Beyond Efficiency: Rethinking The Psychosocial and Long-Term Impacts of Collaborative Robots in the Workplace

The integration of Cobots in workplaces worldwide is reshaping how tasks are performed and redefining human-machine interaction [1-4]. Cobots represent a new paradigm in automation, distinct from traditional industrial robots by their ability to operate safely alongside humans. This unique feature has unlocked new opportunities across sectors such as manufacturing, logistics, healthcare, and even creative industries [5-8]. According to Villani et al. (2018), Cobots have significantly accelerated the adoption of automation technologies in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), further highlighting their transformative potential in the workforce [9].

Since the International Federation of Robotics (IFR) began tracking Cobot statistics in 2017, the global market for Cobots has demonstrated substantial growth. Initially accounting for only 2.8% of the global industrial robotics market, Cobots have gained widespread adoption due to their adaptability and safe collaboration with human workers. By 2022, global deployments surged by 39%, reaching 57,966 units and representing 10.5% of the worldwide industrial robotics sector. Despite a slight global market contraction in 2023, with new installations declining by 2% to 57,040 units, Cobots maintained a consistent market share of 10.5%. This trend highlights the dynamic nature of the Cobot industry as it continues to adapt to shifting regional and international demands.

This rapid expansion is supported by continuous advancements in Cobot design, which have made them safer and more flexible [10,11]. Krüger et al. (2009) demonstrated that Cobots, due to their collaborative nature, are particularly well-suited for assembly lines, where they complement human workers by taking over repetitive or ergonomically challenging tasks. This collaboration reduces physical strain on workers while enhancing production efficiency [8], offers significant advantages for industries that depend on flexible, adaptive workforces [12-16]. However, despite these technological advances, the psychosocial aspects of Cobot integration often remain overlooked. The impact on worker well-being, job design, and social relationships requires critical examination [11,17,18]. As some scholars noted human-robot collaboration raises concerns regarding job displacement, technological unemployment, and the psychological effects of interacting with machines in the workplace [17, 76-88]. These issues are particularly relevant in sectors where Cobots are used alongside human operators, as they may introduce both physical and emotional challenges [19-23,76].

Furthermore, successful Cobot implementation necessitates attention to workplace design and safety standards [9, 24-27]. The integration of Cobots into industrial environments requires not only the advancement of robotics technology but also adherence to stringent safety and ergonomic standards. According to ISO/TS 15066, safety features such as force feedback, collision detection, and low-inertia actuators are critical to ensuring that Cobots can safely interact with human workers in shared environments [28- 31]. These measures mitigate risks like physical injuries and ensure safe operations without requiring physical barriers. In addition to safety, ergonomic design is vital in ensuring that human-robot interactions feel natural and non-threatening. Intuitive interfaces, along with safety sensors, light curtains, and emergency stop functions, further contribute to worker well-being [32]. By considering both physical and psychological factors, these measures not only enhance safety but also improve the efficiency of Cobots in the workplace, fostering a balanced approach to automation.

This paper addresses the benefits and challenges associated with Cobots in modern workplaces, advocating for a humancentric approach. It emphasizes ethical considerations, continuous education, and sustainable workplace practices, ensuring that Cobots contribute positively to the future of work while enhancing productivity and employee satisfaction

The integration of Cobots into workplaces has not only redefined automation but also established a human-centric approach to productivity [26,33,34]. Cobots provide distinct advantages across various domains, including increased efficiency, enhanced safety, job enrichment, and improved well-being [11,24]. This section explores the multifaceted benefits of Cobots, illustrating their transformative potential in modern workplaces.

Boosting Efficiency and Reducing Workload

Cobots have proven to be transformative tools in modern workplaces, excelling at executing repetitive, physically demanding tasks while enabling human workers to engage in higher-order, creative, or complex activities. This shift not only increases overall productivity but also enhances worker satisfaction and task allocation [3, 8, 10, 35]. For instance, in manufacturing, Cobots are extensively deployed in processes like assembly and quality control, where their precision and repeatability contribute to significant operational improvements [36-39]. The adoption of Cobots in manufacturing increase productivity and reduction in defect rates. The adoption of Cobots in manufacturing increases productivity and reduces defect rates [40].

Equipped with advanced technologies such as force sensors, vision systems, and adaptive programming, Cobots ensure consistent quality while reducing process variability [9,11,26,41]. By automating tasks that traditionally relied on human labour, Cobots minimize human error and uphold stringent quality standards [42,43]. Furthermore, these robots play a crucial role in mitigating workplace injuries by performing ergonomically challenging tasks, such as lifting heavy objects, repetitive movements, or prolonged standing. This capability not only alleviates physical strain on workers but also reduces the incidence of musculoskeletal disorders, contributing to a healthier workforce [6,19,44-46].

The flexibility of Cobots further enhances their appeal across various industrial applications [11,24,43,47]. Unlike traditional industrial robots, Cobots are easily programmable and reconfigurable, allowing companies to adapt swiftly to changing market demands and production requirements [48,49,52]. Their ability to integrate seamlessly into existing workflows and perform diverse tasks makes them particularly beneficial for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which often operate under resource constraints and require scalable automation solutions [24,48-51].

Adherence to international safety and ergonomic standards is critical to ensuring the successful integration of Cobots into industrial environments. Safety protocols outlined in ISO/TS 15066 emphasize features such as force limitation, collision detection, and low-inertia actuators, which protect workers from physical harm during human-robot collaboration [28]. These safety mechanisms allow Cobots to operate without physical barriers, fostering a safe yet efficient working environment. Additionally, intuitive interfaces and user-friendly designs facilitate seamless interaction between humans and Cobots, reducing the cognitive load on workers while enhancing operational efficiency [52,53].

Through a balanced approach that considers productivity, safety, and ergonomics, Cobots have demonstrated their potential to revolutionize industrial workflows, creating more efficient, adaptive, and human-centric workplaces [8,22,54].

Enhancing Safety and Risk Mitigation

Collaborative robots (Cobots) are designed to work safely alongside human workers in shared environments, eliminating the need for traditional physical barriers [55-57]. Advanced features like force-limiting mechanisms, collision detection, and low-inertia actuators ensure compliance with international safety standards such as ISO/TS 15066. These innovations enable Cobots to minimize injury risks while maintaining high levels of productivity [6,25,58,59].

Cobots have proven particularly transformative in hazardous industries. In chemical manufacturing, they manage tasks involving toxic substances and sensitive equipment, reducing workers’ exposure to harmful materials [11,60,61]. In construction, they take on high-risk activities, including heavy lifting and repetitive motions, thereby mitigating physical exhaustion and the development of musculoskeletal disorders. In logistics, Cobots streamline operations such as palletizing and sorting, alleviating physical strain and enhancing operational efficiency [62].

Beyond physical safety, Cobots enhance psychological wellbeing by fostering trust and reducing anxieties associated with automation. Their predictable, transparent behaviour and userfriendly interfaces help workers view them as collaborative partners rather than competitors [5,65]. This trust is essential for seamless integration into workflows and for building resilient humanmachine teams. Cobots’ adaptability further amplifies their value in risk mitigation [5,6,63]. They can be rapidly reprogrammed for tasks such as hazardous material containment or disaster response, underscoring their utility in emergency scenarios. This versatility makes them an indispensable safety tool across diverse sectors [6]. By shielding workers from both physical and psychological risks, Cobots not only ensure compliance with safety standards but also support sustainable labour practices. Their integration fosters a culture of safety and collaboration, enabling organizations to achieve operational excellence while prioritizing employee wellbeing [64,67].

Fostering Innovation and Job Enrichment

Cobots have the transformative potential to redefine job roles, enabling workers to shift from repetitive, manual tasks to intellectually stimulating and skill-intensive activities. This evolution has paved the way for emerging roles such as Cobot Coordinator and Human-Robot Interaction Specialist, highlighting the growing significance of managing human-robot collaboration. The deployment of Cobots fosters a workplace environment that values innovation and creativity, allowing employees to focus on higher-order problem-solving, strategic thinking, and decisionmaking tasks [65,66]. By automating routine processes, Cobots free up human resources to contribute to tasks that require cognitive and creative inputs. For instance, in the manufacturing sector, this shift has been shown to increase employee satisfaction as workers are empowered to engage in meaningful activities that directly influence organizational success [68]. The introduction of Cobots often enhances team collaboration and strengthens cross-disciplinary synergies, driving innovation and operational efficiency within organizations [69].

Cobots are also instrumental in driving digital transformation across various industries, particularly in small and mediumsized enterprises (SMEs) were resource constraints limit access to advanced automation. With their user-friendly programming interfaces and modular designs, Cobots enable SMEs to adapt quickly to evolving market demands. This scalability allows organizations to respond effectively to dynamic industrial environments, thereby improving operational agility and competitiveness [70][71]. Additionally, the integration of Cobots into workflows has been linked to improvements in production quality and efficiency, as these systems minimize human error and variability [72]. The role of training and education is pivotal in realizing the full potential of Cobots. The World Economic Forum reported that 94% of surveyed companies identified continuous workforce upskilling as essential to adapting to Cobot-driven workflows [73]. This emphasis on lifelong learning ensures that employees remain agile and capable of leveraging technological advancements to achieve sustainable organizational growth [66].

Furthermore, Cobots contribute to job enrichment by fostering trust and reducing anxieties commonly associated with automation. Their predictable and transparent behavior, combined with intuitive user interfaces, enables workers to view them as collaborative partners rather than competitors. This trust is essential for seamless integration into workflows and for building resilient human-machine teams [72,74] The adaptability of Cobots further enhances their value in dynamic and high-risk scenarios, such as disaster response or hazardous material handling, where they can be rapidly reprogrammed to address emergent challenges [59,64,66,71,83].

In summary, Cobots act as catalysts for innovation and job enrichment, creating opportunities for workers to upskill, engage in meaningful activities, and contribute to a forward-thinking organizational culture. By combining adaptability, collaboration, and continuous learning, organizations can leverage Cobots to achieve technological advancement while maintaining a strong focus on human-centric values. This balanced approach lays the foundation for a resilient and innovative future workforce.

Improving Job Satisfaction and Well-being

The integration of collaborative robots (Cobots) into workplaces has been linked to significant improvements in employee wellbeing, job satisfaction, and overall productivity [6,23,84]. Cobots are designed to assist with physically demanding and repetitive tasks, reducing stress and promoting a healthier work-life balance. For instance, research indicates that the introduction of Cobots can alleviate job-related stress by automating mundane tasks, which allows employees to focus on more engaging and fulfilling aspects of their work [83,85]. Moreover, Cobots contribute to a safer work environment. Their ability to take over dangerous or strenuous tasks reduces the risk of workplace injuries and provides workers with greater autonomy in their roles [5,59,86].

This shift in task allocation can be particularly beneficial for individuals with physical limitations, as Cobots allow them to continue participating in the workforce with minimal strain [69,75,87,88]. Cobots also foster inclusivity and enhance the psychological well-being of workers by improving their sense of accomplishment. Their intuitive interfaces and assistive technologies empower employees to perform tasks more efficiently, which positively affects their engagement and job satisfaction [69,72,87,89]. Furthermore, organizational strategies, such as providing adequate training and ensuring psychological safety during Cobot integration, have been shown to enhance employee acceptance of these technologies, thereby improving both performance and job satisfaction [21,66,90,91]. In essence, Cobots are not just tools for increasing efficiency-they are pivotal in shaping a work environment that promotes employee health, safety, and overall well-being. As organizations continue to adopt these technologies, it is critical to ensure that their implementation supports the psychological sustainability of workers, thereby ensuring long-term success for both the workforce and the organization [84,92-94].

As the integration of Cobots becomes more widespread, it is crucial to address the potential psychosocial and long-term challenges that could affect both employees and organizations. While Cobots can offer significant advantages in terms of productivity, safety, and efficiency, their presence also raises concerns about job insecurity, social cohesion, skill degradation, and ethical implications. The following sections explore these challenges in greater detail, highlighting the need for organizations to address these issues proactively to ensure that technological advancements are implemented in ways that support both the workforce and the broader organizational goals.

Job Insecurity and Fear of Replacement

One of the most immediate psychosocial challenges posed by the introduction of Cobots is the fear of job displacement. Workers, especially in low-skilled positions, often perceive automation as a direct threat to their job security [95,96,98]. Frey and Osborne (2017) found that approximately 47% of workers in highly automated sectors felt that their jobs were vulnerable to technological displacement [97]. This fear can lead to heightened anxiety, resistance to change, and a decline in employee morale, all of which can impede the successful integration of Cobots into the workplace. When workers perceive that their roles are at risk, they may be less inclined to embrace new technologies, potentially stalling innovation and reducing the overall effectiveness of Cobot systems [99,100].

To address these concerns, organizations must prioritize transparent communication regarding the role of automation and its impact on job security. Research indicates that inclusive labour policies, such as reskilling initiatives and the creation of new roles that complement Cobot technology, can help mitigate the fear of job loss [66,90]. Furthermore, engaging employees in the design and implementation phases of Cobot integration can foster a sense of agency and ownership, reducing feelings of vulnerability and enhancing acceptance of automation [101,102].

Erosion of Social Cohesion

While Cobots are designed to enhance collaboration between humans and machines, there is growing concern that their integration may inadvertently erode social cohesion in the workplace [103-106]. The increasing automation of tasks that were once performed by humans can lead to a reduction in face-toface interactions and teamwork. A study by Harrison et al. (2019) highlighted that as automation increases within organizations; there is a corresponding decline in social engagement and interpersonal collaboration among employees [104]. In environments where teamwork and a sense of community are valued, this shift can be particularly concerning, as employees may feel isolated or disconnected from their colleagues [84,104].

This erosion of social cohesion can have detrimental effects on organizational culture, as strong interpersonal relationships are often critical to fostering trust, communication, and collective problem-solving [69,83,104]. To counteract this trend, organizations should ensure that Cobots are integrated in ways that enhance-not replace-human interactions. This may include designing workflows that allow employees to collaborate with Cobots in team-based settings and encouraging social activities that foster a sense of community [69,84,90].

Skill Degradation and Dependency

Another potential long-term challenge is the degradation of essential human skills as workers increasingly rely on Cobots to perform tasks that once required human expertise [42,107,108]. As Cobots take over manual or cognitively demanding tasks, there is a risk that workers may lose proficiency in these areas, becoming overly dependent on technology. This phenomenon, often referred to as ‘skills flattening,’ occurs when workers fail to maintain or develop critical skills due to excessive reliance on automation [109]. In the event of a system failure or technological disruption, employees may struggle to perform their tasks without the necessary manual skills or technical knowledge [110,111].

This dependency on Cobots poses a significant vulnerability, particularly in industries where technological failures or interruptions could lead to production delays or safety hazards. To mitigate this risk, organizations must implement training programs that ensure workers retain and continuously develop essential skills, even as automation becomes more prevalent. Encouraging employees to engage in hands-on tasks and problemsolving exercises will help maintain their technical and operational expertise [112-115].

Ethical and Trust Concerns

The deployment of Cobots also raises important ethical and trust-related concerns, particularly in terms of algorithmic bias, accountability, and transparency. As Cobots are powered by complex algorithms, there is a risk that these systems may inadvertently perpetuate biases or make decisions that disproportionately affect certain groups of workers [116]. West et al. (2020) highlighted the ethical implications of algorithmic decision-making, noting that when Cobots make errors or malfunction, questions arise regarding who is responsible for these failures-whether it is the developer, the machine itself, or the organization that implemented the technology [117].

To address these issues, organizations must proactively establish ethical guidelines and governance frameworks. Detailed strategies for mitigating these challenges, including regular algorithm audits and fairness assessments, are further elaborated in Section 4.2.

As the use of collaborative robots (Cobots) continues to evolve in the workplace, it is essential to ensure that their integration is grounded in a human-centric framework [94,121,122]. This approach prioritizes not only efficiency gains but also the wellbeing, development, and ethical considerations of employees. The following sections outline key strategies for achieving a balanced and sustainable implementation of Cobots, focusing on job redesign, ethical governance, training, lifelong learning, and longitudinal research.

Promoting Holistic Job Redesign

To achieve the successful integration of Cobots, job roles should be redesigned to focus on collaboration rather than mere substitution. Cobots can take on repetitive, physically demanding tasks, allowing human workers to focus on areas where they add the most value-such as creativity, emotional intelligence, and decisionmaking. This shift from a mechanistic view of automation to a more human-centered approach fosters a working environment in which employees can leverage their unique cognitive and emotional capabilities [118-120]. Cascio and Montealegre (2016) emphasized that organizations that embraced human-robot collaboration saw not only improvements in operational efficiency but also increased innovation and employee satisfaction [123]. By promoting job roles that complement Cobot capabilities, organizations can foster a culture of innovation, where human creativity and problem-solving are integral to productivity [41,124,125].

Embedding Ethical Governance

To ensure the responsible deployment of Cobots, organizations must adopt robust governance frameworks that directly address the ethical concerns outlined in Section 3.4. Key measures include:

• Mitigating Algorithmic Bias: Conduct regular audits and implement fairness assessments to identify and mitigate biases in Cobot algorithms. Ensuring diverse datasets during algorithm development is critical for equitable outcomes [119,120,126].

• Ensuring Transparency: Develop clear communication protocols to explain how Cobot systems make decisions. Transparency builds trust among employees and stakeholders and fosters a collaborative environment [126-130].

• Establishing Accountability Structures: Define clear accountability mechanisms to determine responsibility for errors or malfunctions in Cobot systems. This includes delineating roles for developers, implementers, and operators [120-132].

• Stakeholder Engagement: Actively involve employees, labour unions, and other stakeholders in the governance process to ensure inclusive decision-making and trust-building [77,133].

By embedding these ethical principles into their governance frameworks, organizations can foster trust, reduce risks, and maximize the benefits of Cobot integration [134,135]. Proactively addressing these issues not only mitigates potential pitfalls but also sets a foundation for sustainable and equitable human-robot collaboration.

Investing in Training and Development

The successful implementation of Cobots requires workers to acquire not only technical skills for operating and maintaining the robots but also the soft skills necessary for collaboration in a tech-driven environment [136]. Effective training programs must go beyond technical knowledge to include adaptability, problemsolving, and teamwork-skills that are essential for working alongside Cobots in dynamic and evolving workplace settings [137]. According to a report by PWC (2020), 74% of surveyed companies provide training programs to prepare workers for collaboration with Cobots, highlighting the importance of ensuring that workers are well-prepared to embrace new technologies [138]. Investing in training that fosters these skills can help employees build confidence in their ability to work alongside automation, thereby improving job satisfaction and performance. To navigate the complexities of working with Cobots, workers need to develop skills that go beyond traditional expertise, fostering collaboration with automation [139].

Lifelong Learning for a Resilient Workforce

As automation technologies continue to evolve, workers must remain adaptable and resilient in the face of changing demands [77]. Continuous learning is essential to equip employees with the skills needed to navigate an increasingly automated workplace [117,137,140,141]. Modular training programs that combine both technical and soft skills have proven to be particularly effective, especially in sectors such as manufacturing and healthcare, where technological advancements are rapidly reshaping job functions [142,143]. The World Economic Forum (2020) highlighted the importance of lifelong learning in preparing workers for future challenges, noting that organizations that invest in continuous development are better equipped to build a resilient workforce capable of thriving in the face of automation-driven changes [73,146]. A commitment to lifelong learning ensures that workers can continuously upgrade their skills and remain valuable contributors to their organizations [143-145].

Encouraging Longitudinal Research

Finally, to fully understand the long-term impacts of Cobot integration, it is essential to invest in longitudinal research that tracks the effects of automation on workplace satisfaction, social dynamics, and training outcomes [21,24,147,148]. Sustained research efforts are crucial for developing adaptive policies that ensure Cobots provide not only short-term efficiency gains but also long-term positive outcomes for employees and organizations [26,149,150]. Longitudinal studies can help identify emerging challenges, refine training programs, and inform policy decisions that support a balanced, sustainable approach to automation. By fostering a culture of ongoing research and data-driven decision-making, organizations can ensure that the integration of Cobots remains aligned with the evolving needs of the workforce [24,147,148].

Cobots present substantial opportunities for enhancing productivity, safety, and innovation within various industrial sectors. However, the successful integration of Cobots into the workforce transcends mere technical deployment and requires a multifaceted approach that emphasizes human well-being, ethical governance, and continuous professional development. The integration of Cobots demands a holistic, human-centered framework that ensures their deployment not only augments operational efficiency but also contributes to a sustainable and equitable work environment. Critical to the successful adoption of Cobots is the establishment of work environments that promote symbiotic collaboration between human workers and machines. This necessitates comprehensive training programs that not only focus on technical competencies but also foster essential interpersonal and cognitive skills, such as adaptability, problem-solving, and teamwork. These skills are crucial in enabling employees to effectively engage with and complement Cobots, ensuring that human workers are empowered rather than displaced by automation. As such, training must address both the technical and soft skills required to navigate the complexities of human-robot interactions in dynamic workplace contexts.

In parallel, the ethical governance of Cobots is indispensable for ensuring that their integration yields long-term benefits for both employees and organizations. As automation technologies continue to evolve, it is essential to develop adaptive policies that mitigate potential risks associated with job displacement, inequalities, and social fragmentation. The development of such policies should be guided by active stakeholder engagement, including input from employees, labor unions, and other relevant parties, to ensure that Cobot deployment is carried out in a transparent, accountable, and socially responsible manner. This inclusive approach not only fosters trust and collaboration but also ensures that the implementation of Cobots aligns with broader social and ethical objectives.

Furthermore, longitudinal research is essential to assess the long-term impacts of Cobot integration on workplace satisfaction, social dynamics, and training outcomes. Ongoing empirical studies provide valuable insights into the evolving nature of work and the emerging challenges associated with automation. Longitudinal data can inform the refinement of training programs, as well as the development of policies that support a balanced, sustainable approach to automation. By promoting a culture of continuous research and data-driven decision-making, organizations can better align Cobot integration with the shifting needs of the workforce, thereby enhancing the resilience and adaptability of workers in the face of technological advancements.

In conclusion, while Cobots represent a transformative force in the modern workplace, their integration must be approached with a comprehensive strategy that prioritizes the well-being of workers, fosters ethical governance, and supports continuous learning and research. A commitment to these principles will not only maximize the benefits of Cobots in terms of productivity and innovation but also contribute to the long-term sustainability and equity of the workforce. Future research and policy frameworks should be oriented towards this holistic perspective, ensuring that Cobots are deployed in ways that enhance both operational outcomes and the quality of work and life for all stakeholders involved.

None.

No conflict of interest.

1. Krüger J, Lien TK, Verl A (2009) Cooperation of human and machines in assembly lines. CIRP annals 58(2): 628-646.
2. Peifer Y, Weber MA (2020) Process model for integrating human-robot collaboration. Journal for economic factory operations 115(5): 279-282.
3. Villani V, Pini F, Leali F, Secchi C, Fantuzzi C (2018) Survey on human-robot interaction for robot programming in industrial applications. Ifac-Papers Online 51(11): 66-71.
4. Franklin CS, Dominguez EG, Fryman JD, Lewandowski ML (2020) Collaborative robotics: New era of human-robot cooperation in the workplace. J Safety Res 74: 153-160.
5. Magrini E, Ferraguti F, Ronga AJ, Pini F, De Luca A, Leali F (2020) Human-robot coexistence and interaction in open industrial cells. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 61: 101846.
6. Realyvásquez-Vargas A, Arredondo-Soto KC, García-Alcaraz JL, Márquez-Lobato BY, Cruz-García J (2019) Introduction and configuration of a collaborative robot in an assembly task as a means to decrease occupational risks and increase efficiency in a manufacturing company. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 57: 315-328.
7. Cherubini A, Passama R, Crosnier A, Lasnier A, Fraisse P (2016) Collaborative manufacturing with physical human-robot interaction. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 40: 1-13.
8. Gualtieri L, Palomba I, Merati FA, Rauch E, Vidoni R (2020) Design of Human-Centered Collaborative Assembly Workstations for the Improvement of Operators Physical Ergonomics and Production Efficiency: A Case Study. Sustainability 12(9): 3606.
9. Taesi C, Aggogeri F, Pellegrini N (2023) COBOT Applications—Recent Advances and Challenges. Robotics 12(3): 79.
10. Ajoudani A, Zanchettin AM, Ivaldi S, Albu-Schäffer A, Kosuge K, Khatib O (2018) Progress and prospects of the human–robot collaboration. Autonomous robots 42: 957-975.
11. Hentout A, Aouache M, Maoudj A, Akli I (2019) Human-robot interaction in industrial collaborative robotics: a literature review of the decade 2008-2017. Advanced Robotics 33(15-16): 764-799.
12. Liu L, Guo F, Zou Z, Duffy VG (2024) Application, development and future opportunities of collaborative robots (cobots) in manufacturing: A literature review. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 40(4): 915-932.
13. Faccio M, Granata I, Menini A, Milanese M, Rossato C, et al. (2023) Human factors in cobot era: a review of modern production systems features. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 34(1): 85-106.
14. Müller R, Vette M, Scholer M (2016) Robot workmate: a trustworthy coworker for the continuous automotive assembly line and its implementation. Procedia CIRP 44: 263-268
15. Bejarano R, Ferrer BR, Mohammed WM, Lastra JLM (2019) Implementing a human-robot collaborative assembly workstation. In 2019 IEEE 17^th International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN) 1: 557-564.
16. Tzavara E, Angelakis P, Veloudis G, Gkournelos C, Makris S (2021) Worker in the loop: A framework for enabling human-robot collaborative assembly. In Advances in Production Management Systems. Artificial Intelligence for Sustainable and Resilient Production Systems: IFIP WG 5.7 International Conference, APMS 2021, Nantes, France, September 5-9, 2021, Proceedings, Part I, pp. 275-283.
17. Elprama B, ElMakrini I, Jacobs A (2016) Acceptance of collaborative robots by factory workers: a pilot study on the importance of social cues of anthropomorphic robots. International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.
18. Schmidtler J, Knott V, Hölzel C (2015) Human centered assistance applications for the working environment of the future. Occup Ergon 12(3): 83-95.
19. Robelski S, Wischniewski S (2016) Scoping review on human-machine interaction and health and safety at work. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 9752: 337-347.
20. Gualtieri L, Rauch E, Vidoni R (2021) Emerging research fields in safety and ergonomics in industrial collaborative robotics: A systematic literature review. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing.
21. Paliga M (2023) The Relationships of Human-Cobot Interaction Fluency with Job Performance and Job Satisfaction among Cobot Operators-The Moderating Role of Workload, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20(6): 5111.
22. Storm FA, Chiappini M, Dei C, Piazza C, André E, et al. (2022) Physical and mental well‐being of cobot workers: A scoping review using the Software‐Hardware‐Environment‐Liveware‐Liveware‐Organization model. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 32(5): 419-435.
23. Tripathi MA, Sawant PD, Kaur H, Almahairah MS, Chandel PS, Balakumar A (2024) Human-Robot Collaboration in the Workplace: Assessing the Impact on Employee Well-Being and Productivity," 2024 Third International Conference on Intelligent Techniques in Control, Optimization and Signal Processing (INCOS), Krishnankoil, Virudhunagar district, Tamil Nadu, India, pp. 1-7.
24. Weidemann C, Mandischer N, Van Kerkom F, Corves B, Hüsing M, et al. (2023) Literature Review on Recent Trends and Perspectives of Collaborative Robotics in Work 4.0. Robotics 12(3): 84.
25. Hu M (2023) Research on safety design and optimization of collaborative robots. Int J Intell Robot Appl 7: 795-809.
26. Patil S, Vasu V, Srinadh KVS (2023) Advances and perspectives in collaborative robotics: a review of key technologies and emerging trends. Discov Mechanical Engineering 2(1): 3.
27. Li W, Hu Y, Zhou Y (2024) Safe human-robot collaboration for industrial settings: a survey. J Intell Manuf 35: 2235-2261.
28. Matthias B, Reisinger T (2016, June) Example application of ISO/TS 15066 to a collaborative assembly scenario. In Proceedings of ISR 2016: 47st international symposium on robotics, pp. 1-5.
29. Kóczi D, Sárosi J (2022) The Safety of Collaborative Robotics-a Review. Annals of the Faculty of Engineering Hunedoara 20(2): 73-76.
30. Sultanov R, Sulaiman S, Li H, Meshcheryakov R, Magid E (2022) A review on collaborative robots in industrial and service sectors. In 2022 International Siberian Conference on Control and Communications (SIBCON), pp. 1-7.
31. Vicentini F (2020) Terminology in safety of collaborative robotics. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 63:101921.
32. Cardoso A, Colim A, Bicho E, Braga AC, Menozzi M, Arezes P (2021) Ergonomics and Human Factors as a Requirement to Implement Safer Collaborative Robotic Workstations: A Literature Review. Safety 7(4): 71.
33. Yamaguchi K, Inaba K (2023) Intelligent and Collaborative Robots. In: Nof, S.Y. (eds) Springer Handbook of Automation. Springer Handbooks, pp.335-356.
34. Hu M (2023) Research on safety design and optimization of collaborative robots. Int J Intell Robot Appl 7: 795-809.
35. 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.
36. Othman U, Yang E (2023) Human-Robot Collaborations in Smart Manufacturing Environments: Review and Outlook. Sensors 23(12): 5663.
37. Keshvarparast A, Battini D, Battaia O (2024) Collaborative robots in manufacturing and assembly systems: literature review and future research agenda. J Intell Manuf 35: 2065-2118.
38. Cencen A, Verlinden JC, Geraedts JMP (2018) Design methodology to improve human-robot coproduction in small-and medium-sized enterprises. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics 23(3): 1092-1102.
39. Segura PO, Lobato-Calleros A, Ramírez-Serrano, I Soria (2021) Human-robot collaborative systems: Structural components for current manufacturing applications. Advances in Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering 3: 100060.
40. Müller R, Vette M, Mailahn O (2016) Process-oriented task assignment for assembly processes with human-robot interaction. Procedia CIRP 44: 210-215.
41. Knudsen M, Kaivo-oja J (2020) Collaborative Robots: Frontiers of Current Literature. Journal of Intelligent Systems: Theory and Applications 3(2):13-20.
42. Liu L, Guo F, Zou Z, Duffy VG (2022) Application, Development and Future Opportunities of Collaborative Robots (Cobots) in Manufacturing: A Literature Review. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 40(4): 915-932.
43. Cohen Y, Shoval S, Faccio M, Minto R (2021) Deploying cobots in collaborative systems: major considerations and productivity analysis. International Journal of Production Research 60(6): 1815-1831.
44. Rücker D, Hornfeck R, Paetzold K (2018) Investigating ergonomics in the context of human-robot collaboration as a sociotechnical system. In International conference on applied human factors and ergonomics, pp. 127-135.
45. Salunkhe O, Stensöta O, Åkerman M, Berglund ÅF, Alveflo PA (2019) Assembly 4.0: Wheel hub nut assembly using a cobot. IFAC-Papers Online 52(13): 1632-1637.
46. Faccio M, Granata I, Menini A (2023) Human factors in cobot era: a review of modern production systems features. J Intell Manuf 34: 85-106.
47. Djuric AM, Urbanic RJ, Rickli JL (2016) A framework for collaborative robot (CoBot) integration in advanced manufacturing systems. SAE International Journal of Materials and Manufacturing 9(2): 457-464.
48. Javaid M, Haleem A, Singh RP, Rab S, Suman R (2022) Significant applications of Cobots in the field of manufacturing. Cognitive Robotics 2: 222-233.
49. Jennes P, Di Minin A (2023) Cobots in SMEs: Implementation Processes, Challenges, and Success Factors. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Technology and Entrepreneurship (ICTE), pp. 80-85.
50. Schnell M, Holm M (2022) Challenges for manufacturing SMEs in the introduction of collaborative robots. In SPS2022, pp. 173-183.
51. Mohanta PR, Mahanty B (2023) Collaborative Robots in Manufacturing MSMEs: Identification and Operationalization of Enablers and Barriers. In International Working Conference on Transfer and Diffusion of IT, pp. 237-250.
52. Kumar AA, Uz Zaman, UK Plapper P (2023) Collaborative robots. In Handbook of Manufacturing Systems and Design, pp. 90-106.
53. Galin R, Meshcheryakov R (2019) Automation and robotics in the context of Industry 4.0: the shift to collaborative robots. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 537 (3): 032073).
54. Sahan AM, Kathiravan S, Lokesh M, Raffik R (2023) Role of Cobots over Industrial Robots in Industry 5.0: A Review. In 2023 2^nd International Conference on Advancements in Electrical, Electronics, Communication, Computing and Automation (ICAECA), pp. 1-5.
55. Gualtieri L, Rauch E, Vidoni R (2021) Emerging research fields in safety and ergonomics in industrial collaborative robotics: A systematic literature review. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 67: 101998.
56. Wang L, Gao R, Váncza J, Krüger J, Wang XV, Makris S, Chryssolouris G (2019) Symbiotic human-robot collaborative assembly. CIRP Ann 68: 701-726,
57. Yonga Chuengwa T, Swanepoel JA, Kurien AM, Kanakana-Katumba MG, Djouani K (2023) Research Perspectives in Collaborative Assembly: A Review. Robotics 12(2): 37.
58. Gopinath V, Johansen K (2016) Risk Assessment Process for Collaborative Assembly - A Job Safety Analysis Approach. Procedia CIRP 44: 199-203.
59. Hanna A, Bengtsson K, Gotvall PL, Ekstrom M, (2020) Towards safe human robot collaboration - Risk assessment of intelligent automation. In: 2020 25th IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA).
60. Jung DN, Bruns CJ (2024) Typology Development for Synthetic Chemistry Sub-Tasks: Towards Human-Robot Collaboration Task Design in the Wet Lab. In International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference 88407: V006T06A022.
61. (2024) Chemical Industry Explosion-Proof Cobots: Enhancing Safety and Efficiency.
62. Borboni A, Reddy KVV, Elamvazuthi I, AL-Quraishi MS, Natarajan E, et al. (2023) The Expanding Role of Artificial Intelligence in Collaborative Robots for Industrial Applications: A Systematic Review of Recent Works. Machines 11(1): 111.
63. Carissoli C, Negri L, Bassi M, Storm F A, Delle Fave A (2024) Mental workload and human-robot interaction in collaborative tasks: A scoping review. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 40(20): 6458-6477.
64. Rahman SMM, Wang Y (2018) Mutual trust-based subtask allocation for human–robot collaboration in flexible lightweight assembly in manufacturing. Mechatronics 54: 94-109.
65. Gervasi R, Digiaro F, Mastrogiacomo L, Maisano D, Franceschini F (2020) Comparing quality profiles in Human-Robot Collaboration: empirical evidence in the automotive sector. In Proceedings book of the 4^th international conference on quality engineering and management. University of Minho, Portugal, pp. 89-114.
66. Bettoni A, Montini E, Righi M, Villani V, Tsvetanov R, Borgia S, Secchi C, Carpanzano E (2020) Mutualistic and adaptive human-machine collaboration based on machine learning in an injection moulding manufacturing line. Procedia CIRP 93: 395-400.
67. Gervasi R, Mastrogiacomo L, Franceschini F (2020) A conceptual framework to evaluate human-robot collaboration. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 108(3): 841-865.
68. Sauppé A, Mutlu B, Sauppe A, Mutlu B (2015) The social impact of a robot co-worker in industrial settings [Paper presentation]. Chi 2015: Proceedings OF THE 33rd annual chi conference ON human factors IN computing systems, pp. 3613-3622.
69. Fournier É, Kilgus D, Landry A, Hmedan B, Pellier D, Fiorino H, Jeoffrion C (2022) The impacts of human-cobot collaboration on perceived cognitive load and usability during an industrial task: An exploratory experiment. IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors 10(2): 83-90.
70. Zanchettin AM, Croft E, Ding H, Li M (2018) Collaborative robots in the workplace. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 25(2): 16-17.
71. Lu L, Xie Z, Wang H, Li L, Xu X (2022) Mental stress and safety awareness during human-robot collaboration-Review. Applied Ergonomics 105: 103832.
72. Pollak A, Paliga M, Pulopulos MM, Kozusznik B, Kozusznik MW (2020) Stress in manual and autonomous modes of collaboration with a cobot. Computers in Human Behavior 112: 106469.
73. (2020), World Economic Forum. The Future of Jobs Report 2020.
74. Wullenkord R, Eyssel F (2020) Societal and ethical issues in HRI. Current Robotics Reports 1(3): 85-96.
75. Fraboni F, Brendel H, Pietrantoni L (2023) Evaluating Organizational Guidelines for Enhancing Psychological Well-Being, Safety, and Performance in Technology Integration. Sustainability 15(10): 8113.
76. Van Wynsberghe A, Ley M, Roeser S (2022) Ethical Aspects of Human–Robot Collaboration in Industrial Work Settings. In: Aldinhas Ferreira, M.I., Fletcher, S.R. (eds) The 21^st Century Industrial Robot: When Tools Become Collaborators. Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering, vol 81.
77. Frey CB, Osborne MA (2013) The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological forecasting and social change 114: 254-280.
78. Eurofound (2024) Human-robot interaction: What changes in the workplace? Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
79. Petzoldt C, Harms M, Freitag M (2023) Review of task allocation for human-robot collaboration in assembly. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 36(11): 1675-1715.
80. Smith ER, Sherrin S, Fraune MR, Sabanovic S (2020) Positive emotions, more than anxiety or other negative emotions, predict willingness to interact with robots. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(8: 1270-1283.
81. Wurhofer D, Meneweger T, Fuchsberger V, Tscheligi M (2015) Deploying robots in a production environment: A study on temporal transitions of workers experiences. conference presentation, 15^th IFIP TC13 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: INTERACT, pp. 14-18.
82. Smids J, Nyholm S, Berkers H (2020) Robots in the workplace: A threat to, or opportunity for, meaningful work? Philosophy and Technology 33(3): 503-522.
83. Hopko S, Wang J, Mehta R (2022) Human factors considerations and metrics in shared space human-robot collaboration: A systematic review. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 9: 799522.
84. Baltrusch S, Krause F, De Vries A, Dijk W, Looze MP (2022) What about the human in human robot collaboration? A literature review on HRC’s effects on aspects of job quality. Ergonomics 65(5): 719-740.
85. Arai T, Kato R, Fujita M (2010) Assessment of operator stress induced by robot collaboration in assembly. CIRP Annals 59(1): 5-8.
86. Giallanza A, La Scalia G, Micale R, La Fata CM (2024) Occupational health and safety issues in human-robot collaboration: State of the art and open challenges. Safety science 169: 106313.
87. De Simone V., Di Pasquale V, Giubileo V, Miranda S (2022) Human-robot collaboration: An analysis of worker’s performance. Procedia Computer Science 200: 1540-1549.
88. Lotz V, Himmel S, Ziefle M (2019) You’re my mate-acceptance factors for human-robot collaboration in industry. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Competitive Manufacturing, Stellenbosch, South Africa 30: 405-411.
89. Cherubini A, Navarro B, Passama R, Tarbouriech S, Elprama SA, et al. (2023) Interdisciplinary evaluation of a robot physically collaborating with workers 18(10): e0291410.
90. Jacobs JV, Hettinger LJ, Huang YH, Jeffries S, Lesch MF, et al. (2019) Employee acceptance of wearable technology in the workplace. Applied Ergonomics 78: 148-156.
91. Ötting SK, Masjutin L, Steil JJ, Maier GW (2022) Let’s work together: a meta-analysis on robot design features that enable successful human–robot interaction at work. Human Factors 64(6): 1027-1050.
92. Kim S (2022) Working with robots: human resource development considerations in human–robot interaction. Human Resource Development Review 21(1): 48-74.
93. Libert K, Mosconi E, Cadieux N (2020) Human-machine interaction and human resource management perspective for collaborative robotics implementation and adoption.
94. Simões AC, Pinto A, Santos J, Pinheiro S, Romero D (2022) Designing human-robot collaboration (HRC) workspaces in industrial settings: A systematic literature review. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 62: 28-43.
95. Berger T, Frey CB (2016) Structural transformation in the OECD: Digitalisation, deindustrialisation and the future of work.
96. Borland J, Coelli M (2017) Are robots taking our jobs? Australian Economic Review 50(4): 377-397.
97. Frey CB, Osborne MA (2017) The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change 114: 254-280.
98. Dengler K, Matthes B (2018) The impacts of digital transformation on the labour market: Substitution potentials of occupations in Germany. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 137: 304-316.
99. Abeliansky A, Beulmann M (2019) Are they coming for us? Industrial robots and the mental health of workers. cege Discussion Papers, No. 379. University of Göttingen.
100. Dahlin E (2019) Are robots stealing our jobs? Socius 5: 2378023119846249.
101. Baumgartner M, Kopp T, Kinkel S (2022) Analysing Factory Workers Acceptance of Collaborative Robots: A Web-Based Tool for Company Representatives. Electronics 11(1): 145.
102. (2024) Centre for Work Health and Safety. Guidelines for Safe Collaborative Robot Design and Implementation.
103. Charalambous G, Fletcher S, Webb P (2015) Identifying the key organisational human factors for introducing human–robot collaboration in industry: an exploratory study. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 81(9-12): 2143-55.
104. Harrison DA, Newman DA, Roth PL (2019) How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal 52(2): 305-325.
105. Cheon E, Schneiders E, Diekjobst K, Skov MB (2022) Robots as a Place for Socializing: Influences of Collaborative Robots on Social Dynamics In-and Outside the Production Cells. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6(CSCW2): 1-26.
106. Guertler M, Tomidei L, Sick N, Paul G, Carmichael M, et al. (2022) BEYOND TECHNOLOGY–THE COGNITIVE AND ORGANISATIONAL IMPACTS OF COBOTS. In Australasian Conference on Robotics and Automation.
107. Dornelles Jde A, Ayala N F, Frank AG (2023) Collaborative or substitutive robots? Effects on workers’ skills in manufacturing activities. International Journal of Production Research 61(22): 7922-7955.
108. Kildal J, Tellaeche A, Fernández I, Maurtua I (2018) Potential users key concerns and expectations for the adoption of cobots. Procedia CIRP 72: 21-26.
109. Parasuraman R, Sheridan TB, Wickens CD (2000) A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans 30(3): 286-297.
110. Rashid Z, Rötting M (2021) Evaluation of Manual Skill Degradation Due to Automation in Apparel Manufacturing. Applied Sciences 11(23): 11098.
111. Gangoda A, Cobb K, Krasley S (2020) AI Digitalization And Automation Of The Apparel Industry And The Human Workforce Skills, International Textile and Apparel Association Annual Conference Proceedings 77(1).
112. Waheed T, Marchetti E, Calabrò A, Cybersecurity Testing for Cobots.
113. Abed MS, Al-Doori QF, Abdullah AT, Abdallah AA (2023) Security Vulnerabilities and Threats in Robotic Systems: A Comprehensive Review. International Journal of Safety & Security Engineering 13(3).
114. Klostermann M, Conein S, Felkl T, Kluge A (2022) Factors Influencing Attenuating Skill Decay in High-Risk Industries: A Scoping Review. Safety 8(2): 22.
115. Volz K, Yang E, Dudley R, Lynch E, Dropps M, et al. (2016) An evaluation of cognitive skill degradation in information automation. In proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting 60(1): 191-195.
116. Elendu C, Amaechi DC, Elendu TC, Jingwa KA, Okoye OK, et al. (2023) Ethical implications of AI and robotics in healthcare: A review. Medicine 102(50): e36671.
117. West SM, Whittaker M, Crawford K (2020) Discriminating systems: Gender, race, and power in AI.
118. Różańska-Walczuk M (2023) Collaborative Robotics. Safety and Ethical Considerations. In: Biele C, Kacprzyk J, Kopeć W, Owsiński JW, Romanowski A, Sikorski M (eds) Digital Interaction and Machine Intelligence. MIDI 2022. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems vol. 710.
119. Van Wynsberghe A, Ley M, Roeser S (2022) Ethical aspects of human–robot collaboration in industrial work settings. The 21st Century Industrial Robot: When Tools Become Collaborators, 255-266.
120. Callari T C, Segate R V, Hubbard E M, Daly A, Lohse N (2024) An ethical framework for human-robot collaboration for the future people-centric manufacturing: A collaborative endeavour with European subject-matter experts in ethics. Technology in Society 78: 102680.
121. Panagou S, Neumann W P, Fruggiero F (2023). A scoping review of human robot interaction research towards Industry 5.0 human-centric workplaces. International Journal of Production Research, 62(3): 974-990.
122. Coronado E, Kiyokawa T, Ricardez GAG, Ramirez-Alpizar IG, Venture G, Yamanobe N (2022) Evaluating quality in human-robot interaction: A systematic search and classification of performance and human-centered factors, measures and metrics towards an industry 5.0. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 63: 392-410.
123. Cascio WF, Montealegre R (2016) How technology is changing work and organizations. Annual review of organizational psychology and organizational behavior 3(1): 349-375.
124. Rahman MM, Khatun F, Jahan I, Devnath R, Bhuiyan MAA (2024) Cobotics: The Evolving Roles and Prospects of Next‐Generation Collaborative Robots in Industry 5.0. Journal of Robotics 2024(1): 2918089.
125. George AS, George AH (2023) The Cobot Chronicles: Evaluating the Emergence, Evolution, and Impact of Collaborative Robots in Next-Generation Manufacturing. Partners Universal International Research Journal 2(2): 89-116.  
126. Arntz A, Eimler S C, Straßmann C, Hoppe HU (2021) On the influence of autonomy and transparency on blame and credit in flawed human-robot collaboration. In Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction pp. 377-381.
127. Roncone A, Mangin O, Scassellati B (2017) Transparent role assignment and task allocation in human robot collaboration. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) pp. 1014-1021.
128. Kim T, Hinds P (2006) Who should I blame? Effects of autonomy and transparency on attributions in human-robot interaction. In ROMAN 2006-The 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication pp. 80-85.
129. Lyons JB (2013) Being transparent about transparency: A model for human-robot interaction. Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Trust in Autonomous Systems, Palo Alto, CA, pp 48-53.
130. Guznov S, Lyons J, Pfahler M, Heironimus A, Woolley M, et al. (2019) Robot Transparency and Team Orientation Effects on Human–Robot Teaming. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 36(7): 650-660.
131. Natarajan M, Gombolay M (2020) Effects of anthropomorphism and accountability on trust in human robot interaction. In Proceedlings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, pp. 33-42.
132. Nelles J (2017) Best-Practice Approach for a Solution-Oriented Technology Assessment: Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues in the Context of Human-Robot Collaboration. In: Schlick, C., et al. Advances in Ergonomic Design of Systems, Products and Processes. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
133. Lin P, Abney K, Bekey GA (Eds.) (2014) Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics.
134. Calo R (2015) Robotics and the Lessons of Cyberlaw. Calif. L. Rev., 103: 513.
135. Müller VC (2020) Ethics of artificial intelligence and robotics.
136. Bessen J (2018) AI and jobs: The role of demand (No. w24235). National Bureau of Economic Research.
137. Brynjolfsson E, McAfee A (2014) The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. WW Norton & company.
138. (2020) PWC. The Workforce of the Future: The Competing Forces Shaping 2030. PwC Report.
139. Susskind R, Susskind D (2022) The future of the professions: How technology will transform the work of human experts. Oxford University Press.
140. (2018) McKinsey & Company. Skill shift: Automation and the future of the workforce.
141. (2019) The Future of Work: Employment Outlook.
142. Parakh M, Fong A, Simeonov A, Gupta A, ChenT, Agrawal P (2023) Human-assisted continual robot learning with foundation models.
143. (2017) Universal Robots Learn to Operate and Program Cobots Through Free Online Training.
144. Romero M (2024) Lifelong learning challenges in the era of artificial intelligence: A computational thinking perspective.
145. Kearns P (2021) Building a Culture of Lifelong Learning as a Creative Learning Process.
146. Autor DH, Levy F, Murnane RJ (2003) The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration. The Quarterly journal of economics 118(4): 1279-1333.
147. Kopp T, Baumgartner M, Kinkel S (2021) Success factors for introducing industrial human-robot interaction in practice: an empirically driven framework. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 112: 685-704.
148. Weiss A, Wortmeier AK, Kubicek B (2021) Cobots in industry 4.0: A roadmap for future practice studies on human-robot collaboration. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 51(4): 335-345.
149. Liu D, Son S (2024) Exploring the impact mechanism of collaborative robot on manufacturing firm performance: A dynamic capability perspective. Sustainable Futures 8: 100262.
150. Shukla A (2024) Performance Metrics for Collaborative Robots: A Literature Review.