 ] argues in a similar way. If, for there to be genuine equality between a human and a robot, it would mean that humans and robots need to have equal moral standing, then it becomes difficult to see (at least currently) how there could be genuine equality between humans and robots. As Nyholm [ 39 ] points out, in our current society, inequality in rights and moral status remains between humans and robots, and this may remain the case. At least this would be so if Bryson [ 5 ] is right that robots will always be—or are always likely to be—property of human beings, who own and are able to buy and sell the robots.

Secondly, although humanoid robots can interact with us in an apparently reciprocal way (they can talk back to us, for example, or imitate human emotions), this reciprocity is not indicative of genuine human sentiments, since robots only simulate human behaviour. As such, there is no genuine reciprocity . This is due to the unidirectional nature of relations with robots. As was stated in Sect.  2.2 , relationships with robots are “unidirectional emotional bonds initiated from the human user” [ 16 : 593, see also 47 ]. For example, we may relate to a robot and come to care for a robot, but this robot does not care for us. It does not reciprocate this genuine human sentiment because it does not have the capacity to do so. Any interaction on the robot’s part is (at least currently) simulated behavior. Since the foundation of being human in ubuntu rests upon other regarding characteristics in the context of interdependent relationships, then reciprocity is important. For a human could show other regarding characteristics towards a robot (such as care), but a robot cannot genuinely reciprocate this other regarding characteristic. It can only imitate behaviour that would simulate care.

Thirdly, there is also no human solidarity . If we treat humanoid robots in anthropomorphising ways, we could possibly identify with them as human (because we view them and relate to them as human) and, therefore, feel some sense of solidarity with them [ 60 ]. Thaddeus Metz [ 35 : 393] states that solidarity requires “attitudes such as affections and emotions being invested in others”. Thus, given the potential to anthropomorphise and emotionally bond with humanoid robots, a human being could have such solidarity with a robot. However, this solidarity cannot be reciprocated, given that robots do not have such “attitudes such as affections and emotions” that they could invest in a human being. Moreover, how can something which is not human, have an understanding of what it means to be human, such that they can feel solidarity with other humans? There would need to be some kind of mutual understanding here, where the robot essentially understands what it means to be human and, therefore, identify with someone as a human.

5.3 Conclusion: we cannot become more fully human through relations with humanoid robots

Although we can relate to, and interact with, humanoid robots as if they were human, we cannot become fully human through these relations, because they are not humane relations. If we understand humane relations to be characterised by human equality, reciprocity, and solidarity , then we cannot experience such humane relations with humanoid robots, due to the reasons provided above.

This argument may seem limiting. Could robots not help us become human in an instrumental way i.e., by helping us develop skills that would help us to interact socially with other human beings which, in turn, could help us to become more fully human? As Tony J. Prescott & Julie M. Robillard [ 42 : 9] note: “social robots can support the acquisition of social skills, act as catalysts for forming relationships with other people, and bolster feelings of self-worth that could encourage relationship seeking”.

For example, this is the intention behind the robot, Kaspar, that is designed to “open up autistic children to social interaction with other human beings” [ 40 : 411]. In opening them up to social interaction with other human beings, this creates more opportunities for these children to have humane relations with others as they grow up. In this way, Kaspar the robot could be seen to help these children in becoming fully human from an ubuntu perspective i.e., aid them in developing their moral character. The potential for robots to support human–human interaction is supported by studies that found that social robots “prompted conversations between residents [of an old adult community] and drew them into the community space” [ 42 : 7].

This may also be claimed to be the case with sex robots. Some argue that sex robots could be a therapeutic tool used to treat victims of sexual abuse. Neil McArthur [ 33 : 41], for example, states that “people who have experienced sexual trauma often find it difficult to form intimate relationships. Sex robots might help people overcome such trauma through sexual experiences that are safe and controlled”. David Levy [ 29 ] has argued that sex robots could be used more generally for people who experience “psychosexual hang-ups”. In both cases, robots could help people to interact more with other human beings and, therefore, develop interdependent relations with them. Thus, from an ubuntu perspective, robots could be seen to help in our becoming more human. In this regard, robots can be seen as mediators between human beings in that they help shape human relations. From this perspective of technological mediation, robots should not be seen in opposition to human beings, but should be seen as extensions of human beings, and may be part of what it means to be human in a technological world [ 58 ].

In response to this, I argue that even if this may be a possibility (that robots can mediate relations between human beings and, therefore, help us become more human) my argument remains the same. This is because it is still the case that we cannot become more fully human through relations with robots in isolation. In light of the arguments above, it is not the interaction with the robot itself that would help us to become more fully human. It is the robot helping us to develop certain skills which, in turn, may help us to cultivate relations with other human beings. Accordingly, this may then create the opportunity for us to become more fully human. However, it remains the case that we cannot become more human through interactions with humanoid robots alone. Given this, I turn to the final point of this paper: that relations with robots, such that they crowd out human relations, are morally concerning from the perspective of ubuntu.

6 Replacing human relations with humanoid robots: an ubuntu perspective

Above, I argued that, from the perspective of ubuntu, we cannot become more human through relations with humanoid robots, because we cannot have humane relations with them. If we understand humane relations to be characterised by human equality, reciprocity, and solidarity, then we cannot experience such humane relations with humanoid robots.

Given this, I will now argue why we should be concerned about robots replacing, and possibly crowding out, human relations. As discussed in Sect.  3 , there is concern about robotic relations replacing human relations. The authors discussed above have different reasons for voicing their concern, mainly by pointing out why it is important that we prioritise human relations over robotic ones: human relations are more valuable [ 40 ] and improve wellbeing, especially with regard to decreasing stress levels, reducing cognitive decline [ 49 , 52 ] and helping with the development of relational autonomy [ 41 ]. Robotic relations, however, lead to social isolation [ 56 ] and may lead to people being less willing to express their moral agency [ 12 ]. They may also have a detrimental impact upon how we interact with other people [ 4 ].

Such replacement of human relations with robotic ones may occur because, as Bryson [ 5 ] points out, we have a finite amount of time to spend on forming social bonds. If this finite time is spent on forming social bonds with robots, this means we have less time to form social bonds with other humans, hence the risk of robots replacing, and crowding out, human relations.

Why is this concerning from the perspective of ubuntu? First, since we can only become more fully human through relations with human beings then, if robotic relations crowd out relations with human beings, there is less opportunity to foster interdependent relations with other human beings. Thus, this may negatively impact our potential to become more fully human. This can be seen as a moral concern since becoming fully human means becoming a more moral human being.

Second, in the context of ubuntu, there is a moral obligation to become more fully human. According to ubuntu, we have an imperative, or obligation, to “become human” [ 21 , 45 , 50 ]. Referring back to Shutte [ 50 : 30], “[our] deepest moral obligation is to become more fully human. And this means entering more and more deeply into community with others”. In a significant sense, replacing human relations with robots takes us out of this community with others, thus preventing us from fulfilling this important moral obligation. Thus, I argue that replacing human relations with robots such that they crowd out human relations, is morally concerning.

It could here be argued again that, instrumentally, robots could help us enter more deeply into the community with others (as was pointed out in Sect.  5.3 above). However, robots could only help us to enter more deeply into the community if we do not allow them to replace and, possibly, crowd out human relations. Moreover, if Bryson [ 5 ] is correct about us having a finite amount of time to spend on forming social relations, and we spend this finite amount of time forming relations with robots, then robots can, indeed, prevent us from entering more deeply into community with other people.

7 Conclusion

This paper has considered ethical concerns with replacing human relations with humanoid robots. I have argued that relations with humanoid robots wherein we treat them as human do not help us to become fully human, because we can only become fully human through interdependent, or humane, relations with other human beings. Should robotic relations replace and crowd out human relations, this is morally concerning given that, from the perspective of ubuntu, being fully human means being a particularly moral person. Moreover, ubuntu postulates that we have a moral obligation to become more fully human. Thus, from an ubuntu perspective, having anthropomorphising relations with humanoid robots, such that they crowd out human relations, is morally concerning.

Given the widespread interest in the development of humanoid robots, what can we ultimately take away from this conclusion? Thinking about the benefits and drawbacks of the creation and utilisation of humanoid robots is nuanced. This is not an all or nothing scenario where we can easily argue for or against their development. Rather, it is a case of thinking carefully about how we design these robots, and where in society we advocate for their use. The point here is that, given the moral concern that arises in the context of human–robot relations, we should at least be aware of how important it is to also maintain and cultivate relations with other humans. Thus, we must be careful not to allow robot relations to crowd out human ones.

Since the field of humanoid robotics is rapidly advancing, and effort is being made to make these robots as humanlike as possible so as to fulfil human social roles in society (such as sex robots, companion robots or care robots), it is important that we consider how this technology may impact us. Considering this from an ubuntu point of view provides a novel, and important, perspective.

See https://www.hansonrobotics.com/sophia/ .

See http://www.geminoid.jp/en/index.html .

See https://www.ai-darobot.com/ .

See https://www.engineeredarts.co.uk/robot/ameca/ .

See https://futureofsex.net/robots/state-of-the-sexbot-market-the-worlds-best-sex-robot-and-ai-love-doll-companies/ .

See https://www.softbankrobotics.com/emea/en/pepper .

This section focuses on studies which have indicated that people have a positive response to human-like robots. However, it is important to take note of the concept of the “uncanny valley” put forward by Masahiro Mori in 1970. Mori proposed that realistic human-like robots would bring about a sense of unease or revulsion in people. Studies on the uncanny valley, however, have been inconsistent [ 62 ]. Moreover, some argue that “exposure to robots over time will reduce aspects of uncanniness, even in humanlike robots that are recognizable as artificial life” [ 6 : 280].

See https://www.herts.ac.uk/kaspar/the-social-robot

Zulu is the language spoken by the Zulu ethnic group, found in South Africa.

Perfectionist ethics relates to ethical theories that “direct each human being to perfect himself as much as possible, or at least to some threshold level” [ 59 ].

This is similar to when members of the Jewish community sometimes use the Yiddish expression whereby they say that somebody is a real “Mensch”, which also means “human” but has the intended meaning that they are a good person with a great character [ 55 ].

The topic of rational thought and artificial moral agency in artificial intelligence and robotics is a contested one. This is, therefore, a limited discussion which focuses on some authors who negate the presence of these capacities in robots, since this allows me to formulate the argument I put forward in this paper. Someone who considers the possibility of rationality in machines from a different perspective is Tshilidzi Marwala [ 32 ] who argues that machines can be more rational than humans. Someone who argues for an understanding of robots as moral agents is John Sullins [ 53 ]. Coeckelbergh [ 8 ] argues for the notion of robots appearing as moral agents.

It should be noted that during the last few years, the initial ambitions of the project have become a little less ambitious [ 54 ].

In light of development that sees AI and robots becoming more human, it is also interesting to think about ways in which humans may merge with technology (such as with brain implants, for example). Humans may become more like cyborgs and, subsequently, more like robots. While robots are becoming more human, could we human beings become more like robots? However, someone such as Andy Clark [ 7 ] argues that we are, already, cyborgs given our utilisation of various kinds of technology.

Asaro, P.: What should we want from a robot ethic? Int. Rev. Inf. Ethics 6 , 9–16 (2006). https://doi.org/10.29173/irie134

Article   Google Scholar  

Baier, A.: Postures of the Mind: Essays on Mind and Morals. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis (1985)

Google Scholar  

Birhane, A & van Dijk, J.: Robot Rights? Let’s Talk about human welfare instead. In: Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 207–213. https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375855

Bisconti, P.: Will sexual robots modify human relationships? A psychological approach to reframe the symbolic argument. Adv. Robot. 35 , 561–571 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/01691864.2021.1886167

Bryson, J.J.: Robots should be slaves. In: Wilks, Y. (ed.) Close Engagements with Artificial Companions: Key Social, Psychological, Ethical and Design Issues, pp. 63–74. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam (2009)

Carpenter, J.: Culture and Human-Robot Interactions in Militarized Spaces. Routledge, London (2016)

Book   Google Scholar  

Clark, A.: Natural born cyborgs? In: Beynon, M., Nehaniv, C.L., Dautenhahn, K. (eds.) Cognitive Technology: Instruments of Mind. CT 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2117. Springer, Berlin (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44617-6_2

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Coeckelbergh, M.: Virtual moral agency, virtual moral responsibility: on the moral significance of the appearance, perception, and performance of artificial agents. AI Soc. 24 , 181–189 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-009-0208-3

Coeckelbergh, M.: Artificial companions: empathy and vulnerability mirroring in human-robot relations. Stud. Ethics, Law Technol. 4 (3), 2 (2010). https://doi.org/10.2202/1941-6008.1126

Coeckelbergh, M.: The Ubuntu robot: towards a relational conceptual framework for intercultural robotics. Sci. Eng. Ethics. 28 , 16 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00370-9

Damiano, L., Damouchel, P.: Anthropomorphism in human-robot co-evolution. Front. Psychol. (2018). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00468

Danaher, J.: The rise of the robots and the crisis of moral patiency. AI Soc. 34 , 129–136 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0773-9

Danaher, J.: The philosophical case for robot friendship. Journal of Posthuman Studies. 3 , 5–24 (2019). https://doi.org/10.5325/jpoststud.3.1.0005

Danaher, J.: Welcoming robots into the moral circle: a defence of ethical behaviourism. Sci Eng Ethics. 26 (4), 2023–2049 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00119-x

Darling, K.: Extending legal protection to social robots: the effects of anthropomorphism, empathy, and violent behavior towards robotic objects’. In: Calo, R., Froomkin, A.M., Kerr, I. (eds.) Robot Law, pp. 213–231. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham (2016)

de Graaf, M.A.: An ethical evaluation of human-robot relationships. Int J of Soc Robotics. 8 , 589–598 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0368-5

Dignum, V.: Relational artificial intelligence. Cornell University. https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.07446 . (2022). Accessed 28 Febr 2022

Dunbar, R.I.M.: Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language. Harvard University Press (1997)

Ewuoko, C., Hall, S.: Core aspects of ubuntu: a systematic review. South African Journal of Bioethics and Law. 12 , 93–103 (2019). https://doi.org/10.7196/SAJBL.2019.v12i2.679

Friedman, C.: Human-robot moral relations: human interactants as moral patients of their own agential moral actions towards robots. Commun. Comput. Inf. Sci. 1342 , 3–20 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66151-9_1

Gädeke, D.: Relational normative thought in Ubuntu and Neo-republicanism. Relational normative thought in Ubuntu and Neo-republicanism. In: Hull, G. (ed.) Debating African Philosophy: Perspectives on Identity, Decolonial Ethics and Comparative Philosophy, pp. 269–288. Routledge, New York (2018)

Gellers, J.C.: Rights for Robots: Artificial Intelligence, Animal and Environmental Law. Routledge & CRC Press, New York (2021)

Gunkel, D.J.: Robot Rights. MIT Press, Cambridge (2018)

Gwagwa, A., Kazim, E., Hilliard, A.: The role of the African value of Ubuntu in global AI inclusion discourse: A normative ethics perspective. Patterns (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2022.100462

Jecker, S.J., Atiure, C.A., Ajei, M.O.: The moral standing of social robots: untapped insights from Africa. Philos. Technol. 35 , 34 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00531-5

Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Imai, M., Ono, T.: Development and evaluation of interactive humanoid robots. Proc. IEEE 92 , 1839–1850 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2004.835359

Kittay, E.: Love’s Labor: Essays on Women, Equality, and Dependency. Routledge, New York (1999)

Lazzeri, N., Mazzei, D., Zaraki, A., De Rossi, D.: Towards a believable social robot. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Biomimetic and Biohybrid Systems. Springer, Berlin (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39802-5_45

Levy, D.: Love and Sex with Robots: The Evolution of Human-Robot Relationships. Harper Perennial, New York (2007)

Mamak, K.: Should violence against robots be banned? Int J Soc Robot (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00852-z

Mangena, F.: Hunhu/Ubuntu in the Traditional Thought of Southern Africa. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/hunhu/ . (2016). Accessed 29 June 2021

Marwala, T.: The limit of artificial intelligence: can machines be rational? https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.06510 . (2018). Accessed 27 May 2022

McArthur, N.: The case for Sexbots. In: Danaher, J., McArthur, N. (eds.) Robot Sex: Social and Ethical Implications, pp. 31–45. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2017)

Metz, T.: Toward an African moral theory. J Polit Philos 15 , 321–341 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2007.00280.x

Metz, T.: An African theory of moral status: a relational alternative to individualism and holism. Ethic Theory Moral Prac. 15 , 387–402 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-011-9302-y

Mnyaka, M., Motlhabi, M.: The African Concept of Ubuntu/Botho and its Socio-moral Significance. Black Theol. 3 , 215–237 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1558/blth.3.2.215.65725

Mosakas, K.: On the moral status of social robots: considering the consciousness criterion. AI Soc. 36 , 429–443 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01002-1

Murove, M.F.: Ubuntu. Diogenes 3–4 , 36–47 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1177/0392192113493737

Nyholm, S.: Humans and Robots: Ethics. Agency and Anthropomorphism. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, London (2020)

MATH   Google Scholar  

Nyholm, S., Frank, L.E.: It loves me, it loves me not: is it morally problematic to design sex robots that appear to “love” their owners? Techné. 23 , 402–424 (2019). https://doi.org/10.5840/techne2019122110

Parks, J.A.: Lifting the Burden of women’s care work: should robots replace the “Human Touch”? Hypatia 25 , 100–120 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2009.01086.x

Prescott, T.J., Robillard, J.M.: Are friends electric? The benefits and risks of human-robot relationships. iScience (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101993

Prozesky, M.H.: Frontiers of Conscience: Exploring Ethics in a New Millennium. Equinym Publishing, Cascades (2003)

Ramose, M.: The philosophy of ubuntu and ubuntu as a philosophy. In: Coetzee, P.H., Roux, A.P.J. (eds.) The African Philosophy Reader, pp. 270–280. Taylor & Francis Group (2005)

Ramose, M.: African Philosophy through Ubuntu. Mond Book Publishers, Harare (2005)

Ryland, H.: Could you hate a robot? And does it matter if you could? AI & Soc. 36 , 637–649 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01173-5

Scheutz, M.: The inherent dangers of unidirectional emotional Bonds. In: Lin, P., Abney, K., Bekey, G.A. (eds.) Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics, pp. 205–221. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2012)

Schönecker, D.: Kant’s argument from moral feelings: why practical reason cannot be artificial. In: Kim, H., Schönecker, D. (eds.) Kant and Artificial Intelligence, pp. 169–188. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin (2022)

Sharkey, A., Sharkey, N.: Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inf. Technol. 14 , 27–40 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9234-6

Shutte, A.: Ubuntu: An Ethic for a New South Africa. Cluster Publications, Pietermaritzburg (2001)

Smith, J.: Self-Consciousness. In: Zalta, E. N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/self-consciousness/ . (2020)

Sparrow, R., Sparrow, L.: In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Mind. Mach. 16 , 141–161 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-006-9030-6

Sullins, J.: When is a robot a moral agent? Int. Rev. Inf. Ethics. 6 (12), 21–30 (2006)

Theil, S. Why the Human Brain Project Went Wrong and How to Fix It. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-human-brain-project-wentwrong-and-how-to-fix-it/ . (2015). Accessed 12 Aug 2021

The Jewish Chronicle. What is a mensch? https://www.thejc.com/news/all/what-is-a-mensch-1.64427 . (2015). Accessed 28 Feb 2022

Turkle, S.: Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. Basic Books, New York (2011)

Waldron, J.: One Another’s Equals: The Basis of Human Equality. The Belknap Press of Harvard University, Cambridge (2017)

Verbeek, P.: Design ethics and the morality of technological artifacts. In: Vermaas, P.E., Kroes, P., Light, A., Moore, S.A. (eds.) Philosophy and Design: From Engineering to Architecture, pp. 91–103. Springer, Dordrecht (2008)

Wall, S.: Perfectionism in Moral and Political Philosophy. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/perfectionism-moral (2021). Accessed 27 May 2022

Wareham, C.S.: Artificial intelligence and African conceptions of personhood. Ethics Inf. Technol. 23 , 127–136 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-020-09541-3

You, S., Robert, L.P.: Subgroup formation in human–robot teams: A multi-study mixed-method approach with implications for theory and practice. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24626

Zhang, J., Li, S., Zhang, J.Y., Du, F., Qi, Y., Liu, X.: A literature review of the research on the uncanny valley. In: Rau, P.L. (ed.) Cross-Cultural Design User Experience of Products, Services, and Intelligent Environments. HCII 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, p. 12192. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49788-0_19

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Sven Nyholm for his guidance and feedback provided throughout writing this paper. I would also like to thank Lily Frank, Ingrid Robeyns and Peter-Paul Verbeek for their feedback on later drafts. A thank you must also be extended to researchers in the Ethics of Socially Disruptive Technologies research programme for their feedback on presentations of this paper, as well as feedback received from various audience members at which I presented my initial ideas. Thank you, also, to two anonymous reviewers for your valuable comments and insight.

This work is part of the research programme Ethics of Socially Disruptive Technologies, which is funded through the Gravitation programme of the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO Grant number 024.004.031).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Utrecht University, Janskerkhof 13, 3512 BL, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Cindy Friedman

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cindy Friedman .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Friedman, C. Ethical concerns with replacing human relations with humanoid robots: an ubuntu perspective. AI Ethics 3 , 527–538 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00186-0

Download citation

Received : 03 March 2022

Accepted : 01 June 2022

Published : 20 June 2022

Issue Date : May 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00186-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Humanoid robots
• Human–robot interaction
• African philosophy
• Robot ethics
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Online Robotics Trade Magazine Industrial Automation, Robots and Unmanned Vehicles

7 Advantages of Robots in the Workplace

Many people fear that robots or full automation may someday take their jobs, but this is simply not the case. Robots bring more advantages than disadvantages to the workplace. They enrich a company’s ability to succeed while improving the lives of real, human employees who are still needed to keep operations running smoothly. If you’re thinking about investing in some robots, share the advantages with your employees. You might be surprised at how many of them are quick to support the idea.

Safety is the most obvious advantage of utilizing robotics. Heavy machinery, machinery that runs at hot temperature, and sharp objects can easily injure a human being. By delegating dangerous tasks to a robot , you’re more likely to look at a repair bill than a serious medical bill or a lawsuit. Employees who work dangerous jobs will be thankful that robots can remove some of the risks.

Robots don’t get distracted or need to take breaks. They don’t request vacation time or ask to leave an hour early. A robot will never feel stressed out and start running slower. They also don’t need to be invited to employee meetings or training session. Robots can work all the time, and this speeds up production. They keep your employees from having to overwork themselves to meet high pressure deadlines or seemingly impossible standards.

3. Consistency

Robots never need to divide their attention between a multitude of things. Their work is never contingent on the work of other people. They won’t have unexpected emergencies, and they won’t need to be relocated to complete a different time sensitive task. They’re always there, and they’re doing what they’re supposed to do. Automation is typically far more reliable than human labor.

4. Perfection

Robots will always deliver quality. Since they’re programmed for precise, repetitive motion, they’re less likely to make mistakes. In some ways, robots are simultaneously an employee and a quality control system. A lack of quirks and preferences, combined with the eliminated possibility of human error, will create a predictably perfect product every time.

5. Happier Employees

Since robots are often assigned to perform tasks that people don’t particularly enjoy, like menial work, repetitive motion, or dangerous jobs, your employees are more likely to be happy. They’ll be focusing on more engaging work that’s less likely to grind down their nerves. They might want to take advantage of additional educational opportunities, utilize your employee wellness program , or participate in an innovative workplace project. They’ll be happy to let the robots do the work that leaves them feeling burned out.

6. Job Creation

Robots don’t take jobs away. They merely change the jobs that exist. Robots need people for monitoring and supervision. The more robots we need, the more people we’ll need to build those robots. By training your employees to work with robots, you’re giving them a reason to stay motivated in their position with your company. They’ll be there for the advancements and they’ll have the unique opportunity to develop a new set of tech or engineering related skills.

7. Productivity

Robots can’t do everything. Some jobs absolutely need to be completed by a human . If your human employees aren’t caught up doing the things that could have easily be left for robots, they’ll be available and productive. They can talk to customers, answer emails and social media comments, help with branding and marketing, and sell products. You’ll be amazed at how much they can accomplish when the grunt work isn’t weighing them down.

While we’re still lightyears away from a fully robotic workplace, the robotic capabilities that many companies are currently utilizing have proven to be one of the greatest innovations of our time. Start by adding a few robots, and see where it takes you.

Rachel is a mother of 2 beautiful boys. She loves to hike and write about travelling, education and business. She is a Senior Content Manager at Populationof an online resource with information about demographic and population data.

Comments (0)

This post does not have any comments. Be the first to leave a comment below.

Post A Comment

You must be logged in before you can post a comment. Login now .

Featured Product

Knight Optical - Unlocking Precision for the Robotics and Automation Revolution

More industrial automation, robots and unmanned vehicles resources.

© 2010 - 2024 RoboticsTomorrow - All Rights Reserved Powered by BTH Management