Ofori, J N A; Tomori, M and Ogunseiju, O (2025) Assessing the ethical, social and psychological risks of active and passive exoskeletons in the construction industry: Trust, productivity and stress levels. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 14(4), pp. 1091-1116. ISSN 2046-6099
Abstract
Purpose: Exoskeletons have the potential to alleviate musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), increase productivity and ultimately reduce construction project costs, but the concerns about their ethical, social and psychological risks for the construction industry are unknown. This paper investigates these risks and their implications for exoskeleton acceptance. Design/methodology/approach: Participants performed masonry tasks without an exoskeleton and with an active and passive exoskeleton. Using descriptive and inferential statistics, ethical, social and psychological risks associated with exoskeletons, as well as their trust levels, were assessed. Objective data were procured to determine stress and productivity levels with and without these exoskeletons, while subjective data included trust and the ethical and social risks of the exoskeletons. Findings: The findings show that lack of informed consent and procuring sensitive health data is an important ethical consideration when using active and passive exoskeletons. Regarding social risks, unequal access to exoskeletons, exoskeleton sharing and exoskeleton costs as major concerns. Furthermore, the findings revealed statistical differences between active and passive exoskeletons in terms of certain social risks. The findings show that participants believed in passive exoskeletons more than active exoskeletons. The results also revealed a strong positive relationship between ethical and social risks, and trust levels. The results also indicated that both exoskeletons induce relatively moderate stress levels and enhance productivity, compared to the no exoskeleton condition. Originality/value: This study is one of the few empirical investigations in the construction industry on the ethical and social risks associated with exoskeletons, which can facilitate the adoption of exoskeletons for mitigating MSDs in the construction industry.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction industry; ethical risks; exoskeletons; health and safety; psychological risks; social risks |
| Index terms: | health and safety, methodology, construction project, productivity, investigation, informed consent, construction industry, statistics |
| Subjects: | professional ethics, health safety and environment, production management, research methods, mathematical modelling, data collection methods, industry analysis, management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Business Strategy, Project Management, Health and Safety, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here