Construction continues to be one of the most dangerous industries, with workers constantly exposed to physically demanding and repetitive activities. Exoskeletons are emerging as ergonomic interventions that amplify human strength and agility while reducing muscle fatigue and discomfort. However, like any robotic technology, exoskeletons may have unintended consequences.

While studies have examined the health and safety risks of exoskeletons in construction, there is a significant gap in the literature regarding their ethical and social risks. Issues related to privacy concerns, exoskeletons’ design, and discrimination, among many others, are housed in the ethical risks, and social risks often include questions regarding exoskeletons’ affordability, accessibility and impact on social identity and communication, among others.

A new study just published by The Center for Construction Research and Training addresses that gap by investigating the ethical and social risks associated with exoskeleton use in construction, assessing their impact on workers’ health and safety and exploring how they can be designed to minimize these risks. This study further developed a comprehensive and practical worker-centric guide aimed at advancing the safe and ethical implementation of exoskeletons in the construction industry.

This research leverages a systematic literature review, a Delphi technique (consisting of three rounds of surveys), and a focus group discussion to achieve the research objectives. The study developed a practical, worker-centric guide that examines exoskeleton preferences for construction trades, ethical and social risks of exoskeletons, the impacts of these risks on construction workers’ health and safety, the impact of these risks on the implementation of exoskeletons in the construction industry, and strategies to mitigate these identified ethical and social risks. The study further highlights barriers to implementing the identified strategies.

1. Ethical and Social Risks: A total of 34 ethical and social risks were identified from the literature review. Out of the 34, 18 were verified by experts in the construction industry and used in this study. These risks are categorized under design, autonomy, dehumanization, stigmatization, vulnerability, affordability, and accessibility.
2. Risk Criticality: Experts rated the identified risks on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being not critical, 2 less critical, 3 moderately critical, 4 very critical, and 5 extremely critical). Results show inaccessibility and unaffordability are examples of Very Critical risks, and stigmatization and loss of identity are examples of Less Critical risks.
3. Exoskeleton Suitability: Passive exoskeletons are suitable for repetitive overhead work and awkward postures, while active exoskeletons are better for heavy lifting. Back-support exoskeletons are most suitable for trades such as plumbers and carpenters, while full-body exoskeletons suit laborers.
4. Risk Impact on Workers’ Health and Safety: The findings revealed that ethical and social risks related to design, autonomy, privacy, unauthorized access, dependency, exoskeleton weight, and overdependence pose significant health and safety concerns to workers.
5. Mitigating Strategies: Seventy strategies to mitigate identified ethical and social risks were proposed and evaluated.
6. Barriers to proposed strategies: Fifteen barriers to effective risk mitigation were identified.
7. Worker-Centric Guide: A comprehensive guide was developed to facilitate the implementation of exoskeletons such that the ethical and social risks are minimized.

CPWR – The Center for Construction Research and Training is a nonprofit dedicated to reducing occupational injuries, illnesses and fatalities in the construction industry. A copy of the 74 page document can be downloaded without charge by using this link.