The growing use of industrial robots by manufacturers in the automotive and other sectors has helped improve overall productivity and workplace safety, but companies need to assess the risks of individual robotic applications they deploy to ensure adequate safety protections are in place, experts say. 

Collaborative robots, known as cobots, that interact directly with workers in a shared workspace are becoming more widely used at manufacturing facilities and require close monitoring and extra attention to safety.

Amazon.com Inc.’s use of robots in its warehouses in recent years has come under scrutiny, with analysis of U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration data by several news organizations suggesting a higher rate of serious injuries among its workers at locations where robots are deployed. 

And a case in which a robot broke a 7-year-old boy’s finger while they were playing chess during a tournament in Moscow in July illustrates how interaction between a robot and an individual in close quarters can result in injury.

A University of Pittsburgh study released in July found that robots may reduce workplace injury rates but noted that workers exposed to robots are more likely to suffer adverse mental health effects. 

The belief is that there is greater efficiency and better productivity when humans and robots work together, said Brian Kramer, manufacturing industry practice lead at Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. in Hartford, Connecticut.

There is a wide range of robotic applications, including robotic arms that stack boxes on a pallet, versus a worker lifting those boxes; mobile robots that handle inventory retrieval, instead of manual picking and carrying; and cobots that perform repetitive and hazardous tasks, sometimes operating at a height with close precision, Mr. Kramer said.

Robots present unique exposures, but they also prevent workplace injuries, though this can be hard to quantify, he said.

In the past, robots were designed to be cordoned off from workers, but in the past 10 years that has transitioned to cobots and employees working in close proximity, said Daniel Hornback, Atlanta-based workers compensation/fleet LOB leader at Zurich Resilience Solutions, a unit of Zurich Insurance Group Ltd. 

Over that time, sensors and other technology designed to prevent injuries have advanced, “whether it’s a proximity device, or presence-sensing device that is able to recognize that a person has entered the space so (the robot) can slow down to a safe or a stop mode depending on how they are programmed,” Mr. Hornback said. 

The biggest safety concern is an employee entering the “envelope” or range of the robot, said Christina Villena, vice president of risk solutions at Hanover Insurance Group Inc., based in Worcester, Massachusetts. “If there’s not some type of protection, whether it be a floor sensor or guardrail around the robot, there can be a collision-type injury with the employee,” Ms. Villena said.

There have been some cases of employees pinned in areas by robots, but typically these occur during non-routine tasks, such as during maintenance or when adjustments are being made to the robot, she said.

OSHA found only 48 cases of robot-related accidents between 1984 and 2021, while National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health researchers identified 61 robot-related fatalities between 1992 and 2015 based on keyword searches of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Fatal Occupational Injuries database. NIOSH researchers are in the process of updating this analysis, according to a spokeswoman. 

Many people don’t pay the respect to robots that they deserve, especially when it comes to safety, said David Barry, Overland Park, Kansas-based national director for casualty risk control at Willis Towers Watson PLC.

“All robots know is to complete a program. Unfortunately, people will mistakenly enter areas where robots are because they don’t have the training and processes in place to know the lockout tag standard applies to robots,” he said (see related story).

Problems can also arise when the programming of a machine is incorrect, Mr. Barry said. “I’ve seen some situations where advanced electronic safety devices like light curtains or proximity sensors or interlocks on doors will be part of a machine process, but won’t necessarily be interlinked with the robot, so somebody could trip a light curtain and the robot will continue with the work process,” he said.

Many employers struggle to ensure that their safety procedures and devices work well together to stop a machine if a sensor is tripped, Mr. Barry said.

When it comes to workplace accidents involving robots, many relate to workplace design and human interface, said Edmund Cordova, Houston-based senior risk control consultant at Lockton Cos. LLC.

“If we go back and talk about different events, more often than not they can be attributed to human error, control issues, unauthorized access, mechanical hazards and environmental hazards,” Mr. Cordova said.

With cobots the process, quota and speeds with which work is conducted speed up, which can lead to injuries that aren’t necessarily robot-related, he said.

There are currently no specific OSHA standards for the robotics industry, though various safety guidelines and manuals are provided online, experts said. 

Other entities, including the American National Standards Institute, the International Organization for Standardization and the Robotics Industry Association, provide general standards related to robotics and safety.

Training, risk appraisal cut claim frequency 

Employee training and risk assessment are critical in preventing robotics-related workplace injuries, experts say.

Training is essential for any employee who will be working near robots, said David Barry, Overland Park, Kansas-based national director for casualty risk control at Willis Towers Watson PLC. 

“You can’t take for granted that everybody understands how a robot works, what their limitations are and what the expectations are for safety,” Mr. Barry said.

Employee tenure matters, said Brian Kramer, manufacturing industry practice lead at Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. in Hartford, Connecticut.

“When Hartford looks at its own data, we know less-tenured employees, those with one year experience or less, drive about a third of claim frequency across our manufacturing portfolio. That comes down to training,” he said.

Risk assessment is also critical, Mr. Kramer said. Hartford’s risk engineers work with manufacturers to assess the risks and potential outcomes of deploying robots, he said.

Robotics manufacturers will have best practices for a safety and maintenance protocol for a specific type of robot, said Christina Villena, vice president of risk solutions at Hanover Insurance Group Inc., based in Worcester, Massachusetts.

Hanover also partners with third-party companies to help determine best practices when designing risk mitigation for a specific robot in a workplace, Ms. Villena said.

“We provide that service at no cost to policyholders,” she said.