At EBIS-HSE, we’re committed to advancing global understanding in health and safety through the latest insights and evidence-based research. This series highlights groundbreaking studies and innovative thinking from around the world, helping professionals stay informed and inspired in shaping safer workplaces.
Overview
Robotics and automation can remove construction workers from hazardous tasks, but they can also introduce risks involving machine movement, software, worker interaction, privacy and responsibility.
A scoping review examined 104 peer-reviewed publications and 33 industry and government sources published between 2015 and 2025. The researchers considered technologies ranging from drones and demolition robots to exoskeletons, automated vehicles, artificial intelligence and three-dimensional printing.
They identified four broad types of risk: mechanical or physical, ergonomic, psychosocial and environmental. Mechanical hazards had the greatest potential for immediate serious injury, while psychosocial concerns appeared across many of the technologies studied.
The review argues that safety should be considered when automated systems are designed, selected and introduced. Job hazard analysis, prevention through design and the hierarchy of controls can help organisations identify where new hazards may arise before equipment reaches an active construction site.
What The Review Examined
Construction sites present particular difficulties for robotics because conditions change continuously. Materials move, access routes change and people from different employers may work close to the same equipment.
The researchers examined eight groups of technology:
- artificial intelligence and building information modelling
- additive manufacturing and three-dimensional printing
- automated installation and assembly
- unmanned aerial vehicles and inspection robots
- prefabrication and modular construction
- exoskeletons and wearable systems
- demolition robots
- automated heavy equipment and vehicles
The study considered how each technology is used, the safety benefits it may provide, the hazards associated with it and the controls available.
The researchers grouped the hazards they identified into mechanical or physical risks, ergonomic risks, psychosocial risks and environmental risks.
Mechanical risks included contact with moving equipment, machine failure and entry into automated work areas. Ergonomic risks concerned physical strain and musculoskeletal effects. Psychosocial risks included job insecurity, monitoring, trust and responsibility. Environmental risks included electricity, noise, dust, weather and difficult terrain.
Method
The researchers used a scoping review because construction robotics covers a wide range of technologies, evidence types and stages of development. The review followed the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews and used Scopus as its main academic database. The search combined terms relating to robotics, construction and safety risk. English language peer reviewed journal and conference papers published between 2015 and 2025 were screened. Of 236 papers considered after the initial restrictions were applied, 104 met the final criteria.
A snowballing process identified a further 33 sources, including industry reports, government material, statistics and presentations. The final evidence base contained 137 publications.
The material included prototypes, simulations and systems already operating on construction sites. The review did not carry out a statistical meta-analysis or calculate how much individual technologies increased or reduced injuries. Its findings are therefore better read as a map of reported hazards and control issues than as evidence of a quantified effect on accident rates.
Removing Workers From Hazardous Areas
One of the main potential safety benefits of automation is physical separation from danger.
Inspection robots and drones can examine roofs, façades, bridges, tunnels and confined spaces without requiring workers to enter the same area. Demolition robots allow operators to work at a distance from unstable structures. Remote or automated plant can operate on difficult terrain or in severe weather without a driver in the cab. That benefit depends on maintaining separation between people and equipment. A remotely operated machine can still strike or crush somebody who enters its operating area or is not detected by its sensors.
The review therefore points to defined operating zones, reliable stopping systems, communication and worker detection as important controls.
Mechanical and Physical Hazards
Mechanical hazards appeared across most of the technologies examined and could result in severe injury or death.
Workers may be struck by moving equipment, trapped between a robot and a fixed structure, hit by components or exposed to unexpected movement during maintenance and fault recovery. Possible causes include mechanical failure, sensor faults, control-system errors, power loss, poor installation, environmental interference, human error and unauthorised access. Changing site conditions add another difficulty. A system that operated safely when installed may encounter different routes, materials, obstacles or groups of workers later in the project.
The review discusses controls including guarding, proximity detection, light curtains, collision avoidance, emergency stops and safe-speed functions. Systems should also move to a safe condition when power, communication or positioning is lost.
AI, BIM and Automated Decision Making
Artificial intelligence and building information modelling can support planning, hazard identification, coordination and site monitoring. Digital information can also be connected to robots, sensors and other automated systems. These uses create questions about data accuracy, ownership, privacy and responsibility. An incorrect digital model or automated recommendation may affect work carried out on site. Monitoring systems can also collect information about worker location or performance.
The review recommends clear arrangements for data access, privacy and accountability. Responsibility for safety-related decisions should remain identifiable when automated systems are used to support them.
Three-Dimensional Printing and Automated Assembly
Large scale three-dimensional printing can reduce some manual activities but introduces hazards associated with automated movement, electricity, pressure systems and structural stability.
Workers may be exposed during setup, maintenance, cleaning, observation or correction of faults. Variations in material properties or software errors may also affect the stability of printed structures. Automated assembly systems can install materials including bricks, reinforcement and timber. On active sites they must respond to changing locations, people and materials.
A failure to detect a person or obstruction could result in collision or crushing. Risk assessment should therefore cover setup, programming, maintenance and fault recovery as well as routine operation.
Drones and inspection robots
Drones can reduce the need for workers to use ladders, scaffolds or other access systems during visual inspections. They can still create hazards. A drone may fall, strike someone or distract workers. Wind, poor visibility, equipment failure and loss of signal can affect its operation. Camera use can also raise concerns about monitoring and privacy. Flight planning should take account of worker locations, weather, restricted areas, communication and emergency landing arrangements. Operators also need the competence required for the type of operation being carried out.
Prefabrication and Modular Construction
Prefabrication can move some work away from exposed construction environments and into more controlled production settings.
The hazards associated with large components continue during transport and installation. Modules may need to be moved by road, unloaded, lifted by crane and positioned while workers are nearby. This creates risks involving suspended loads, lifting equipment, vehicles and restricted visibility.
Planning therefore needs to cover manufacture, transport, unloading, lifting, positioning and connection.
Exoskeletons
Exoskeletons are intended to assist with activities such as lifting, carrying, overhead work, kneeling and prolonged standing. Some systems may reduce discomfort or fatigue in particular parts of the body, but the review found that results cannot yet be generalised to the range of conditions encountered in construction. A device may move physical load to another part of the body, restrict movement or interfere with balance, climbing, personal protective equipment or emergency escape. Fit, comfort and worker acceptance also matter.
The review recommends selecting exoskeletons for a defined task and testing them with the people expected to use them. They should not be used as a reason to retain a hazardous manual-handling activity when the work can be controlled in another way.
Demolition Robots
Demolition robots can allow operators to work away from falling debris, unstable structures, dust and vibration.
Workers can still be injured if they stand within the machine's operating area. Crushing can occur where somebody is positioned between a robot and a wall or other fixed structure. Remote control can also affect visibility and depth perception.
Suggested controls include defined exclusion zones, barriers, safe operator positions, proximity systems, emergency stops and clear escape routes.
Automated Construction Vehicles
Excavators, bulldozers, rollers and other plant can now incorporate remote or autonomous functions. Removing the operator from the cab may reduce exposure to poor visibility, unstable ground, noise or severe weather. It does not remove the need to manage people working around the machine. Workers on foot need to understand whether equipment is being driven manually, remotely or autonomously, where it is expected to travel and how it will respond to people or obstacles.
Risk assessments should also consider terrain, weather, changing layouts and the possibility of sensor or software failure.
Psychosocial Risks
Psychosocial concerns appeared across several areas of construction automation. Workers may be concerned about job security, the effect of automation on their skills, workplace monitoring or equipment that behaves in ways they do not understand.
Responsibility can also become unclear when automated systems influence decisions or machine movements. The review argues for worker involvement during selection, testing and introduction. Concerns raised by workers may identify problems with usability, assumptions about how work is carried out or gaps in training.
Organisations should also explain what information a system collects, why it is being introduced and how work responsibilities will change.
Safety During Design and Procurement
The paper recommends addressing foreseeable hazards before automated equipment reaches the construction site.
Design and procurement decisions should consider guarding, stopping distances, visibility, worker detection, maintenance access and foreseeable misuse.
The hierarchy of controls remains relevant. Where automation removes the need for a person to enter a dangerous area, it may eliminate a particular exposure. Where hazards remain, engineering controls should take priority over warnings, procedures and personal protective equipment where practicable.
Training is still required, but workers should not be expected to compensate for inadequately controlled machine hazards through attention alone.
The Whole Lifecycle
- Risk assessment should cover the full period in which workers may interact with automated equipment.
- Exposure may arise during delivery, installation, programming, calibration, testing, cleaning, maintenance, fault recovery and decommissioning.
- Non-routine activities may require workers to enter areas that are normally guarded or to work with stored energy that needs to be isolated.
- The review recommends involving people who understand the task, site and equipment in job hazard analysis. Assessments should also be reviewed when the technology, software, work area or task changes.
Training and Standards
Workers need to understand how to operate automated equipment and how to work safely around it.
Training may need to cover system limitations, restricted areas, safe distances, emergency procedures and signs of malfunction. Changes to routes, operating modes and levels of autonomy also need to be communicated to people working nearby.
The paper notes that some existing standards were developed around fixed industrial robots and may not address all of the conditions found on changing construction sites.
Limits of Evidence
Much of the evidence reviewed involved prototypes, trials or controlled environments. Technologies were also at different stages of development and were studied in different countries and working conditions. The review therefore does not establish that a particular robotic system will reduce injuries by a defined amount. Further field studies are needed to examine long-term use on active construction sites, including injuries, near misses, maintenance demands, worker acceptance and unintended effects.
What Construction Businesses Should Consider
- Before purchasing or introducing robotic equipment, businesses should carry out a job hazard analysis covering the equipment, task, work area and people who may interact with it.
- Safety requirements should be considered during procurement and design. Where mechanical hazards remain, measures such as guarding, proximity detection, emergency stops and controlled operating zones may be required.
- Risk assessments should include maintenance, programming, cleaning and fault recovery as well as routine operation.
- Workers and subcontractors should be involved where their work will be affected, and training should explain both operation of the equipment and safe behaviour around it.
- Businesses should also consider privacy, monitoring, job security and responsibility where automation changes how work is organised or decisions are made.
- Robotics can remove people from some construction hazards, but the review shows that this can create different exposures for operators, maintenance workers and others sharing the site. Safe introduction therefore depends on identifying those risks before the technology becomes part of normal work.
Read the full research study here:
Robotics and automation safety risks in construction G. Scott Earnest 1*, Douglas B. Trout 1, Ci-Jyun Liang2 and Asa Castleberry3 https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/built-environment/articles/10.3389/fbuil.2025.1653188/full