Computers & Industrial Engineering 180 (2023) 109262

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Industrial Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/caie

Picking with a robot colleague: A systematic literature review and

evaluation of technology acceptance in human–robot
collaborative warehouses
Frederic Jacob a, Eric H. Grosse a, *, Stefan Morana b, Cornelius J. König c
a
Chair of Digital Transformation in Operations Management, Faculty of Human and Business Sciences, Saarland University, Campus C3 1, 66123 Saarbrücken,
Germany
b
Chair of Digital Transformation and Information Systems, Faculty of Human and Business Sciences, Saarland University, Campus C3 1, 66123 Saarbrücken, Germany
c
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Human and Business Sciences, Saarland University, Campus A1 3, 66123 Saarbrücken, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Just-in-time delivery, shorter product life cycles, demographic changes, and the Covid-19 pandemic have driven
Acceptance the industrial application of collaborative robots in warehouses. These robots work alongside humans, increasing
Warehousing 4.0 their productivity and relieving them of repetitive or strenuous tasks. However, human workers can be reluctant
Cobot
to collaborate with robots owing to certain fears; for example, they may be concerned about job loss, stress,
Human–Robot Collaboration
Systematic Literature Review
expected effort, or risk to physical integrity. These concerns can negatively impact the acceptance of human­
–robot collaboration (HRC). As the literature on this topic is fragmented, this study analyzes HRC acceptance in
warehouses based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. We identify, classify, and analyze
studies examining HRC acceptance in warehouses using a systematic literature review methodology. A frame­
work is established to guide the analysis of performance expectancy, effort expectancy, (perceived) occupational
safety, psychosocial, and legal and privacy factors. The results indicate the importance of corporate infrastruc­
ture and consideration of cognitive factors in particular. The findings of this study will support future research on
HRC in warehouses and provide guidance for managers regarding HRC applicability.

1. Introduction global robotics market is USD 39,660 Mn, with that for logistics robotics
being USD 12,739.1 Mn or 32.1 % of the total (Calibre Research, 2022;
Logistics and industrial processes are in a state of transformation. Statista Search Department, 2022). On-demand deliveries, batch size 1,
Advancing automation, coupled with digitalization and consistent individualized products, increased logistics volumes, multi-(distribu­
networking, is changing the entire value chain. Terms such as “Industry tion) channel models, Logistics 4.0 for e-commerce, and increased pro­
4.0” and “Logistics 4.0” are becoming established, while intelligent cessing of returns are driving this development (PwC Deutschland,
device implementations and data volumes are increasing yearly (Win­ 2020), as logistics companies must react effectively to shorten delivery
kelhaus & Grosse, 2020). In this context, robots are increasingly being times and reduce costs (Winkelhaus & Grosse, 2020).
employed in warehouses and logistics hubs. In 2017, the global robotics In this context, human–robot collaboration (HRC) will become a
market had a value of USD 20,750 Mn, with the market for logistics major aspect of future logistics and industrial processes. Collaborative
robotics, in particular, having a value of USD 807.2 Mn or 3.9 % of the robots are predicted to be key in rendering future industrial and logistics
total (Calibre Research, 2022; Statista Search Department, 2022). Owing processes human-centric, resilient, and sustainable. The efforts of the
to the Covid-19 pandemic, from 2020 to 2021, the demand for logistics European Commission and current research on topics related to Industry
robots increased by 50% (International Federation of Robotics, 2020; 5.0 are expected to decisively impact the development of HRC (Euro­
Calibre Research, 2022). By 2025, more than four million robots are pean Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation,
forecasted to be installed in 50,000 warehouses worldwide (ABI 2021; Coronado et al., 2022). In the future, despite technological ad­
Research, 2019). Moreover, the estimated future value of the 2025 vances in robotic systems, humans will continue to play important roles

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (E.H. Grosse).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2023.109262
Received 5 February 2023; Received in revised form 17 April 2023; Accepted 19 April 2023
Available online 22 April 2023
0360-8352/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Jacob et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 180 (2023) 109262

in warehouses because of their distinctive skills; however, they will have meet the challenges associated with high cost pressure, fast delivery
different work modes (Sgarbossa et al., 2020; Lorson et al., 2022; Win­ times, demographic changes, demand for individualized products,
kelhaus et al., 2022a; Grosse, 2023). As more robots are implemented in soaring energy prices, supply uncertainty, and pandemic disruptions
warehouses, more interactions between robots and humans will occur. (Custodio & Machado, 2020; Maderna et al., 2020), warehouses have
Human–robot interaction (HRI) has different facets. Robots work become increasingly “smart” (Winkelhaus & Grosse, 2022) and now
alongside humans and sometimes have the same tasks and goals. They incorporate digitalization, automation, and networking of processes
relieve humans of certain burdens, increase human productivity, and (Azadeh et al., 2019; Zhen & Li, 2022). Smart devices and services, such
enable sustainable cost reductions (European Commission Directorate- as robots, cobots, drones, autonomous vehicles, exoskeletons, autono­
General for Research and Innovation, 2021; De Simone et al., 2022). mous shuttles, automated storage-and-retrieval systems, and cloud ap­
However, the successful implementation of robots and effective HRC plications, are being used and networked in warehouses (Firescu et al.,
requires specific consideration of human factors, as these factors deci­ 2022; Ivšić et al., 2020; Winkelhaus & Grosse, 2020; Winkelhaus et al.,
sively influence technology acceptance and collaboration (Neumann 2021).
et al., 2021). Indeed, if new technologies are developed or introduced In this context, terms such as “Warehousing 4.0” (Hamdy et al.,
without considering human factors, certain systems may perform inad­ 2022), “Order Picking 4.0” (Winkelhaus et al., 2021), and “smart
equately, and the problem of “phantom profits” may arise (Rose et al., warehouse” (Winkelhaus & Grosse, 2022) are emerging, and smart
2013; Neumann et al., 2021). Technology use expectancy, perceived warehouse technologies are being combined with a range of operational
robot-induced hazards, and social influences can affect perceptions, and management practices (Zhen & Li, 2022). According to Zhen and Li
collaboration with robots can be over/under-demanding, frightening, or (2022), smart warehouses can be categorized based on four character­
stressful for human operators. Evidence indicates that these fears are not istics: information connectivity, facility automation, process integration,
unfounded; for example, in 2015, a fatal accident involving a collabo­ and environmental stability. Information connectivity is the highest
rative robot (cobot) occurred at a German car factory (Eckl-Dorna, level of the smart warehouse design and is based on technologies such as
2015). Overall, HRI has positive effects only if the implementation is cyber-physical systems (CPSs) and the Internet of Things. CPSs are key to
successful and the collaboration is accepted by the human operator. The Industry 4.0 and Logistics 4.0 (Pramanik et al., 2020; Winkelhaus &
rolling mill of the Voestalpine steel company in Austria now requires Grosse, 2020). Facility automation refers to the technical support for a
only a dozen workers, down from hundreds, as a result of effective robot smart warehouse at the strategic and tactical levels. Process integration
implementation. However, that company prepared their employees for is a prerequisite for the operational management of smart warehouses
the robot implementations at an early stage, trained them in robot use, and provides operational support, for example, by planning various
and, in doing so, shifted their roles to the back office (Steger & Knit­ warehouse processes. As regards environmental sustainability (Zhen &
terscheidt, 2018). Li, 2022), although smart warehouses are large, they are considerably
To cope with the challenges of HRC, managers must understand the smaller and more efficient than their conventional manual counterparts
relevant human factors and their influence on robot acceptance. This (Azadeh et al., 2019). Overall, productivity, flexibility, cost reduction,
study identifies the current state of research on HRC acceptance in and customization capabilities are key requirements for a smart ware­
warehouses, the influencing factors, and the possible solutions based on house (Andronas, Apostolopoulos, Fourtakas, & Makris, 2021; Custodio
a systematic literature review. Hence, new expertise regarding HRC in & Machado, 2020; Gualtieri, Rauch, & Vidoni, 2021).
warehouses is developed, correlations and patterns are identified and In smart warehouses, various technologies are used to effectively
explored, and previous studies that employed different methods are implement central management decisions. Digital technologies support
integrated. human operators by improving their efficiency while minimizing their
In this study, the following research questions are addressed. effort. Automation technologies (such as automated guided vehicles
(AGVs)) replace humans in certain jobs, such as repetitive transportation
• RQ01: To what extent and within which scope is HRC acceptance in tasks, and cobots collaborate with humans while working toward the
warehouses highlighted in the literature? same goal in hybrid order-picking systems (Winkelhaus et al., 2021;
• RQ02: What acceptance-critical factors and approaches to acceptance Winkelhaus et al., 2022a; Winkelhaus & Grosse, 2022; Zhang et al.,
are identified in the literature? 2023a).
• RQ03: What conclusions/transfers from other disciplines (not
warehousing-related) can be applied to HRC acceptance in warehouses? 2.2. Warehouse robots

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 de­ Warehouses are important development environments for (autono­
scribes the conceptual background of the study. Sections 3 and 4 outline mous) robots and influence their design and engineering (Azadeh et al.,
the review methodology and present the results, respectively. Section 5 2019). The decisive factors for proper robot implementation include the
discusses the main insights and implications of the review, and Section 6 operating systems, integrated drive systems, sensors, communication
concludes the study. systems, artificial intelligence, and user interfaces used in the imple­
mentation (Gao et al., 2020). Warehouse robot applications include
2. Conceptual background robotic mobile fulfillment systems (RMFSs), picking robots, AGVs,
drones, and other autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) (Fragapane et al.,
In this section, to understand the challenges associated with HRC in 2021).
warehouses, we closely examine smart warehouses, warehouse robots, AMRs and advanced AGVs can transport freight and people (Win­
HRC, and technology acceptance. In addition, we discuss insights from kelhaus et al., 2022b). AMRs can navigate to any accessible point
existing literature reviews and highlight the novel contributions of the without collision, quickly adapt to changes in their operating environ­
present study. ments, and independently monitor their statuses. In warehouses, they
cooperate with operators. For example, an AMR can carry a few small
2.1. Smart warehouses containers into a picking area and stop at the location of the next item to
be picked by the operator. Once all items in the order are collected, the
Warehouses are the hubs of material flow along the supply chain and AMR can then move autonomously to the packing and consolidation
are of crucial importance for industry and logistics. Typical warehousing area (Fragapane et al., 2021). In particular, the “Toru” AMR developed
tasks include receipt, put-away, storing, order picking, value-added by Magazino, a German automation company, can be used for storage,
services, packaging, and shipping (Winkelhaus & Grosse, 2022). To order picking, stock transfer, and compaction in a warehouse. This

2
F. Jacob et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 180 (2023) 109262

Fig. 1. UTAUT research model (adapted from Venkatesh et al., 2003).

device can perform precise order picking and provide autonomous 2.3. Human–robot Collaboration (HRC)
transport while navigating safely alongside human colleagues using
cameras, laser scanners, and a person recognition system (Winkelhaus HRC is a research field within the broader field of HRI. Schmidtler
et al., 2022b). AGVs can also be used as cargo robots to transport picked et al. (2015) understood HRI as a general term for all forms of interac­
goods, either leading or following humans. The human picker places the tion between humans and robots. More specifically, Fang et al. (2014)
goods in a designated load container in the AGV and proceeds to the next defined HRI as the process of translating human intentions and inter­
item (Pasparakis et al., 2021) or, in other systems, the AGV drives to the pretation of task descriptions into a sequence of robot movements that
picking location, waits for the picker, and then transports the picked match the capabilities and work requirements of the given robot. In
goods to the next location or back to the warehouse (Winkelhaus & previous studies on HRI, various classifications emerged. In particular,
Grosse, 2022). In the context of order picking, AGVs have most recently Hjorth and Chrysostomou (2022) presented a general classification of
been studied as RMFSs, which are used in warehouses with large as­ interaction; according to them, human–robot cooperation occurs when a
sortments and small products. Notably, RMFSs do not share workspaces robot and a human are in the closest possible proximity and human­
with operators and perform tasks without human interaction (Winkel­ –robot coexistence occurs when they are furthest apart. Aaltonen et al.
haus et al., 2022b). An RMFS can lift, carry, and transport moving racks (2018) developed a four-level model to classify HRI, in which they
to a picker at an ergonomically designed workstation, which then per­ differentiated between “no coexistence,” “coexistence,” “cooperation,”
forms picking or replenishment (Azadeh et al., 2019; Niu et al., 2021). and “collaboration.” According to Zacharaki et al. (2020), HRI can be
Finally, drones can be used for goods transportation and stocktaking. divided into four categories that differ according to functionality, work
They provide operators with oversight of hard-to-reach or high levels in scope, and degrees of freedom: “coexistence,” “synchronization,”
the warehouse, are applicable to automated regular inventory, and can “cooperation,” and “collaboration.” A more specific, three-level cate­
act autonomously (Szafir et al., 2017). gorization was provided by Hentout et al. (2019), who distinguished
Robots are increasingly functioning as mechanical colleagues instead between coexistence, cooperation, and collaboration only, but divided
of simple technical tools (Pasparakis et al., 2021). Cobots work along­ collaboration into physical and non-contact collaboration. For a given
side humans (De Pace et al., 2020; Sharma & Jain, 2020) and have interaction, the categorization was decided using four criteria: working
significant complexity (Berx et al., 2022). They are characterized by time, workplace, goal, and contact. These researchers defined coexis­
mobility, adaptability, connectivity, actuation, consistency, and safety tence as workplace sharing without common tasks and goals, and
(Faccio et al., 2023). The term “cobot” originated from the HRC research cooperation as a higher level of interaction in which agents work toward
discipline, which focuses on enabling robots and humans to collaborate the same goal and spatial and temporal encounters occur. As regards
on tasks (El Zaatari et al., 2019). When such collaboration occurs, the collaboration, they defined physical collaboration as that involving
flexibility of humans when performing complex tasks is combined with direct spatial and physical contact while working toward a common
the tirelessness and high accuracy of robots when performing heavy or goal, and non-contact collaboration as that occurring without physical
repetitive tasks (Andronas et al., 2021; Pasparakis et al., 2021). The aim human intervention through direct (e.g., speech recognition, gesture
is to increase productivity, flexibility, and quality as well as to reduce recognition) or indirect (e.g., eye tracking, intention recognition)
the (physical) workload of employees (Andronas et al., 2021; Gualtieri communication interfaces.
et al., 2021). However, understanding human behavior when interacting
with robots is crucial to warehouse collaboration (Donohue et al., 2019).
2.4. Technology acceptance
Human behavior and performance are less predictable than those of
robots, as humans tend to behave in a state-dependent manner, similar
Technologies such as warehouse robots must be accepted by em­
to their behavior when working with humans (Pasparakis et al., 2021).
ployees to increase productivity, enable the success of any change pro­
gram (Mulet Alberola & Fassi, 2022; Sulaiman et al., 2012), and avoid
phantom profits (Neumann et al., 2021). Cobots offer new interaction
possibilities; thus, they pose a new challenge in terms of technology

3
F. Jacob et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 180 (2023) 109262

acceptance (Baumgartner et al., 2022). In this subsection, we consider The adaptations and extensions of the UTAUT model reported by
existing technology acceptance theories to understand acceptance in the Alaiad and Zhou (2014), Prassida and Asfari (2022), and Ridzky and
context of warehouse HRI and identify acceptance-critical factors. Ac­ Sarno (2020) show that with the increasing complexity of technology
cording to Niklas (2015), acceptance describes the subjective, positive and human–technology interaction, various factors that are not defini­
attitude of an individual toward innovation as well as its (potential) use. tively incorporated in the original UTAUT model must be considered.
Moreover, acceptance reflects the mental processes related to innova­ The increasing digitalization and automation of intralogistics processes
tion adoption and use, which include cognitive beliefs and emotional have direct and indirect impacts on human-operator work processes and
impressions and end in action-oriented motivation. Technology accep­ methods (Winkelhaus et al., 2022a). In particular, HRC and the
tance is defined as “an individual’s psychological state with regard to his increasing complexity of collaborative robotics have made it necessary
or her voluntary or intended use of a particular technology” (Hendrick, to extend the UTAUT model accordingly. HRC poses new challenges to
1987). Technology acceptance research investigates the sustainable research as various multidisciplinary fields become relevant when
promotion of technology use and the factors that hinder or facilitate human factors, and especially acceptance, are considered. For example,
technology acceptance and use (Alaiad & Zhou, 2014). In the context of the removal of physical boundaries in the context of HRI introduces new
information-technology acceptance research, many competing models challenges regarding (perceived) occupational safety (Berx et al., 2022;
with different determinants have emerged (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Coronado et al., 2022; Neumann et al., 2021; Ridzky & Sarno, 2020;
Well-known models include the Theory of Reasoned Action developed Simões et al., 2022). In addition to perceived safety, psychosocial factors
by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) and the Technology Acceptance Model are becoming increasingly relevant (Berx et al., 2022; Neumann et al.,
proposed by Davis (1989). Notably, Venkatesh et al. (2003) synthesized 2021; Pasparakis et al., 2021). For example, a scenario in which
the fragmented research on corporate information-technology accep­ employee performance depends on robot performance can generate
tance into a unified theoretical model and presented the Unified Theory frustration and stress and inhibit acceptance (Neumann et al., 2021;
of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), which contains four Pasparakis et al., 2021). Moreover, HRC is changing the way humans
core determinants of technology intention and use, and four moderators work together, and sometimes disruptively. These changes often have
of the key relationships (see Fig. 1). According to UTAUT, acceptance psychosocial effects due to the increasing social role of the robot as a
comprises two steps: behavioral intention and use behavior. Intention to new “work colleague.” Potential anxiety, stress, and the given work
use is the extent to which a person intends to use a technology. Use design affect human use of technology and successful collaboration
behavior describes the extent to which a person uses a technology (Berx et al., 2022; De Simone et al., 2022; Neumann et al., 2021). Legal
(Venkatesh et al., 2003). and data protection considerations are also becoming increasingly
In the UTAUT model, performance expectancy is the extent to which important with regard to the acceptance of disruptive technologies
an individual believes that using a system will help improve their work (Alaiad & Zhou, 2014; Berx et al., 2022). Legal regulations and stan­
performance, and effort expectancy is the degree of ease associated with dardization provide a basis for secure implementation and collabora­
using a system (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Note that greater age has been tion, and are crucial for the adoption of such technologies (Berx et al.,
shown to cause difficulties in processing complex stimuli, and ease of use 2022). As the volume of robot-generated data increases, data protection
is more relevant to females and inexperienced users (Venkatesh et al., aspects are also becoming more relevant. Concerns about legal frame­
2003). Social influence is the extent to which an individual believes that works or the appropriate use of personal data affect technology use and,
others believe they should use the new system. This aspect primarily thus, acceptance (Alaiad & Zhou, 2014). As regards the present study,
impacts scenarios where technology use is voluntary, by influencing the disruptive changes, technological complexity, and collaboration
perceptions of that technology. Empirical research suggests that women considerations pertinent to HRC necessitated the adoption of the
react more sensitively to others’ opinions, and that this behavior tends to empirically tested UTAUT model. Thus, we took the well-established
accelerate with increasing age (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Facilitating and tested UTAUT model as the basis for our acceptance analysis but
conditions are defined as the degree to which a person believes that an adapted and extended the model according to the previously discussed
organizational and technical infrastructure exists to support their use of considerations. The model employed in this study is described in more
a given system. The key concepts can be represented by three constructs: detail in Section 3.1.
perceived behavioral control, facilitating conditions, and compatibility
(Venkatesh et al., 2003). Venkatesh et al. (2003) empirically tested the 2.5. Insights from previous literature reviews
UTAUT model. Moreover, the adequacy, validity, reliability, and accu­
racy of this model in predicting technology adoption were subsequently Previous literature reviews were analyzed to determine the current
confirmed by several empirical studies (El-Masri & Tarhini, 2017; state of research regarding robot use in warehouses, especially in
Khechine & Lakhal, 2018; Tarhini et al., 2016; Warsame & Ireri, 2018). collaboration with humans, and their acceptance. Literature reviews
Since its inception, the UTAUT model has evolved and been extended focusing on other economic sectors were also considered to draw rele­
several times. According to Venkatesh et al. (2012), there are three types vant conclusions.
of UTAUT extensions and integrations: research in new contexts, the In a systematic literature review, Jaghbeer et al. (2020) addressed
addition of new constructs to expand the scope of the endogenous the use of robots in (partially) automated order-picking systems in
theoretical mechanisms, and the incorporation of exogenous predictors warehouses, focusing on the relevant performance aspects and
of UTAUT variables (Venkatesh et al., 2012). attempting to identify a link between design and performance. They
UTAUT has also been applied to the field of robotics acceptance and concluded that research interest in picking system automation has
developed in that context. For example, Ridzky and Sarno (2020) added increased. However, their focus was on throughput, cycle time, and
a perceived security variable to UTAUT, which they defined as the de­ operational efficiency, and human factors and flexibility were not suf­
gree to which a person believes that technology used to transmit sen­ ficiently considered, despite their importance. Fragapane et al. (2021)
sitive information, such as customer data and financial transactions, is identified and classified research articles on the planning and control of
secure or protected from potential threats. Prassida and Asfari (2022) AMRs in intralogistics and highlighted the impact of technological ad­
combined UTAUT and socio-technical systems (STS) theory to evaluate vances in AMRs on planning and control decisions. They presented a
cobots by adopting a holistic view of acceptance. Alaiad and Zhou framework to support decision-making by managers and to achieve
(2014) examined robot acceptance in home care and conceptualized and optimal performance and reported that the technological advancement
extended UTAUT in that context. In addition to the existing UTAUT of AMRs increases operational flexibility and performance in terms of
determinants, their model included trust, privacy concerns, ethical productivity, quality, and cost efficiency. Hanson et al. (2018) focused
concerns, and legal concerns as determinants. on RMFSs and the efficiency of robots used in order picking and

4
F. Jacob et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 180 (2023) 109262

Table 1
Summary of related literature reviews.
Sector HRC Focus Robot Type Topic Human Factors

Jaghbeer et al. Intralogistics None AGV & RMFS Analysis of design and performance aspects of automated or semi-automated None
(2020) operations
Fragapane et al. Intralogistics HRI in AGV & AMR Planning and control of AMR in intralogistics None
(2021) General
Hanson et al. (2018) Intralogistics None RMFS Analysis of RMFS performance characteristics in relation to their design None
Duong et al. (2020) Logistics None General Analysis of robotics and autonomous systems use in the food industry supply None
chain, focusing on technical, financial and performance factors
Clauer et al. (2021) Logistics None AMR Analysis of functional requirements for AMR and derivation of design guidelines None
De Pace et al. (2020) General HRC General Analysis of human–robot communication and identification of AR applications as Trust
a key technology Perception
Hjorth & Industry HRC Hybrid disassembly Analysis of HRC principles and elements in industrial environments, such as Safety
Chrysostomou robot cells safety standards and collaborative modes of operation, HRI communication
(2022) interfaces, and disassembly process design features
Gualtieri et al. Industry HRC General Analysis of literature on safety and ergonomics of industrial collaborative Safety
(2021) robotics Ergonomics
Berx et al. (2022) Industry HRC General Identification and classification of HRC risk factors and evaluation of a safety Psychosocial
framework factors
Ergonomics
Safety
Simões et al. (2022) Industry HRC General Analysis of the design of human–robot collaboration workplaces in the industry Trust
Acceptance
Safety
Ergonomics

concluded that productivity gains are achieved by RMFSs compared to strategy, and the safety strategy. In addition, external risk factors, such
manual systems. However, both works also neglected human factors. as environmental conditions or government regulations, were exam­
Duong et al. (2020) analyzed the literature on the use of robotics and ined. The aim of that study was to develop a tool to support risk
autonomous systems throughout the supply chain, focusing on impor­ assessment during the early design phases of planned HRC. Although
tant applications and future trends. They mainly examined applications Berx et al. (2022) did not address the topic of collaboration acceptance,
related to data availability, cybersecurity, financial aspects, and effi­ the factors identified in their study may be relevant to HRC acceptance.
ciency, but omitted human factors. Clauer et al. (2021) examined the In addition to Berx et al. (2022), Simões et al. (2022) focused on
outdoor use of AMRs, focusing on technical, organizational, and cost human factors in the context of HRC to identify the contributions, rec­
aspects. Human factors and interactions between humans and robots ommendations, and guidelines in the literature for the design of a
were not addressed. collaborative workplace for manufacturing. Their focus was the design
A systematic literature review performed by De Pace et al. (2020) of a safe, ergonomic, human-centered, and sustainable workplace. In
addressed communication between humans and robots in the context of addition to the technical aspects, the social and psychophysical aspects
HRC. These researchers identified augmented reality (AR) applications of collaboration were also considered. The developed framework con­
as a key technology for communication, where AR allows users to sisted of three categories of varying complexity. Category 1, which had
augment their real environment with virtual elements. They also noted the lowest complexity, consisted of articles that considered the human
that trust is essential for collaborative activities; trust is primarily ach­ operator and technology. Cognitive and social processes, human com­
ieved by making the human aware of the intentions of the robot. De Pace fort, safety, and various software and hardware components were rele­
et al. (2020) identified the most important AR applications for control, vant. Category 2 spanned studies related to the human–robot team
programming, and visualization in the context of HRC. performance. Category 3, which had the highest complexity, comprised
In their literature review, Hjorth and Chrysostomou (2022) studies with holistic approaches that included multiple influencing
addressed the use of cobots in dismantling processes to optimize recy­ factors from different contexts, such as physical, cognitive, social,
cling. In addition to qualitative performance aspects, they focused on organizational, environmental, and economic factors. Again, Simões
control and pre- and post-collision strategies, that is, on physical factors et al. (2022) neglected HRC but identified existing literature relevant to
such as safety and physical integrity. Gualtieri et al. (2021) considered HRC to optimize the design of the collaborative workplace. Moreover,
collaborative robotics in industry, identifying the state of research and the factors identified in their study can also decisively influence
the development of physical factors, such as safety and ergonomics. collaboration acceptance.
According to these researchers, most research efforts have been devoted Research on human factors that promote or inhibit collaboration
to safety, especially in relation to contact avoidance applications. acceptance is underrepresented in existing literature reviews. The focus
Berx et al. (2022) developed different classes of risk factors as pre­ is mostly on increasing efficiency and productivity, as well as mini­
liminary building blocks for a safety evaluation framework for HRC in mizing costs and physical factors such as occupational safety and ergo­
the industry. Technological and human risk factors, the external envi­ nomics. To date, only two studies, those by Berx et al. (2022) and Simões
ronment, collaborative workplaces, and the enterprise were considered. et al. (2022), considered human factors in the context of HRC. However,
A socio-technical approach was followed, with human beings at the those studies neglected intralogistics processes and their results were not
center. For example, Berx et al. (2022) identified various technological analyzed in the context of acceptance. To fill this research gap, in this
risk factors, such as programming errors, incorrect or incomprehensible study, a systematic literature review is conducted to identify human
communication, and dangers from cyberattacks, as well as human fac­ factor-related research on HRC acceptance in warehouses (See Table 1).
tors, such as stress, lack of trust, and mental/physical overload. In the
collaborative workspace category, the physical area where operators 3. Methodology
and robots collaborate and its design were considered. The risk factors
surrounding the legal entity were recorded under the enterprise cate­ 3.1. Framework for assessing HRC acceptance in warehouses
gory and included the risk factors of corporate ethics, such as moral
principles, organizational ergonomics, the technology and digitalization The UTAUT model was used as the foundation of the developed

5
F. Jacob et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 180 (2023) 109262

Fig. 2. Framework classification.

framework for analyzing HRC acceptance in warehouses. To accom­ binding, and privacy concerns, especially data protection concerns,
modate the complexity of cobots, HRC, and the changing working which are often associated with legal regulations. Legal and privacy
conditions in the context of smart warehouses, further factors for concerns may prevent robot operators from using robots. According to
analyzing HRC acceptance were considered (in addition to the de­ Baumgartner et al. (2022), safety concerns are among the most impor­
terminants of the UTAUT model). tant barriers to robot acceptance. Employees must feel safe when
The recent socio-technical changes in the warehouse working envi­ working with robots, and occupational accidents and collisions should
ronment and working conditions have been explicitly outlined, partic­ be avoided. Therefore, the (perceived) occupational safety factor also
ularly by Winkelhaus and Grosse (2022) and Winkelhaus et al. (2022a). crucially impacts HRC acceptance (Baumgartner et al., 2022; Neumann
They should be appropriately considered, especially in the context of et al., 2021; Ridzky & Sarno, 2020). According to Neumann et al.
HRC. The relevance of these additional factors for acceptance, especially (2021), psychosocial factors include participation, corporate culture,
in terms of intention to use, is based on existing scientific theories and feedback, motivation, stress, teamwork, fairness, job satisfaction, role
concepts. In this study, the performance expectancy and effort expec­ clarity, over- and under-demand, and fear of job loss. Psychosocial
tancy factors of the UTAUT model (Venkatesh et al., 2003) were used as factors are central for humans when disruptive technologies such as
a basis for classifying the results of the systematic literature review. cobots are being implemented. Social influence (Venkatesh et al., 2003)
These factors were supplemented in the underlying taxonomy by legal is also a psychosocial factor, and is associated with the roles and influ­
and privacy (Alaiad & Zhou, 2014), (perceived) occupational safety ence of teammates, team leaders, supervisors, and experts.
(Baumgartner et al., 2022; Ridzky & Sarno, 2020), and psychosocial From the conceptual background, it follows that the factors in Fig. 2
factors (Neumann et al., 2021), as shown in Fig. 2. directly influence human acceptance of working with cobots. Depending
The performance expectancy factor can be influenced by expected on their characteristics, these factors can promote or inhibit acceptance.
productivity increases, quality improvements, reduced implementation For example, a high level of (perceived) occupational safety is conducive
and setup times, and mental factors. The effort expectancy factor relates to acceptance, whereas perceived hazards inhibit acceptance. If per­
to, among others, the perceived effort associated with the technology formance enhancement is expected through collaboration, this is posi­
use (such as the work effort or working time), the associated perceived tive for acceptance, whereas an expected performance degradation is
burden (such as ergonomic aspects), and mental factors. The facilitating negative. Expected increased effort reduces acceptance, whereas ergo­
conditions are influenced by the existing technical and organizational nomic improvements, for example, improve acceptance. Dispelling fears
infrastructure, and are considered in the context of performance and at an early stage positively affects acceptance. Note, also, that various
effort expectancy as they directly or indirectly influence these aspects. determinants can influence each other.
For example, AR applications, as technical infrastructure, directly in­ In addition to the determinants of HRC acceptance, the results of this
fluence the perception of robots and the performance resulting from a review were also analyzed according to a second level of classification:
given collaboration (De Pace et al., 2020). According to Berx et al. the robot types shown in Fig. 2. Thus, a distinction was made between
(2022), risks due to the technical and organizational infrastructure have the robot types outlined in Section 2.2, specifically, AMRs, AGVs,
a central impact on the overall system and operator. In addition, RMFSs, drones, and those in the “general” category. The latter category
consideration of the performance and effort expectancy should prevent accommodated studies that did not consider a specific robot type.
duplication of results due to the thematic connections between them.
According to Alaiad and Zhou (2014), legal and privacy factors
3.2. Literature search and selection
include legal concerns, which can be described as rules of conduct and
action prescribed by a controlling body or recognized as formally
A systematic literature review was conducted to determine the

6
F. Jacob et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 180 (2023) 109262

Fig. 3. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis flow chart summarizing core-sample search process.

current state of research; this review identified and explored patterns in acceptance in warehouses (the core sample), research on HRC accep­
theory through an objective search for generalizations. Hence, it tance in other disciplines and applications was considered in the
generated new expertise, expanded theoretical boundaries, and inte­ extended sample. Preliminary research revealed that only a compara­
grated studies using various methods. In addition, this review explored tively small number of studies discussed HRC acceptance in warehouses.
domain-specific causalities by assessing causal mechanisms, thereby However, certain insights from other fields were transferable to ware­
identifying new constructs and theses. Finally, this study followed an houses. The extended sample was compiled using the berrypicking
inductive approach and provided context explanations (Durach et al., method proposed by Bates (1989), considering previously defined key­
2021). This systematic literature review was conducted in five steps: (1) words as well as defined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
problem definition and formulation of guiding research questions, (2)
literature search and selection, (3) data extraction, (4) critical analysis 3.2.3. Keywords
and synthesis, and (5) presentation of results. As the focus was on HRC, the terms “HRC,” “cobot,” “collaborative
robot,” and “co-robotic” were identified as central keywords for the core
3.2.1. Problem definition and formulation of guiding research questions and extended samples (see Section 2). To expand the results, the key­
First, preliminary research via databases was conducted, research words “HRI” and “human robot” were added, as collaboration is also
questions were defined, inclusion and exclusion criteria were estab­ discussed in the context of HRI. “Warehouse” and “logistic” were iden­
lished, and central keywords were identified. To ensure transparency tified as central keywords for the core sample, as they should encompass
and reproducibility, the results were recorded using a review protocol. collaboration in intralogistics. The keyword “acceptance” was omitted
After consolidating insights from previous literature reviews and from the search for the core sample as it severely limited the search
developing a preliminary framework, the research questions (see Sec­ results. The keywords “distribution center” and “Operator 4.0” were
tion 1) were defined. omitted because they did not yield any further relevant results. Relevant
keywords were combined with logical operators to form the following
3.2.2. Core and extended samples search string:
A core and an extended sample were generated (see also Setayesh (HRC OR HRI OR cobot OR “human robot” OR “collaborative robot”
et al., 2022). The core sample included studies discussing HRC accep­ OR co-robotic) AND (warehouse OR logistic OR logistics).
tance in warehouses. In addition to the literature considering HRC The extended sample included studies on HRC acceptance in other

7
F. Jacob et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 180 (2023) 109262

Fig. 4. Publications included in core and extended samples by year.

fields. The keywords “HRC,” “HRI,” “cobot,” “human robot,” “collabo­ lists, and/or abstracts yielded 165, 58, and 106 results from the Ebsco,
rative robot,” and “co-robotic” were combined with “acceptance,” Science Direct, and Web of Science databases, respectively. Following
“service,” “industry,” and “healthcare” to find relevant results. duplicate removal, 224 papers remained in the core sample. Irrelevant
sources were removed by reading the abstracts of the studies and
3.2.4. Inclusion and exclusion criteria applying the exclusion criteria; hence, 42 studies were selected for the
Only peer-reviewed journal papers and conference proceedings in core sample. These remaining studies were fully read, and 11 irrelevant
English were considered relevant. In addition, literature reviews were studies were excluded, leaving 31 in the core sample. Five additional
excluded to avoid bias (see Section 2.5 for an overview of related relevant papers were found through cross-referencing. Thus, the final
literature reviews). For inclusion in the core sample, the studies were core sample consisted of 36 studies. Fig. 3 illustrates the core-sample
required to report insights on HRC acceptance in warehouses or other selection process. Using the berrypicking method, 20 relevant studies
fields for inclusion in the extended sample. The studies were required to were identified for inclusion in the extended sample.
refer to acceptance directly or to factors identified as critical, such as
performance expectancy, effort expectancy, occupational safety, legal
3.3. Data extraction, critical analysis, and synthesis
and privacy, or psychosocial factors (see Sections 2 and 3.1).

The sampled studies were analyzed, and data were extracted and
3.2.5. Database search
synthesized based on the framework presented in Section 3.1, using
The Ebsco, Science Direct, and Web of Science databases were
MAXQDA 2022 software (VERBI GmbH, Berlin, Germany). The code
searched (using relevant wildcard symbols where appropriate) in
system was developed using our adapted framework based on UTAUT
December 2022. Searches for the defined keywords in titles, keyword
and consisted of “performance expectancy” (coded 109 times), “effort

Fig. 5. Treatment of acceptance factors by studies included in core and extended samples.

8
F. Jacob et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 180 (2023) 109262

Fig. 6. Data evaluation of core-sample studies.

expectancy” (coded 152 times), “occupational safety” (coded 121 studies, as intended, HRC was the main type. Only small proportions of
times), “legal and privacy factors” (coded 5 times), and “psychosocial the sample discussed HRI in general or human–robot cooperation.
factors” (coded 73 times) codes. The text modules recorded in the code Human–robot coexistence was not explicitly addressed in any of the
system were then synthesized. In this process, cross-connections and studies in the core sample. The majority of the studies discussed ware­
interrelationships were noted, and critical factors were identified. house processes in general without considering specific types. Only
order picking and storage were specifically mentioned and considered in
4. Results the context of critical acceptance factors. Apart from storage and pick­
ing, no other warehouse processes were considered in the core-sample
4.1. Descriptive results studies. Few of the studies included in the core sample referred to a
specific robot type and most considered cobots in general (Fig. 6). AGVs
The studies included in the core and extended samples were pub­ were discussed most frequently, followed by AMRs. Drones and RMFSs
lished in the period of January 2017–December 2022. Considering the were considered in only one study each. If a study referred to several
trend shown in Fig. 4, as well as the increasing focus on human-centered robot types, it discussed AGVs and AMRs jointly.
operations management, a further increase in the number of publica­
tions is expected. 4.2. Literature analysis
In total, 29 elements of the core sample were journal articles, and 7
were conference articles. Analysis of the publication distribution in the The results of the systematic literature review are presented in this
core sample revealed that the studies were not accumulated in any subsection, following the framework developed in Section 3.1. Classi­
specific journal. The journals with the highest numbers of publications fication of the articles according to factors and a brief summary of the
included in the core sample were Robotics and Computer-Integrated contents can be found in Table A1 of the Appendix.
Manufacturing, Applied Sciences, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Pro­
duction and Operations Management, and Procedia Manufacturing, with 4.2.1. Performance expectancy
three, two, two, two, and two papers, respectively. The decisive factor influencing human intention to use cobots is
The sample distribution according to the framework classifications is performance expectancy, i.e., the extent to which a person believes that
particularly interesting, as shown in Fig. 5. The core-sample distribution using the system will help increase their work performance. For
reveals that research efforts focused on the performance expectancy (23 example, they may expect productivity increases, quality improvements,
articles) and effort expectancy (20 articles) factors, followed by the or shortened process times. If the operator expects or experiences cor­
(perceived) occupational safety (16 articles) and psychosocial (9 arti­ responding performance increases through collaboration with the robot,
cles) factors. Multiple entries are possible. Only three sources focused on this positively influences their collaboration acceptance. 16 specific
the legal and privacy factor. sources of the core sample and 6 specific sources of the extended sample
Fig. 6 presents visual breakdowns of the data in terms of the data that discussed performance expectancy were analyzed.
collection method, study type, interaction form, warehouse process, and Various studies noted that the use of a cobot for order picking in­
robot type. Distinctions were made between field studies, laboratory creases human-operator productivity, improves work quality, and gen­
studies, and existing data. In the context of data collection, laboratory erates efficiency gains (Adriaensen et al., 2022; Aguiar et al., 2019;
studies were predominant in the core sample, with fewer than half of the Zheyuan et al., 2021; Fager et al., 2021; Maderna et al., 2020; Petković
articles being based on field studies and existing data. Fig. 6 illustrates et al., 2020; Sheu & Choi, 2022; Srinivas & Yu, 2022; Zhang et al.,
the proportions of core-sample studies that were experimental or 2023a; Zhang et al., 2023b; Zhu et al., 2022). The division of labor
theoretical/modeling-based. A large proportion of the identified studies between two agents increases throughput (Lambrechts et al., 2021;
were experimental. As regards the interaction types considered in the Maderna et al., 2020; Petković et al., 2020). In addition, according to

9
F. Jacob et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 180 (2023) 109262

Rey et al. (2021), using a maneuverable autonomous robot can reduce to support inventory management, environmental data collection, and
order-picking time. Collaboration with free-flying robots generates visual inspection, thereby enabling the completion of tasks that require a
productivity gains and enables more effective warehouse management high degree of mobility. Operators can monitor and manage areas that
(Szafir et al., 2017). are difficult to access and confusing when perceived from the ground.
The results clearly indicate that human–robot collaboration gener­ Szafir et al. (2017) developed three prototype interfaces for warehouse-
ates various performance improvements. However, these improvements drone command and control, through which expected performance
and associated positive performance expectancy cannot be expected to improvements were realized.
occur automatically. According to Prati et al. (2021), careful planning The results of the present analysis illustrate that goal-oriented
and management of human–robot activities are necessary. In addition, planning of collaboration and team activities, promotion of mental
to harness efficiency gains and promote performance expectancy and the factors, and implementation of user-friendly interfaces influence per­
associated increase in acceptance, an optimal distribution of work tasks formance expectancy and, thus, HRC acceptance.
between humans and robots is useful. To this end, Maderna et al. (2020)
proposed an online scheduling algorithm to control work operations 4.2.2. Effort expectancy
between humans and robots. According to Rosenfeld et al. (2017), in the In addition to performance expectancy, effort expectancy also
context of performance and performance expectancy, it is particularly crucially influences use intention and acceptance, being related to the
important that the operator has a central influence on task distribution ease associated with using the system. The introduction of robots and
and team composition. For this purpose, Rosenfeld et al. (2017) devel­ their associated cooperation can generate the need for additional effort
oped an automatic guidance agent to help an operator assemble teams of or inhibit or even eliminate existing effort demand. Ergonomic factors,
multiple robots and to guide those robots in complex environments. ease of use, and effort reduction were among the topics discussed in the
Their experiment results showed that the advising agent significantly studies analyzed in the present work. In the core and extended samples,
improved the performance of the operator. Wang et al. (2021) also 15 and 7 papers deal with effort expectancy, respectively.
addressed this human–robot planning problem and proposed an Various authors believe that the goal of HRC is to relieve humans of
approach based on multi-agent self-driven particles that are imple­ repetitive and exhausting tasks. In the context of order picking, repeti­
mented by the operator using a hand-held tool. Their experiment results tive and sequential picking tasks often arise. In addition, heavy objects
indicate that the proposed system can be expected to improve perfor­ must be transported, and warehouse employees must perform activities
mance by up to 10% when used in the context of planning. Thus, with awkward body postures. Through HRC, these activities can be
operator use of appropriate planning and control tools directly in­ supported or completely adopted by robots (Costanzo et al., 2021;
fluences the performance improvement they expect. According to the Fukushima et al., 2021; Kirks et al., 2019; Lambrechts et al., 2021;
UTAUT model, this expectancy also impacts acceptance. Mental factors Maderna et al., 2020; Srinivas & Yu, 2022; Vitolo et al., 2022; Zhang
must also be considered to create positive performance expectancy. et al., 2023b; Zhu et al., 2022). Depending on target-object weights and
Human operators should be prepared for HRI through training (Wang positions, work activities can promote work-related musculoskeletal
et al., 2021), effective preparation and guidance (e.g., through intro­ disorders. This risk can be mitigated through the selective use of robots
ductory events and briefings), and training (Lambrechts et al., 2021). (Maderna et al., 2020). Overall, cobots reduce human-operator work­
Lack of experience in working with cobots is a critical influencing factor load and physical strain, resulting in lower absenteeism and fitter em­
for acceptance (Lambrechts et al., 2021). ployees (Lambrechts et al., 2021).
The studies cited above examined robots in general, regardless of To address operator effort expectancy in a targeted manner and to
type; however, several studies discussed in the present work considered positively influence acceptance, effort-related aspects should be
specific robot types. For example, in the context of AGVs, Aguiar et al. considered in the HRC planning process. For example, the online plan­
(2019) identified the need to account for mental factors and, particu­ ning algorithm developed by Maderna et al. (2020) includes an ergo­
larly, skill sets. Chadalavada et al. (2020) addressed interfaces, espe­ nomic evaluation of the associated work steps, especially those of
cially communication interfaces, for AGVs and their direct impact on picking activities in the context of order picking. In the planning phase,
expected performance. User-friendly interfaces are central to smooth the operators can adjust the duration of human tasks and effectively
human–robot collaboration and improve expected performance gains. mitigate their own workload. During the work process, their effort is
According to Kirks et al. (2019), smart glasses are suitable in this measured by sensors attached to their bodies. In other words, the actual
context. Rey et al. (2021) developed human–robot collaboration systems operator workload is measured in real time and communicated to the
in the context of AGVs and AMRs for optimal human planning and operator, enabling them to directly mitigate their workload if necessary
control of human–robot team activities. In addition to improving team (Maderna et al., 2020). Thus, the developed algorithm provides the
performance, the proposed system enhanced the traceability of the operator with a direct impression of their expected and actual work­
entire process and, thus, the expected process quality. Chen et al. (2022) loads. In that study, however, Maderna et al. (2020) considered ware­
found that, although interaction with an AMR initially degrades the house robots in general. In contrast, Szafir et al. (2017) investigated
operator’s performance, the overall team performance is enhanced. facilitation by free-flying robots in the context of warehouse manage­
Performance is also influenced by human–robot team composition, AMR ment. They found that the use of camera-equipped drones for manage­
speed, AMR capacity, and warehouse layout (Srinivas & Yu, 2022). ment as an alternative to manual management (performed, for example,
Fleet-management systems can also improve expected performance by a walk-through) significantly reduced the expected effort. This
in the context of collaborative activities. Petković et al. (2020) devel­ outcome directly impacts acceptance according to the UTAUT model.
oped such a system for RMFS implementation in warehouses. Their Notably, drones can access hard-to-reach locations, and appropriate
planning system specifically addressed the problem that human oper­ communication interfaces can be used to share data with the operator in
ator behavior is not always deterministic or prescribed. An approach to a user-friendly manner (Szafir et al., 2017).
detecting and communicating human intentions for human-oriented However, in addition to facilitation, new effort can also be generated
planning was proposed, which enabled the robot to orient itself to by HRC. For example, controlling or programming a robot requires an
humans and their movements in the warehouse. The human operator operator to exert new effort that can negatively affect acceptance. To
could then expect no degradation of their performance as a result of overcome these problems, various solution concepts were developed in
unanticipated path intersections with the robot and the associated previous studies. For example, Ramirez-Amaro et al. (2019) presented a
forced pauses. In addition, goal-oriented coordination between humans novel method for programming robots that is flexible, modular, and
and robots is relevant for improving performance (Sheu & Choi, 2022). based on semantic representation. Through demonstration, inexperi­
Free-flying robots, also known as drones, can be used in warehouses enced operators can program new tasks for robots, mitigate the expected

10
F. Jacob et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 180 (2023) 109262

effort, and improve acceptance. Thus, when technical solutions and analysis was proposed, which ensured that robot movements in a com­
systems are implemented, operators must be prepared and trained for mon workspace posed no risk to humans. This safety framework relied
the resultant tasks. Appropriately skilled and experienced personnel on the environmental information of the robot (Hata et al., 2019). Ac­
expect reduced workloads through HRC; however, additional training cording to Inam et al. (2018) and Hata et al. (2019), a targeted safety
with robots (Wang et al., 2021), introduction sessions, briefings, management framework aims to compensate for an identified legal gap,
training, and effective preparation (Lambrechts et al., 2021) are ensure occupational safety, and promote the resulting trust in and
required. acceptance of the collaboration. Ivšić et al. (2020) developed a three-tier
However, it is often difficult to capture cognitive factors and concrete safety approach for promoting perceived safety, using a concept based
problems related to effort. For this purpose, Fruggiero et al. (2020) on propagation analysis of ultra-wideband (UWB) Gaussian signals in an
conducted an interaction analysis in the context of AGV operation. They automated collaborative warehouse environment; this method ensured
investigated factors such as age, interface complexity, and recovery human–robot communication and collision prevention. The UWB sig­
strategy and considered their effects on physical effort and fatigue; nals were used to accurately locate the humans. Thus, if a human was
hence, they proposed virtually augmented devices to monitor the too close to a robot, the robot stopped. The safety equipment was
physical and mental loads of human operators during interactions complemented by safety vests, which were worn by humans (Ivšić et al.,
(Fruggiero et al., 2020). Thus, these devices enabled the identification of 2020). Thus, this approach directly promoted trust and acceptance.
critical factors, and the obtained data could be used in the design and Petković et al. (2019) developed a similar method in the form of a real-
implementation of user-friendly interfaces. Note that user-friendly in­ time algorithm designed to estimate human intentions in a dynamic
terfaces can actively influence emerging and expected efforts and, thus, warehouse environment. The goal was to estimate the intention of a
acceptance. In the context of AGV operation, smart glasses for infor­ human worker in a robotic warehouse where the environment was
mation provision (Kirks et al., 2019) and AR applications (Chadalavada changeable owing to autonomously navigating robots. In this approach,
et al., 2020) are in development, along with other technologies. the robots perceived human positions and orientations and estimated
HRC clearly mitigates expected effort and anticipates emerging human actions; this robot capability was expected to prevent collisions
effort, which are factors that can positively or negatively affect accep­ and work-related accidents. To support this system, Petković et al.
tance. Accordingly, critical factors must be identified (Fruggiero et al., (2019) suggested the wearing of AR glasses to better track the robot’s
2020), employees must be appropriately skilled and prepared (Lam­ movements in the warehouse and to display valuable information.
brechts et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021), and user-friendly interfaces must Providing operators with important information regarding robot states
be provided (Chadalavada et al., 2020; Kirks et al., 2019; Szafir et al., and positions yields increased process acceptance.
2017). The studies of Inam et al. (2018), Hata et al. (2019), Ivšić et al.
(2020), and Petković et al. (2019) did not focus on any particular robot
4.2.3. (Perceived) Occupational safety type. However, safety is often of particular interest in the case of
(Perceived) safety at work is crucial for human trust in HRC. If human–AGV collaboration, with AGVs being supplemented by special
collaboration poses a (perceived) risk to the physical integrity and safety safety precautions because of their lack of autonomy. Notably, these
of the operator, their trust in the collaboration and technology is interfaces are designed to solve perceived safety problems. For example,
negatively impacted and their acceptance may be inhibited. The samples to achieve collision-free route planning in a fleet-management system,
considered in the present review included studies that addressed safety Jost et al. (2018) implemented safety vests and AR terminals for human
and physical integrity in the context of HRI. In total, 11 core-sample operators. The system aimed to prevent unpredictable and unacceptable
studies and 6 extended-sample studies discussed (perceived) safety. robot appearances by predicting human behavior and movement,
According to Chadalavada et al. (2020), in HRI, occupational safety thereby ensuring that the robots and humans were fully aware of each
comprises two aspects: general and perceived safety. General safety is other in the warehouse. The planners attempted to avoid path in­
ensured by safety precautions adopted during the development of ro­ tersections and prioritized the planned human paths, and the humans
bots, which are designed to ensure the physical integrity of human were alerted to the robot locations via an AR view. Chadalavada et al.
colleagues. However, perceived safety is more elusive, as it encompasses (2020) attempted to improve upon this approach by using eye-tracking
human perception of the level of danger and the defined comfort level. glasses. Gaze information is useful as it enables autonomous robots and
Strict distance and speed regulations are cited as examples of general automated vehicles to consider human attention and intentions, thereby
safety, whereas communication of intentions is relevant to perceived improving the overall safety of HRI (Chadalavada et al., 2020). To in­
safety (Chadalavada et al., 2020). crease the perceived safety of their system, Chadalavada et al. (2020)
New hazards and risks arise for human workers when collaborative proposed projecting the intentions of the mobile robots onto the shared
robotics are implemented in warehouses, and these problems may ground space. In the context of AMR, Adriaensen et al. (2022) proposed
negatively impact HRC adoption. The removal of barriers, such as safety a safety analysis based on a socio-technical approach, considering the
fences, increases the possibility of collisions between humans and robots relevance of situational awareness on safety.
and, thus, affects acceptance. Relevant standards such as ISO 10218 and The importance of risk analysis procedures, safety management
ISO 15066:2016, on robot interaction and HRC, respectively, establish systems, and user-friendly interfaces for (perceived) occupational safety
basic technical specifications; however, they are insufficient to ensure is significant. Safety concerns can inhibit acceptance and, thus, adoption
the necessary safety for collaborative systems (Inam et al., 2018) and of cobots. Human acceptance is positively affected by the perception of
negatively impact collaboration acceptance. Regarding specific ap­ appropriate safety precautions.
proaches to risk analysis and management as essential, Inam et al.
(2018) performed a risk assessment for automated warehouses in which 4.2.4. Legal & privacy factors
mobile robots and humans collaborated in a common area to move The right to privacy, data protection, and legal frameworks serve as
products from shelves to conveyors. They defined specific human roles, security and guarantors for human workers. In the context of HRC, these
performed HRC risk assessments for different scenarios, and identified a factors can also promote or inhibit acceptance. There are numerous and
list of hazards using the hazard operability (HAZOP) approach. They varied application examples. For example, laws and standards pertain­
then proposed a security strategy involving offline and online security ing to product safety, product quality, occupational health and safety,
analyses. In that approach, the security status was checked before data and data protection exist. Strikingly, however, only 3 core-sample
transmission and during application (Inam et al., 2018). Hata et al. studies and 2 extended-sample studies specifically considered legal as­
(2019) also identified potential threats using a hazard operability pects. Moreover, in the core-sample studies, this topic was only briefly
approach technique. In that study, a fuzzy logic algorithm for risk mentioned. As noted previously, Inam et al. (2018) referred to the

11
F. Jacob et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 180 (2023) 109262

existing ISO 10218 and ISO/TS 15066:2016 standards but stated that decisively impacted human dynamics. The employees regarded the
these standards alone are insufficient to ensure human safety in the robot as a teammate and considered its role in the team and their own
context of collaborative systems. Aguiar et al. (2019) considered the interactions with it. According to Lorson et al. (2022), a balanced team
introduction of standards to regulate operator safety as a success factor structure, comprehensible task distribution, maintenance of interper­
for technology acceptance and sustainable AGV implementation. sonal relationships, personal preferences, and human motivation are of
Finally, Vitolo et al. (2022) criticized the lack of relevant control and central importance for acceptance. They also noted that acceptance may
safety standards, which they regarded as a major barrier to the adoption be promoted if operators learn that undesirable tasks will be handled by
and rapid diffusion of AGV and AMR applications. an AGV/AMR in the future; however, this perception requires an accu­
Thus, there are insufficient legal frameworks for safe and successful rate understanding of the tasks to be transferred to the robot (Lorson
HRC. According to Alaiad and Zhou (2014), this problem can negatively et al., 2022). Finally, Lorson et al. (2022) identified fear of job loss as an
impact collaboration acceptance. inhibiting factor for adoption. However, experts have dismissed this
concern because humans have certain skills and abilities that robots
4.2.5. Psychosocial factors cannot replicate (Lambrechts et al., 2021; Lorson et al., 2022).
Psychosocial factors include psychological factors and abilities In an experimental study, Pasparakis et al. (2021) investigated the
conditioned by social circumstances. Such factors can affect humans in impact of HRC in the context of order picking. Two scenarios were
the workplace, for example, when working with robots. Excessive or studied: the human leading and the robot following, and vice versa,
insufficient demands, stress, lack of participation, demotivation, fear, where the human was assisted in picking small parts. The participants
etc., can negatively affect collaboration acceptance. Social influences, in were informed that the robot was an AMR; however, because the robot
the sense of those discussed by Venkatesh et al. (2003), are also relevant. did not act autonomously, it was, in fact, an AGV. Pasparakis et al.
To better understand these factors and to identify solution concepts in (2021) assumed that the human behavior observed in their study was
current research, the psychosocial aspects of the sample were analyzed. influenced by the individual inclinations of the participants. For
In total, 7 and 11 articles of the core and extended samples, respectively, example, the employees may have felt threatened and demotivated by
discussed psychosocial factors. the performance ceiling imposed by the limited speed of the robots.
Lambrechts et al. (2021) used expert interviews to investigate the According to Pasparakis et al. (2021), robots are particularly threatening
human factors influencing cobot implementation in distribution centers. to employees who are naturally inclined to avoid negative outcomes,
They considered cobots in general and found that employees hesitated and, in such cases, collaboration acceptance is likely to decrease.
and resisted working with robots when they lacked information, expe­ However, Pasparakis et al. (2021) hypothesized that increased preven­
rience, and communication ability. These factors directly affected tion focus, characterized by the pursuit of non-negative outcomes,
collaboration acceptance. Moreover, many employees had prejudices compensates for the perceived performance constraint imposed by the
against robots. The organizational change processes generated excite­ robot. Prevention focus counteracts demotivation and is conducive to
ment and fear among them, such as fear of losing their jobs. If only a few acceptance (Pasparakis et al., 2021).
employees were initially informed of the cobot introduction, skepticism Jost et al. (2018) reported that the stress levels of human workers can
and a lack of motivation developed among the operators. Personal increase significantly during collaboration with AGVs owing to invisible
preferences, individual characteristics, and experience were also or fast-moving objects. They proposed an approach designed to reduce
important. Some employees were open to new technologies and orga­ stress, which focused on the human perception of robots and involved
nizational changes. Thus, they were more likely to be enthusiastic about the use of wearable devices combined with AR technologies. The human
working with cobots. In particular, experience in working with cobots operator was shown robot trajectories in their field of view. To avoid
was a critical success factor in the introduction process. According to information overload and uncertainty, only information about nearby
experts, temporary employees are less committed to working with hidden robots was displayed, and warnings about robots with increased
cobots than employees with permanent contracts (Lambrechts et al., safety levels were given. This targeted information provision was ex­
2021), and effective preparation and guidance are critical to the pected to reduce stress and promote collaboration acceptance.
onboarding process. Structured briefings improve staff confidence and Niu et al. (2021) developed an approach that enabled a robot to learn
increase acceptance likelihood. By involving all stakeholders in the human discomfort during collaborative picking involving RMFS. The
introduction process from the outset, enthusiasm is aroused, and prej­ multi-agent reinforcement approach was used to effectively account for
udices are reduced. Additionally, the induction process should be human discomfort, in addition to traditional performance goals, during
structured in phases (Lambrechts et al., 2021). The findings of Lam­ allocation in RMFS applications. Human discomfort was registered as a
brechts et al. (2021) highlight the relevance of employee experience, penalty in the reward function of the robot. The results of this study
preferences, qualifications, employment type, involvement, and moti­ indicated effective consideration of human discomfort. When the robot
vation to cobot acceptance. The implementation process is also critical registered an excessive or insufficient challenge level or stress, it
to collaboration acceptance. According to UTAUT, social influence adjusted the assignment speed. According to Niu et al. (2021), robots
directly impacts acceptance. Experts have noted that team leaders play a can learn the role of caring colleagues by learning human discomfort. In
critical role in cobot adoption, being responsible for instructing and this manner, factors that hinder acceptance, such as perceived perfor­
encouraging employees to work with cobots. Thus, successful imple­ mance limits, perceived performance pressure, and stress, can be
mentation largely depends on the team leader (Lambrechts et al., 2021), counteracted.
as the team leader plays a central role in technology acceptance and the
adoption of collaboration. 5. Discussion and future research
Lorson et al. (2022) noted the centrality of good leadership, the need
for effective conflict and effect management, and the necessity of 5.1. Implications of this review
building collective motivation. Through expert interviews, they
addressed the impact of HRI in the context of AGVs and AMRs in This study highlighted the importance of acceptance for HRC success
warehouses. According to the various experts interviewed in that study, in warehouses. Therefore, we identified various promoting and inhib­
the challenges included determining the team structure and task dis­ iting factors. The most important results and implications of this sys­
tribution. Psychosocial factors such as employee motivation, satisfac­ tematic literature analysis are briefly reviewed below and discussed in
tion, and loyalty were dependent on the human–robot team structure, as relation to the results for the core sample. The review of the results and
employees value interpersonal relationships and identify with their subsequent discussion illustrates the extent to which the acceptance of
colleagues. The experts also reported that the number of robots used HRC in intralogistics is studied in the current research literature and,

12
F. Jacob et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 180 (2023) 109262

thus, answers RQ01. The complete thematic listing of the core sample 2018; Zheyuan et al., 2021).
can be found in Table A1 of the Appendix. The core and extended Collision avoidance is also of central importance in the industrial
samples indicate that performance expectancy, effort expectancy, context. For example, path systems are being developed to prevent
(perceived) occupational safety, legal factors, and psychosocial factors collisions (Safeea et al., 2019). However, the impact of cyber security on
influence HRC acceptance, which answers RQ02. In the following, the physical integrity is not considered in the logistics context. The safety of
results of the core sample are placed in relation to the results of the an employee can be threatened by cyberattacks, which can be initiated
extended sample to enable transfers; hence, RQ03 is answered. The via external communication channels, wireless transmissions, or phys­
classification of the extended sample can be found in Table A2 of the ical access. Depending on the target, attacks can have varying degrees of
Appendix. impact on employee safety. For example, a malicious attacker hacking
into the user interface of a robot or corrupting its sensor data, thereby
5.1.1. Performance expectancy disabling or compromising the robot’s security algorithms, could seri­
As regards performance expectancy, the results revealed that recent ously impact the physical integrity of the worker (Khalid et al., 2018).
research efforts focused on increasing the performance of human Khalid et al. (2018) established a safety framework for HRC in the in­
workers. According to Venkatesh et al. (2003), willingness to use a robot dustry, with a focus on cybersecurity. This framework was based on a
increases when the operator expects higher productivity or efficiency as two-pronged strategy consisting of communication channel security and
a result of this collaboration, and the importance of possible efficiency a protection plan and aimed to avoid life-threatening situations for
and quality gains was confirmed by a number of recent studies (Aguiar employees. Such safety strategies should be urgently adopted in intra­
et al., 2019; Fager et al., 2021; Maderna et al., 2020; Petković et al., logistics to ensure human-operator integrity.
2020; Zheyuan et al., 2021).
The results of studies performed in other sectors confirm these 5.1.4. Legal & privacy factors
findings. Significant gains in flexibility and productivity through the The core-sample results reveal a gap with regard to the consideration
targeted use of cobots were recorded by various authors (Calitz et al., of legal factors influencing acceptance, particularly data security as­
2017; Safeea et al., 2019; Tausch & Kluge, 2020). Moreover, Eimontaite pects. This deficit was also observed in the industrial context (Demir
et al. (2019) reported that simple graphic signage increases operator et al., 2019). The cybersecurity framework proposed by Khalid et al.
performance in the context of HRC. Schmidbauer et al. (2021) and (2018) prevents tampering with or interception of sensitive and personal
Tausch and Kluge (2020) concluded that collaboration productivity in data. With the growing number of smart devices and the corresponding
industry applications increases when work resources and tasks are growth in generated data, data protection will be increasingly important
allocated by the human operator rather than the robot. In addition, the in the near future.
advantages of simple signage and task allocation by human operators
can be exploited in warehouses. Finally, Bogataj et al. (2019) presented 5.1.5. Psychosocial factors
cobot use as an opportunity to counteract the dwindling productivity of Lambrechts et al. (2021) found that a large proportion of employees
older people. Although warehouses will be affected by future de­ are generally prejudiced against robots and critical of change processes.
mographic changes, the implementation of cobots can compensate for Personal preferences, organizational and leadership culture, qualifica­
the resultant labor discrepancies. tions, team structure, the fear of job loss, interfaces, and communication
play central roles (Lambrechts et al., 2021; Lorson et al., 2022).
5.1.2. Effort expectancy In previous studies, fear of unemployment was also identified as a
The results show that effort expectancy both positively and nega­ relevant factor for other industries (Baumgartner et al., 2022; Cohen
tively influences collaboration acceptance. Ergonomic improvements et al., 2019). In addition, Baumgartner et al. (2022) cited curiosity and
reduce the risk of musculoskeletal disorders (Maderna et al., 2020), enthusiasm as important factors for acceptance, and Savela et al. (2021)
yielding fitter staff and lower absenteeism (Lambrechts et al., 2021). noted that humans are less enthusiastic about co-working with robots
However, if humans expect increased strain from collaboration (related than with other humans. This negative reaction is due to a feeling of
to cognitive factors, for example), their willingness to use technology strangeness in an unfamiliar situation and the lack of social interaction
and their acceptance of it are reduced. when working with a robot. In addition, workers fear a loss of autonomy
Studies performed in other sectors also suggest that working with because robots do not adhere to hierarchies and have no morals (Paluch
cobots yields reduced fatigue, cognitive stress, and physical strain et al., 2021). Tausch and Kluge (2020) found that, in industrial appli­
(Andronas et al., 2021; Baumgartner et al., 2022; Bogataj et al., 2019). cations, employees experience more task identity when they themselves
Against the backdrop of an aging population, musculoskeletal disorders are responsible for the work design and task distribution. This approach
are steadily increasing, especially for those engaged in highly repetitive was also implemented by Baumgartner et al. (2022) and Tausch et al.
short-cycle activities (Bogataj et al., 2019). To prevent fatigue and (2022). A sense of self-determination should be maintained for em­
musculoskeletal disorders, Andronas et al. (2021) proposed a live er­ ployees, and they should not sense a loss of control when cobots are
gonomic feedback algorithm with an accompanying terminal. The implemented. If possible, employees should be involved in configuration
feedback helped operators recognize actions that generated musculo­ and programming (Baumgartner et al., 2022), as process satisfaction
skeletal problems. In an industrial context, Calitz et al. (2017) high­ decreases with decreasing employee involvement (Tausch et al., 2022).
lighted the changing cognitive demands that can induce novel effort. These findings should be implemented as fundamental requirements for
Worker activities will become increasingly cognitive and less physical. logistical applications. We note that some of the findings of the present
Thus, for technically inexperienced and sometimes poorly trained systematic literature review were previously confirmed by studies per­
workers, the introduction of HRI necessitates training. In particular, formed in other sectors. Clearly, these results, among others in the in­
programming is becoming an increasing challenge for operators (Emeric dustrial context, transcend intralogistics. As the preliminary research
et al., 2020); this issue must be resolved through effective intralogistics. performed in the present study revealed that HRC in warehouses has
attracted less research attention than other topics, this finding was to be
5.1.3. (Perceived) Occupational safety expected. The identified problems and solution approaches should be
When considering occupational safety, a distinction must be made analyzed against the background of the application in warehouses, and
between general and perceived safety (Chadalavada et al., 2020). The any parallels should be examined.
central topic of related research is collision avoidance. Thus, risk man­ Finally, contradicting the conclusion of Baumgartner et al. (2022)
agement and analysis approaches to avoid collisions and ensure human and Cohen et al. (2019) that the fear of unemployment is unfounded,
safety were proposed in recent studies (Hata et al., 2019; Inam et al., Wang et al. (2021) argued that the increased efficiency of collaborative

13
F. Jacob et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 180 (2023) 109262

order pickers results in a 10% reduction in time cost compared to that of older people. None of the studies considered in the present literature
generated by human order pickers only. review addressed the relationship between social influence and age.
Differentiations regarding sex were only considered by Paluch et al.
5.2. Effects of mental factors on acceptance (2021), who found that women generally reacted more positively to
robot collaboration. According to Venkatesh et al. (2003), in terms of
The results of this study indicate that mental factors are central to performance expectancy, technology that increases expected perfor­
HRI acceptance. Robot implementation and collaboration present a mance is likely to be more attractive to men as they are highly task-
human operator with new cognitive challenges that must be addressed; oriented compared to women. Experience with cobots is important,
for example, there are different requirements for programming, plan­ according to Baumgartner et al. (2022) and Lambrechts et al. (2021).
ning, control, and communication. Linguistic, technical, and organiza­ Lack of experience negatively influences the introduction process
tional competencies also change, affecting performance and effort (Lambrechts et al., 2021) and inhibits trust in cooperation (Baumgartner
expectancy and psychosocial factors in particular. A lack of experience et al., 2022). The authors of the present study regard the moderating
in working with cobots is a decisive influencing factor for effort and factor of voluntariness as problematic. In workplace contexts and after
performance expectancy, and for fear or stress. Information provision, high investment, collaboration is rarely voluntary, but is instead
employee involvement, and motivation are critical to collaboration assigned to the employee. Although the assignment of work by the
acceptance and centrally influence skepticism, prejudice, expected operator themselves positively influences their acceptance of the robot,
effort, and expected performance. It is particularly important to involve such methods yield apparent voluntariness only.
team leaders and supervisors and to consider cognitive factors during
the planning process. However, cognitive factors must be identified on a 5.4. Interpreting the results in the context of existing literature reviews
company-specific basis. According to Fruggiero et al. (2020), interaction
analysis is suitable for this purpose. Once the critical factors are known, A partial overlap between the findings of the present review and
managers can respond to new skill requirements with appropriate those of Berx et al. (2022) is clear, despite the different focuses of the
educational topics, training, induction events, and instruction. Suitably two studies. That is, Berx et al. (2022) considered five risk factor classes
qualified employees can exploit their performance potential and interact via a socio-technical approach, whereas the present study focused on
with robots with less anxiety. Thus, mental factors directly influence HRC acceptance. Berx et al. (2022) did not directly relate risk factors to
HRC acceptance. This challenge and the relevant factors should be acceptance. However, according to the present framework, some of the
investigated in more detail in future studies, and practical solutions risk factors considered by those authors impact use intention and
should be generated . acceptance. For example, Berx et al. (2022) addressed aspects of
(perceived) occupational safety, as well as legal and privacy concerns,
5.3. Interpreting the results in the context of UTAUT under technology risk factors. Psychosocial, cognitive, and ergonomic
risks were analyzed under human risk factors; these aspects overlap with
Considering the results in the context of the underlying UTAUT psychosocial factors and effort expectancy. Berx et al. (2022) also noted
model, it is apparent that most core-sample sources discussed perfor­ the central importance of cognitive factors and user-friendly interfaces.
mance and effort expectancy. The “social influence” factor was included When considering enterprise risk factors, the risk of social acceptance
among the psychosocial factors but accounted for a rather small share. influences ethical considerations, and the findings of this literature re­
Only Lambrechts et al. (2021) and Lorson et al. (2022) discussed the view could be incorporated in the same context. Simões et al. (2022)
effect of social influence on use intention, referring primarily to the addressed the design of an HRC workplace in the industry in a systematic
functions and effects of leaders and superiors. Thus, the impact of social literature review. In the design proposal for process, safety, and tech­
influence on robot acceptance requires further attention. The “facili­ nology design, cognitive and social processes, such as trust, technology
tating conditions” were considered in the context of other factors but acceptance, cognitive performance, human safety, human comfort, and
centrally influenced the intention to use robots. The technical and team performance were captured. Simões et al. (2022) regarded tech­
organizational components are also relevant. Technically, the presence nology acceptance as a predictive factor for the success of HRI and, thus,
of user-friendly interfaces is crucial, as they facilitate purposeful control, as an important building block in the design of a collaborative work­
coordination, and communication, and directly influence performance, place. In terms of content, Simões et al. (2022) discussed certain topics
effort, occupational safety, and psychosocial factors. relevant to acceptance but did not directly link them to acceptance. If a
Organizational infrastructure also influences acceptance. For workplace were designed following the proposal of Simões et al. (2022),
example, management, fleet, analysis, and control systems assist in work with additional consideration of the in-depth findings of the present
distribution, planning, coordination, and control. These aspects also study, positive HRC acceptance could be expected for workers. How­
directly impact performance expectancy, effort expectancy, (perceived) ever, this expectancy must be verified in practice. Faccio et al. (2023)
occupational safety, legal and privacy, and psychosocial factors. These also considered human factors in the context of cobots. They identified
findings were also confirmed by the studies considered in the extended “physical ergonomics,” “mental workload,” “trust,” “acceptance,” and
sample. The organizational and technological infrastructures of a given “ease of use” as key human factors. According to the present approach,
location centrally influence collaboration, especially in industry, and the other four factors affect acceptance. Notably, some studies discus­
affect factors such as performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and sing human factors in the context of HRC regarded acceptance as a
job safety (Andronas et al., 2021; Baumgartner et al., 2022; Eimontaite critical factor, in addition to other factors likely to directly or indirectly
et al., 2019). Rey et al. (2021) regarded the lack of a specific infra­ influence acceptance. Here, it would be useful to analyze the importance
structure as one of the biggest challenges to robot introduction. of acceptance as a human factor, the influence of other factors on
The moderating factors of age, sex, experience, and voluntariness of acceptance, or the synergies between these factors. The results should
use were only marginally considered. The UTAUT model assumes that also be critically considered in light of the two meta-reviews by Blut,
age has a moderating influence on all four factors. Moreover, it is Wang, Wünderlich, & Brock, 2021; Roesler, Manzey, & Onnasch, 2021,
assumed that greater age negatively influences effort expectancy which examine the influence of anthropomorphic design elements on
because of proven difficulties in processing complex stimuli. However, human–robot interaction and, in particular, usage intention. In HRI,
Bogataj et al. (2019) adopted a contrasting perspective regarding anthropomorphism is understood to be, on the one hand, the tendency to
collaboration as an opportunity to provide relief to older employees, attribute human characteristics and capabilities to non-living objects
under the assumption that age-related declines in productivity can be and, on the other hand, the fact that the human-like design of robots
compensated for by cobots. This approach could increase the acceptance facilitates the attribution of these characteristics to them (Roesler,

14
F. Jacob et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 180 (2023) 109262

Manzey, & Onnasch, 2021). Both meta-studies concluded that the identify more sources. In the present study, to expand the results, other
research literature is inconclusive as to whether anthropomorphism has sectors were considered in addition to logistics applications. In future
a positive or negative impact on HRI usage intention and acceptance. work, critical factors and approaches within the framework of a sys­
However, studies that identify the positive aspects seem to predominate. tematic database review could be identified to draw meaningful con­
Consequently, according to both meta-studies, it can be assumed that clusions about cooperation in warehouses.
anthropomorphic design has a positive influence on acceptance (Blut, An additional limitation was the UTAUT model adaptation used in
Wang, Wünderlich, & Brock, 2021; Roesler, Manzey, & Onnasch, 2021). this study. Although the UTAUT model is established and used
It is noticeable that, within the scope of the present work, no studies that frequently, the adaptation employed in the present study requires closer
dealt with the human-like design of robots and its influence on accep­ examination in future research, with alternative technology acceptance
tance were identified. This topic does not appear to be an aspect of models being tested. Furthermore, the present study provides no new
scientific research in the context of warehouses. If the results of Blut, empirical insights into the current problems related to HRI in industrial
Wang, Wünderlich, & Brock, 2021; Roesler, Manzey, & Onnasch, 2021 environments, but rather, as a literature review, generates an overview
are extrapolated, a positive effect on acceptance can also be expected in of the existing research field and serves to sensitize future research.
warehouses.
5.7. Future research directions
5.5. Implications for managers
Future research should focus specifically on acceptance and human
Managers should consider the planning, implementation, and coor­ factors in the context of HRC. HRI acceptance should be investigated in
dination of cobots in warehouses holistically. In addition to performance more detail through practice-oriented field studies; at present, such
and cost factors, human factors should also be emphasized. When studies account for a smaller proportion of the existing research than
implementing cobots, technology and collaboration acceptance are laboratory and theoretical studies. The influence of the identified human
crucial to success. The critical factors identified in the present study factors on acceptance should be analyzed in greater depth and validated
should be considered during planning. Human employee perceptions are through large-scale empirical studies in practical applications. Tools to
important, and the improved performance, reduced effort, improved identify psychosocial factors should be designed. Psychosocial factors
ergonomics, and safety expected when collaborating with robots should should be identified in practice, and sound approaches to meeting
be clarified (Neumann et al., 2021). This can be achieved through emerging challenges should be developed. The present study identified
comprehensive induction and training sessions, for example. Commu­ the central influence of mental factors on HRC acceptance. To meet this
nication is key to solving many acceptance problems and positively emerging challenge, it would be useful to consider future research on
impacts implementation and collaboration. Open communication of education, training, and retraining with a holistic approach. The present
goals, process steps, and challenges is important, along with monitoring authors believe that this approach could be realized through joint
of developing problems. Fear and concerns can then be addressed at an research by governments and industry. As states hold sovereignty over
early stage. In this context, psychological risk assessments are advisable; education, they play central roles in tackling disruptive processes such
the operator should be centrally involved, and appropriate measures as cobot implementation. In addition, human factors, in particular HRC
should then be derived (cf. ISO 45001; ISO 45003). In principle, training acceptance in intralogistics, have been researched to a limited extent
needs should be regularly identified before and after implementation, only, but collaboration has already been extensively studied in other
and appropriate training should be made available. It is advisable to industries. Thus, well-founded knowledge should be transferred by
retrain employees in a targeted manner (reskilling), based on previously adopting conclusions from other industries.
identified needs, or to provide them with higher qualifications (ups­ Further research on privacy, data protection, and legal factors is
killing) (AlMalki & Durugbo, 2023; Lodgaard et al., 2022). In addition, needed. Legal factors are also central to (perceived) occupational safety.
managers’ susceptibility to errors and their impact on adoption should Future research on the occupational safety of cobots should consider
be kept in mind (Langer et al., 2022). Working conditions can then be physical factors but also take a holistic approach similar to that of Berx
improved, productivity gains can be generated, and various psychoso­ et al. (2022). Future research should also determine the extent to which
cial factors, such as excessive demands or fears, can be counteracted. jobs are eliminated, relocated, or changed as a result of robot collabo­
Interfaces should be designed to be user-friendly, in cooperation with ration. Depending on the specific robotics application, a particular job
employees. If employees feel they can help shape robot implementations can be supported or substituted. By clearly differentiating and commu­
and adopt a degree of self-responsibility, their technology acceptance is nicating these results, fear and aversion can be reduced. The influence of
positively affected. Anthropomorphic design elements should also be usability on acceptance should be investigated in more depth. Further,
considered in the selection process as they positively influence use the results of Blut, Wang, Wünderlich, & Brock, 2021; Roesler, Manzey,
intention (Blut, Wang, Wünderlich, & Brock, 2021; Roesler, Manzey, & & Onnasch, 2021 should be validated against the use of robots in
Onnasch, 2021). In addition, various software applications, such as fleet warehouses. Empirical studies should, thus, investigate the influence of
management, risk management, and allocation systems, can optimize anthropomorphic design elements on HRI acceptance in warehouses.
collaboration, enabling the design of a balanced team structure, optimal Furthermore, the relationship between the critical factors of the
task distribution, and secure collaboration. These needs should be framework and HRC acceptance should be investigated in more detail in
determined on a company-specific basis, and the various adopted mea­ practice-oriented studies. The influence of the moderating factors should
sures should be integrated into a change management system, consid­ not be disregarded. The results of the present study could also be
ering human factors (Turja et al., 2022). Employees should be at the embedded into the framework of Simões et al. (2022) to validate their
center of all considerations. theoretical design for collaboration workplaces in practice. Results
regarding the influence of occupational safety should be critically
5.6. Limitations reviewed in light of the findings of Berx et al. (2022). Likewise, long-
term studies should investigate HRC acceptance in warehouses.
The present study was limited by the choice of databases, selected Throughout an interaction, habit/familiarity effects may arise, a
keywords, search string, choice of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and monotony of cooperation may be perceived, or the relevance of the
focus on berrypicking in the search for inferences. The Ebsco, Web of identified factors to acceptance may change. We believe that experience
Science, and ScienceDirect databases were used. To obtain further re­ and familiarization effects are to be expected. In the short term, humans
sults, the search could be extended to other databases. The selected may react to warnings, for example, but if warnings are too frequent
keywords and their search-string combinations could also be adjusted to and/or unnecessary, with no real risk arising, humans become

15
F. Jacob et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 180 (2023) 109262

Table A1
Core Sample.
Author Year Performance Effort (Perceived) Legal and Psychosocial Robot Warehouse Topic
Expectancy Expectancy Occupational Privacy Factors Type(s) Process
Safety Factors

Adriaensen 2022 X X AMR Order The conception of a framework for

et al. Picking evaluating co-agency in
human–robot interaction and
application of the framework to
socio-technical safety analysis of
collaborative robots
Aguiar et al. 2019 X X X AGV Storage Presentation of sustainable AGV
implementation success factors and
draft of a framework
Chadalavada 2020 X X X AGV General Bidirectional communication of
et al. navigation intentions with spatial
augmented reality and eye-tracking
glasses for improved safety in HRI
Chen et al. 2022 X X X X AMR Order Experimental investigation (with
Picking two experiments) to analyze the
effects of working with autonomous
robots on the perceived workload
and job performance of human
operators
Constanzo 2021 X General General Development of an approach to
et al. control robot movement and
gripping force to adapt to human
behavior and to ensure human
safety, respectively, based on visual
and haptic perception in
combination with algorithms
D’Souza et al. 2020 X AGV Order Development of a prototype solution
Picking for adding a cobot to an industrial
AGV in a warehouse
Fager et al. 2021 X AGV Order Investigation of the economic
Picking aspects of cobot applications and
cost modeling of onboard cobot-
supported item sorting in a picking
system
Fruggiero 2020 X X X AGV Order Presentation of an agent-based
et al. Picking model, simulated analysis of a
collaborative working cell, and a
review of cognitive load in HRC
Fukushima 2021 X AMR Order Presentation of a digital twin for
et al. Picking AMRs in indoor environments to
monitor, manage, and improve
safety
Hata et al. 2019 X General General Application of artificial intelligence
(AI) methods for safety in HRC
scenarios, based on fuzzy logic and
state-of-the-art deep learning-based
perception
Inam et al. 2018 X X General General HRC risk assessment in an
automated warehouse scenario and
identification of a HAZOP list for
safety
Ivšić et al. 2020 X General General Propagation analysis of a UWB
Gaussian signal in an automated
collaborative warehouse
environment with human–robot
communication to prevent collisions
Jost et al. 2018 X X AGV Storage Presentation of a concept for safe
HRI in highly flexible warehouses
using augmented reality and a
heterogenous fleet-management
system
Kirks et al. 2019 X X AGV Storage Application of smart glasses for HRI
in the context of warehouse logistics
and logistics in general
Lambrechts 2021 X X X General General Investigation of implementation
et al. processes of collaborative order-
picking robots (cobots), focusing on
the influence of human factors on
their implementation in high-
volume distribution centers
Lorson et al. 2022 X AGV & General Identification and analysis of
AMR relevant behavioral issues regarding
(continued on next page)

16
F. Jacob et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 180 (2023) 109262

Table A1 (continued )
Author Year Performance Effort (Perceived) Legal and Psychosocial Robot Warehouse Topic
Expectancy Expectancy Occupational Privacy Factors Type(s) Process
Safety Factors

interactions between warehouse

operators and machines, and
development of a systematic
framework linking human–machine
interactions with behavioral issues
and implications for system
performance. Insights were
obtained through interviews with
warehousing experts
Loske & 2020 X X General Order Empirical analysis of learning
Klumpp Picking curves in manual pick-by-voice and
semi-automated order picking
Maderna et al. 2020 X X General Order Introduction of an online scheduling
Picking algorithm to guide human and robot
(Kitting) picking operations and comparison
with an offline scheduler
Niu et al. 2021 X RMFS Order Application of an approach to
Picking enable robots to learn human
discomfort in collaborative order
picking with an RMFS
Pasparakis 2021 X X AGV Order A unique real-effort experiment in a
et al. Picking warehouse that compared the
objective outcomes of

collaborative productivity,
accuracy, and human pick speed for
two scenarios: the
human leading the robot and vice
versa
Petković et al. 2020 X RMFS General Presentation of a framework for
human deviation detection and
intention recognition that outputs
the most probable paths of human
workers
Petković et al. 2019 X X General General Human intention estimation based
on hidden Markov-model motion
validation for safe, flexible
robotized warehouses
Prati et al. 2021 X X X General General Presentation of an integrated
approach to the design of HRC
workstations in industrial shop
floors, considering the use of virtual
reality technologies to support
designers in the creation of
interactive workstation prototypes
and in the early validation of design
outcomes
Ramirez- 2019 X General General Presentation of the results of an AI
Amaro et al. method developed during the
European “Factory-in-a-Day”
project. Advanced AI solutions, such
as that proposed, enable natural
HRC; this is an important capability
of robots in industrial warehouses.
Rey et al. 2021 X X AGV & Order Proposal of a system implementing
AMR Picking an AGV in industrial environments
to address the material handling
problem
Rosenfeld 2017 X General General Proposal of a novel approach to
et al. utilizing automated advising agents
to assist an operator in managing a
team of multiple robots in complex
environments
Sanders et al. 2019 X General General Study of the relationship between
trust and use choice in HRI
Sheu & Choi 2022 X X X X RMFS Order Analysis of intelligent, robot–human
Picking coordinated, and human-friendly
order processing to the removal of
parts using a real-time data-driven
stochastic dynamic model
Srinivas & Yu 2022 X X X AMR Order An integrated approach to order
Picking batching, sequencing, and picking
robot routing, considering multiple
operators and robots
(continued on next page)

17
F. Jacob et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 180 (2023) 109262

Table A1 (continued )
Author Year Performance Effort (Perceived) Legal and Psychosocial Robot Warehouse Topic
Expectancy Expectancy Occupational Privacy Factors Type(s) Process
Safety Factors

Szafir et al. 2017 X X Drone Storage Presentation of design, planning,

and control interfaces to support
user collaboration with flying robots
Vitolo et al. 2022 X X X AGV & Order Integration of a generic mobile
AMR Picking robot and cobot selected from an
identified set of both systems. A safe
and flexible mechatronic interface
was presented, which was
developed using model-based
system engineering principles and
multi-domain modeling, and by
adopting preliminary assumptions
regarding the hardware and
software synchronization levels of
both systems.
Wang et al. 2022 X RMFS Order Performance evaluation of an RMFS
Picking with multiple picking stations,
considering zoning
Wang et al. 2021 X X General Order Investigation of the problem of
Picking finding a suitable robot schedule
considering the schedule-induced
fluctuation of human-picker work
states. A model that enables mobile
racks with various workloads to be
assigned to pickers, and that
schedules the racks assigned to
every picker to minimize the total
expected picking time, was
proposed. The problem was
formulated as a stochastic dynamic
program model.
Zhang et al. 2023 X X RMFS Order Investigation of robot picking
Picking efficiency and picker energy
consumption considering the
assignment problem
Zheyuan et al. 2021 X X General General Application of the Advanced
Human–Robot Collaboration Model
to an enhanced risk assessment and
to construct a workplace involving
security robots
Zhu et al. 2022 X X X AMR Order Analysis of a human–robot routing
Picking problem encountered in
collaborative picking systems

excessively familiar with them. Presumably, individuals who react to review on the topic of HRC acceptance in warehouses was performed.
HRC more strongly because monotony has a greater negative effect on Using a database search and the berrypicking method, 36 and 20 sci­
them, also exist. This explains why further longitudinal studies are entific studies were assigned to the core and extended samples, respec­
greatly needed. Thus, based on this study, a framework for considering tively, and then analyzed. To interpret the review results, the theoretical
HRC acceptability should be established. The UTAUT model adaptation, foundations of smart warehousing, HRI, and technology acceptance
that is, the framework employed in the present study, should be tested were presented. Within the framework of an analysis of the existing
and validated through empirical studies. In addition, the characteristics secondary literature, the current state of research was determined, and
that acceptance assumes over time—from announcement to imple­ research questions were identified. By extending the UTAUT model
mentation and cobot use—should be investigated. Future studies should using the approaches of Alaiad and Zhou (2014), Faccio et al. (2023),
also investigate the impact of cobot errors and malfunctions on accep­ and Neumann et al. (2021), the study framework successfully encom­
tance. For example, Langer et al. (2022) found that errors negatively passed the increasing complexity of robot acceptance. The associated
impact trust in artificial intelligence. Thus, a comparable relationship problems were identified, and recommendations for overcoming these
can be expected for cobots. Furthermore, the interplay between trust challenges were made. The performance expectancy, effort expectancy,
and acceptance should be explored more deeply, as these terms are often (perceived) occupational safety, legal and privacy concerns, and psy­
used interchangeably. We argue that acceptance can be regarded as a chosocial factors were analyzed in detail, and the importance of
dependent variable and trust as a predicate, and reciprocal effects be­ corporate infrastructure and consideration of cognitive factors was
tween these two aspects are possible. However, this topic must be highlighted.
investigated further and in greater depth. This study makes an important scientific contribution and provides a
solid framework for future consideration of HRC acceptance, especially
6. Conclusion in relation to practice-oriented studies. If warehouse managers are to
effectively prepare for the challenges of cobot implementation, they
Against the backdrop of the ever-increasing number of robots in must consider technology acceptance.
warehouses and other industries, the research relevance of human
technology acceptance is growing. In this study, a systematic literature

18
F. Jacob et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 180 (2023) 109262

Table A2
Extended sample.
Author Year Performance Effort (Perceived) Legal and Psychosocial Topic
Expectancy Expectancy Occupational Privacy Factors
Safety Factors

Andronas et al. 2021 X X Design and implementation of a natural human–system and

system–human interaction framework enabling seamless
interaction between operators and their “robot colleagues”
Askarpour 2019 X Extension of a formal verification methodology to analyze
et al. the safety of collaborative applications, with a non-
deterministic formal model of operator behaviors capturing
the hazardous situations resulting from human errors
Baumgartner 2022 X X X Collection of crucial acceptance factors regarding cobot use
et al. in the industrial workplace, and use of these factors to
develop a web-based tool to estimate employee acceptance,
provide company representatives with practical
recommendations, and stimulate reflection on acceptance
issues
Bitz et al. 2020 X Presentation of a variable damping controller to improve
the trade-off between agility and stability in physical HRI,
while reducing user effort
Bogataj et al. 2019 X X X Analysis of a trade-off between robotization and
globalization of a chain. To mitigate the decreasing
functional capacities of the aging workforce by maintaining
high level of productivity for older workers while their
functional capacities decrease, use of cobots and smart
workstations was advised
Calitz et al. 2017 X X Investigation of the current use and future implementation
of cobots worldwide, and the specific impact of this
implementation on the African workforce. An open-ended
questionnaire survey was administered to leading
manufacturing companies in South Africa, to determine the
status and future implementation of cobot-related practices
Cohen et al. 2019 X Proposal of a model to analyze the underlying factors of
cobot deployment and to facilitate the decision-making
process regarding cobot deployment timings and locations
Demir et al. 2019 X X Discussion of possible issues related to human–robot co-
working from organizational and human employee
perspectives
Eimontaite 2019 X X Analysis of the use of language-free graphical signage to
et al. improve human performance and to reduce anxiety when
working with cobots
Emeric et al. 2020 X Proposal of a new robotic programming support system for
operators
Eyam et al. 2021 X Presentation of an approach to adapting cobot parameters
to the emotional state of the human worker, which utilizes
electroencephalography technology to digitize and
interpret the human emotional state
Khalid et al. 2018 X X Introduction of a security framework for HRC application in
the futuristic industrial CPS context of Industry 4.0
Paluch et al. 2021 X Investigation of frontline employee perceptions of
collaborative service robots and introduction of a new
framework to better understand employee–robot
interactions in the workplace
Safeea et al. 2019 X X Introduction of manipulator on-line collision avoidance to a
real industrial application with implementation of typical
sensors and the KUKA intelligent industrial work assistant
(a commonly used collaborative industrial manipulator). In
the proposed methodology, the human co-worker and robot
are represented by geometric primitives (capsules)
Savela et al. 2021 X Investigation of emotional reactions to a robot, through
study of colleagues undertaking a role-playing experiment
Schmidbauer 2021 X X X Evaluation of a digital-worker assistance system to enable
et al. adaptive task sharing between humans and cobots in
manufacturing
Tao et al. 2021 X Proposal of the non-linear adaptive heuristic mathematical
model (NAHMM) for the prevention of workplace violence
using safe HRC
Tausch & 2020 X X Analysis of the effects of the allocation agent in a HRI on
Kluge perceived work characteristics and satisfaction
Tausch et al. 2022 X Investigation of the manner in which worker influence on
task allocation improves autonomy in a laboratory
experiment
Terreran et al. 2020 X Use of a people-tracking algorithm to monitor people
moving around a robot manipulator and to recognize when
a person is too close to the robot during task performance

19
F. Jacob et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 180 (2023) 109262

CRediT authorship contribution statement Chadalavada, R. T., Andreasson, H., Schindler, M., Palm, R., & Lilienthal, A. J. (2020). Bi-
directional navigation intent communication using spatial augmented reality and
eye-tracking glasses for improved safety in human–robot interaction. Robotics and
Frederic Jacob: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 61, Article 101830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Visualization, rcim.2019.101830
Project administration. Eric H. Grosse: Conceptualization, Methodol­ Chen, Y., Yang, C., Gu, Y., & Hu, B. (2022). Influence of mobile robots on human safety
perception and system productivity in wholesale and retail trade environments: A
ogy, Validation, Resources, Supervision, Writing - original draft, Writing pilot study. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 52(4), 624–635. https://
- review & editing. Stefan Morana: Methodology, Validation, Writing – doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2021.3134553
review & editing, Supervision. Cornelius J. König: Methodology, Clauer, D., Fottner, J., Rauch, E., & Prüglmeier, M. (2021). Usage of autonomous mobile
robots outdoors – an axiomatic design approach. Procedia CIRP, 96, 242–247.
Validation, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2021.01.081
Cohen, Y., Shoval, S., & Faccio, M. (2019). Strategic view on cobot deployment in
Assembly 4.0 systems. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 52(13), 1519–1524. https://doi.org/
Declaration of Competing Interest 10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.11.415
Coronado, E., Kiyokawa, T., Ricardez, G. A. G., Ramirez-Alpizar, I. G., Venture, G., &
Yamanobe, N. (2022). Evaluating quality in human-robot interaction: A systematic
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial search and classification of performance and human-centered factors, measures and
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence metrics towards an industry 5.0. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 63, 392–410.
the work reported in this paper. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.04.007
Costanzo, M., De Maria, G., & Natale, C. (2021). Handover control for human-robot and
robot-robot collaboration. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 8, Article 672995. https://doi.
Data availability org/10.3389/frobt.2021.672995
Custodio, L., & Machado, R. (2020). Flexible automated warehouse: A literature review
and an innovative framework. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Data will be made available on request. Technology, 106, 533–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-04588-z
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/
Appendix
249008
De Pace, F., Manuri, F., Sanna, A., & Fornaro, C. (2020). A systematic review of
Augmented Reality interfaces for collaborative industrial robots. Computers &
Industrial Engineering, 149, Article 106806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cie.2020.106806
De Simone, V., Di Pasquale, V., Giubileo, V., & Miranda, S. (2022). Human-Robot
References Collaboration: An analysis of worker’s performance. Procedia Computer Science, 200,
1540–1549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.01.355
Demir, K. A., Döven, G., & Sezen, B. (2019). Industry 5.0 and human-robot co-working.
Aaltonen, I., Salmi, T., & Marstio, I. (2018). Refining levels of collaboration to support
Procedia Computer Science, 158, 688–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
the design and evaluation of human-robot interaction in the manufacturing industry.
procs.2019.09.104
Procedia CIRP, 72, 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.214
Donohue, K. L., Özer, Ö., & Zheng, Y. (2019). Behavioral operations: Past, present, and
ABI Research. (2019). 50,000 warehouses to use robots by 2025 as barriers to entry fall
future. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3379894
and AI innovation accelerates. https://www.abiresearch.com/press/50000-wareho
Duong, L. N. K., Al-Fadhli, M., Jagtap, S., Bader, F., Martindale, W., Swainson, M., &
uses-use-robots-2025-barriers-entry-fall-and-ai-innovation-accelerates/.
Paoli, A. (2020). A review of robotics and autonomous systems in the food industry:
Adriaensen, A., Berx, N., Pintelon, L., Costantino, F., Di Gravio, G., & Patriarca, R.
From the supply chains perspective. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 106,
(2022). Interdependence analysis in collaborative robot applications from a joint
355–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.10.028
cognitive functional perspective. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 90,
Durach, C. F., Kembro, J. H., & Wieland, A. (2021). How to advance theory through
Article 103320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2022.103320
literature reviews in logistics and supply chain management. International Journal of
Aguiar, G. T., Oliveira, G. A., Tan, K. H., Kazantsev, N., & Setti, D. (2019). Sustainable
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 51(10), 1090–1107. https://doi.org/
implementation success factors of AGVs in the Brazilian industry supply chain
10.1108/IJPDLM-11-2020-0381
management. Procedia Manufacturing, 39, 1577–1586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Eckl-Dorna, W. (2015). Werksroboter tötet Arbeiter – Debatte um Automatisierung geht
promfg.2020.01.284
weiter. Retrieved from Manager Magazin https://www.manager-magazin.de/magazi
Alaiad, A., & Zhou, L. (2014). The determinants of home healthcare robots adoption: An
n/artikel/unglueck-in-vw-werk-roboter-toetet-arbeiter-a-1041739.html.
empirical investigation. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 83(11), 825–840.
Eimontaite, I., Gwilt, I., Cameron, D., Aitken, J. M., Rolph, J., Mokaram, S., & Law, J.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.07.003
(2019). Language-free graphical signage improves human performance and reduces
AlMalki, H. A., & Durugbo, C. M. (2023). Evaluating critical institutional factors of
anxiety when working collaboratively with robots. The International Journal of
Industry 4.0 for education reform. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 188,
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 100, 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-
Article 122327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122327
018-2625-2
Andronas, D., Apostolopoulos, G., Fourtakas, N., & Makris, S. (2021). Multi-modal
El Zaatari, S., Marei, M., Li, W., & Usman, Z. (2019). Cobot programming for
interfaces for natural human-robot interaction. Procedia Manufacturing, 54, 197–202.
collaborative industrial tasks: An overview. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 116,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2021.07.030
162–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2019.03.003
Azadeh, K., De Koster, R., & Roy, D. (2019). Robotized and automated warehouse
El-Masri, M., & Tarhini, A. (2017). Factors affecting the adoption of e-learning systems in
systems: Review and recent developments. Transportation Science, 53(4), 917–945.
Qatar and USA: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.2018.0873
2 (UTAUT2). Educational Technology Research and Development, 65, 743–763. https://
Bates, M. J. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online
doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9508-8
search interface. Online Review, 13(5), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb024320
Emeric, C., Geoffroy, D., & Paul-Eric, D. (2020). Development of a new robotic
Baumgartner, M., Kopp, T., & Kinkel, S. (2022). Analysing factory workers’ acceptance of
programming support system for operators. Procedia Manufacturing, 51, 73–80.
collaborative robots: A web-based tool for company representatives. Electronics, 11
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.10.012
(1), 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11010145
European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. (2021). Industry
Berx, N., Decré, W., Morag, I., Chemweno, P., & Pintelon, L. (2022). Identification and
5.0: Towards a sustainable, human-centric and resilient European industry. European
classification of risk factors for human-robot collaboration from a system-wide
Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Publications Office.
perspective. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 163, Article 107827. https://doi.org/
Faccio, M., Granata, I., Menini, A., Milanese, M., Rossato, C., Bottin, M., … Rosati, G.
10.1016/j.cie.2021.107827
(2023). Human factors in cobot era: A review of modern production systems
Blut, M., Wang, C., Wünderlich, N. V., & Brock, C. (2021). Understanding
features. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 34, 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/
anthropomorphism in service provision: A meta-analysis of physical robots,
s10845-022-01953-w
chatbots, and other AI. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49, 632–658.
Fager, P., Sgarbossa, F., & Calzavara, M. (2021). Cost modelling of onboard cobot-
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00762-y
supported item sorting in a picking system. International Journal of Production
Bogataj, D., Battini, D., Calzavara, M., & Persona, A. (2019). The response latency in
Research, 59(11), 3269–3284. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1854484
global production and logistics: A trade-off between robotization and globalization
Fang, H. C., Ong, S. K., & Nee, A. Y. C. (2014). A novel augmented reality-based interface
of a chain. Procedia Manufacturing, 39, 1428–1437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
for robot path planning. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing,
promfg.2020.01.309
8, 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-013-0191-2
Calibre Research. (2022). Global logistics robots picking arm market report 2022 top
Firescu, V., Gaşpar, M.-L., Crucianu, I., & Rotariu, E. (2022). Collaboration between
industry research analysis and forecast 2029 by type, application, region and history
humans and robots in organizations: A macroergonomic, emotional, and spiritual
2016–2021. https://calibreresearch.com/report/global-logistics-robots-picking
approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 855768. https://doi.org/10.3389/
-arm-market-253996.
fpsyg.2022.855768
Calitz, A. P., Poisat, P., & Cullen, M. D. M. (2017). The future African workplace: The use
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to
of collaborative robots in manufacturing. SA Journal of Human Resource Management,
theory and research. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
15, 11.

20
F. Jacob et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 180 (2023) 109262

Fragapane, G., de Koster, R., Sgarbossa, F., & Strandhagen, J. O. (2021). Planning and Maderna, R., Poggiali, M., Zanchettin, A. M., & Rocco, P. (2020, May–August). An online
control of autonomous mobile robots for intralogistics: Literature review and scheduling algorithm for human-robot collaborative kitting. In 2020 IEEE international
research agenda. European Journal of Operational Research, 294(2), 405–426. https:// conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), Paris, France.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.01.019 Mulet Alberola, J. A., & Fassi, I. (2022). Towards the assessment of performance-based
Fruggiero, F., Lambiase, A., Panagou, S., & Sabattini, L. (2020). Cognitive human interactions in collaborative CPPS. Procedia Computer Science, 200, 1636–1645.
modeling in collaborative robotics. Procedia Manufacturing, 51, 584–591. https:// https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.01.364
doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.10.082 Neumann, W. P., Winkelhaus, S., Grosse, E. H., & Glock, C. H. (2021). Industry 4.0 and
Fukushima, Y., Asai, Y., Aoki, S., Yonezawa, T., & Kawaguchi, N. (2021). DigiMobot: the human factor – A systems framework and analysis methodology for successful
Digital twin for human-robot collaboration in indoor environments. In 2021 IEEE development. International Journal of Production Economics, 233, Article 107992.
intelligent vehicles symposium (IV), Nagoya, Japan. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107992
Gao, Z., Wanyama, T., Singh, I., Gadhrri, A., & Schmidt, R. (2020). From Industry 4.0 to Niklas, S. (2015). Theoretische Fundierung zur Erklärung des individuellen
Robotics 4.0 - A conceptual framework for collaborative and intelligent robotic Nutzungsverhaltens und dem Einfluss von Systemeigenschaften. In S. Niklas (Ed.),
systems. Procedia Manufacturing, 46, 591–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Akzeptanz und Nutzung mobiler Applikationen (pp. 15–118). Springer Fachmedien
promfg.2020.03.085 Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-08263-5_2.
Grosse, E. H. (2023). Application of supportive and substitutive technologies in manual Niu, Y., Schulte, F., & Negenborn, R. R. (2021). Human aspects in collaborative order
warehouse order picking: A content analysis. International Journal of Production picking – Letting robotic agents learn about human discomfort. Procedia Computer
Research, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2023.2169383 Science, 180, 877–886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.338
Gualtieri, L., Rauch, E., & Vidoni, R. (2021). Emerging research fields in safety and Paluch, S., Tuzovic, S., Holz, H. F., Kies, A., & Jörling, M. (2021). “My colleague is a
ergonomics in industrial collaborative robotics: A systematic literature review. robot” – exploring frontline employees’ willingness to work with collaborative
Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 67, Article 101998. https://doi.org/ service robots. Journal of Service Management, 33(2), 363–388. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rcim.2020.101998 10.1108/josm-11-2020-0406
Hamdy, W., Al-Awamry, A., & Mostafa, N. (2022). Warehousing 4.0: A proposed system Pasparakis, A., de Vries, J., & de Koster, M. B. M. (2021). In Control or under control?
of using node-red for applying internet of things in warehousing. Sustainable Futures, Human-robot collaboration in warehouse order picking. SSRN Electronic Journal.
4, Article 100069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2022.100069 https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3816533
Hanson, R., Medbo, L., & Johansson, M. I. (2018). Performance characteristics of robotic Petković, T., Hvězda, J., Rybecký, T., Marković, I., Kulich, M., Přeučil, L., & Petrović, I.
mobile fulfilment systems in order picking applications. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 51(11), (2020, September). Human intention recognition for human aware planning in integrated
1493–1498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.290 warehouse systems. In 2020 28th Mediterranean conference on control and
Hata, A., Inam, R., Raizer, K., Wang, S., & Cao, E. (2019). AI-based safety analysis for automation (MED), Saint-Raphael, France. doi.org/10.1109/
collaborative mobile robots. In 24th IEEE international conference on emerging MED48518.2020.9183266.
technologies and factory automation (ETFA), Zaragoza, Spain. Petković, T., Puljiz, D., Marković, I., & Hein, B. (2019). Human intention estimation
Hendrick, H. W. (1987). Human factors in organizational design and management. In P. based on hidden Markov model motion validation for safe flexible robotized
A. Hancock (Ed.), Advances in psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 347–398). North-Holland. warehouses. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 57, 182–196. https://
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62313-4. doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2018.11.004
Hentout, A., Aouache, M., Maoudj, A., & Akli, I. (2019). Human–robot interaction in Pramanik, P. K. D., Mukherjee, B., Pal, S., Upadhyaya, B. K., & Dutta, S. (2020).
industrial collaborative robotics: A literature review of the decade 2008–2017. Ubiquitous manufacturing in the age of Industry 4.0: A state-of-the-art primer. In
Advanced Robotics, 33(15–16), 764–799. https://doi.org/10.1080/ A. Nayyar, & A. Kumar (Eds.), A roadmap to Industry 4.0: Smart production, sharp
01691864.2019.1636714 business and sustainable development (pp. 73–112). Springer International Publishing.
Hjorth, S., & Chrysostomou, D. (2022). Human–robot collaboration in industrial https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14544-6_5.
environments: A literature review on non-destructive disassembly. Robotics and Prassida, G. F., & Asfari, U. (2022). A conceptual model for the acceptance of
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 73, Article 102208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. collaborative robots in industry 5.0. Procedia Computer Science, 197, 61–67. https://
rcim.2021.102208 doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.12.118
Inam, R., Raizer, K., Hata, A., Souza, R., Forsman, E., Cao, E., & Wang, S. (2018). Risk Prati, E., Villani, V., Peruzzini, M., & Sabattini, L. (2021). An approach based on VR to
assessment for human-robot collaboration in an automated warehouse scenario. In 2018 design industrial human-robot collaborative workstations. Applied Sciences, 11(24),
IEEE 23rd International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory 11773. https://doi.org/10.3390/app112411773
Automation (ETFA), Turin, Italy. PwC Deutschland. (2020). Wie die Digitalisierung in der Logistikbranche gelingt. Retrieved
International Federation of Robotics. (2020). Service-Roboter-Boom: Verkaufszahlen steigen from https://www.pwc.de/de/transport-und-logistik/wie-die-digitalisierung-in-der-
weltweit um 32 % - International Federation of Robotics. International Federation of logistikbranche-gelingt.html.
Robotics. Retrieved from https://ifr.org/ifr-press-releases/news/service-robots-hit- Ramirez-Amaro, K., Dean-Leon, E., Bergner, F., & Cheng, G. (2019). A semantic-based
double-digit-growth-worldwide. method for teaching industrial robots new tasks. KI - Künstliche Intelligenz, 33,
Ivšić, B., Šipuš, Z., Bartolić, J., & Babić, J. (2020, March). Analysis of Safe Ultrawideband 117–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-019-00582-5
Human-Robot Communication in Automated Collaborative Warehouse. 2020 14th Rey, R., Cobano, J. A., Corzetto, M., Merino, L., Alvito, P., & Caballero, F. (2021). A novel
European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EuCAP), Copenhagen, robot co-worker system for paint factories without the need of existing robotic
Denmark. infrastructure. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 70, Article 102122.
Jaghbeer, Y., Hanson, R., & Johansson, M. I. (2020). Automated order picking systems https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2021.102122
and the links between design and performance: A systematic literature review. Ridzky, D., & Sarno, R. (2020, September). UTAUT2 model for analyzing factors influencing
International Journal of Production Research, 58(15), 4489–4505. https://doi.org/ user in using online travel agent. In 2020 international seminar on application for
10.1080/00207543.2020.1788734 technology of information and communication (iSemantic), Semarang, Indonesia.
Jost, J., Kirks, T., Gupta, P., Lünsch, D., & Stenzel, J. (2018). Safe human-robot-interaction Roesler, E., Manzey, D., & Onnasch, L. (2021). A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of
in highly flexible warehouses using augmented reality and heterogenous fleet management anthropomorphism in human-robot interaction. Science Robotics, 6(58), eabj5425.
system. In 2018 IEEE international conference on intelligence and safety for robotics https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.abj5425
(ISR), Shenyang, China. Rose, L. M., Orrenius, U. E., & Neumann, W. P. (2013). Work environment and the
Khalid, A., Kirisci, P., Khan, Z. H., Ghrairi, Z., Thoben, K.-D., & Pannek, J. (2018). bottom line: Survey of tools relating work environment to business results. Human
Security framework for industrial collaborative robotic cyber-physical systems. Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 23(5), 368–381. https://
Computers in Industry, 97, 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20324
compind.2018.02.009 Rosenfeld, A., Agmon, N., Maksimov, O., & Kraus, S. (2017). Intelligent agent supporting
Khechine, H., & Lakhal, S. (2018). Technology as a double-edged sword: From behavior human–multi-robot team collaboration. Artificial Intelligence, 252, 211–231. https://
prediction with UTAUT to students’ outcomes considering personal characteristics. doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2017.08.005
Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 17, 63–102. https://doi.org/ Safeea, M., Neto, P., & Bearee, R. (2019). On-line collision avoidance for collaborative
10.28945/4022. robot manipulators by adjusting off-line generated paths: An industrial use case.
Kirks, T., Jost, J., Uhlott, T., Püth, J., & Jakobs, M. (2019, October). Evaluation of the Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 119, 278–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
application of smart glasses for decentralized control systems in logistics. In 2019 IEEE robot.2019.07.013
intelligent transportation systems conference (ITSC), Auckland, New Zealand. Savela, N., Oksanen, A., Pellert, M., & Garcia, D. (2021). Emotional reactions to robot
Lambrechts, W., Klaver, J. S., Koudijzer, L., & Semeijn, J. (2021). Human factors colleagues in a role-playing experiment. International Journal of Information
influencing the implementation of cobots in high volume distribution centres. Management, 60, Article 102361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102361
Logistics, 5(2), 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics5020032 Schmidbauer, C., Hader, B., & Schlund, S. (2021). Evaluation of a digital worker
Langer, M., König, C. J., Back, C., & Hemsing, V. (2022). Trust in artificial intelligence: assistance system to enable adaptive task sharing between humans and cobots in
Comparing trust processes between human and automated trustees in light of unfair manufacturing. Procedia CIRP, 104, 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bias. Journal of Business and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022- procir.2021.11.007
09829-9 Schmidtler, J., Knott, V., Hölzel, C., & Bengler, K. (2015). Human centered assistance
Lodgaard, E., Torvatn, H., & Sørumsbrenden, J. (2022). Future competence at shopfloor applications for the working environment of the future. Occupational Ergonomics, 12
in the era of Industry 4.0 - A case study in Norwegian industry. Procedia CIRP, 107, (3), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.3233/OER-150226
961–965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2022.05.092 Setayesh, A., Grosse, E. H., Glock, C. H., & Neumann, W. P. (2022). Determining the
Lorson, F., Fügener, A., & Hübner, A. (2022). New team mates in the warehouse: Human source of human-system errors in manual order picking with respect to human
interactions with automated and robotized systems. IISE Transactions, 55(5), factors. International Journal of Production Research, 60(20), 6350–6372. https://doi.
536–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/24725854.2022.2072545 org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1991022

21
F. Jacob et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 180 (2023) 109262

Sgarbossa, F., Grosse, E. H., Neumann, W. P., Battini, D., & Glock, C. H. (2020). Human Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of
factors in production and logistics systems of the future. Annual Reviews in Control, information technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
49, 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2020.04.007 Technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412
Sharma, A., & Jain, D. K. (2020). Development of Industry 4.0. In A. Nayyar, & A. Kumar Vitolo, F., Rega, A., Di Marino, C., Pasquariello, A., Zanella, A., & Patalano, S. (2022).
(Eds.), A roadmap to Industry 4.0: Smart production, sharp business and sustainable Mobile robots and cobots integration: A preliminary design of a mechatronic
development (pp. 23–38). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/ interface by using MBSE approach. Applied Sciences, 12(1), 419. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-030-14544-6_2. 10.3390/app12010419
Sheu, J.-B., & Choi, T.-M. (2022). Can we work more safely and healthily with robot Wang, Z., Sheu, J.-B., Teo, C.-P., & Xue, G. (2021). Robot scheduling for mobile-rack
partners? A human-friendly robot–human-coordinated order fulfillment scheme. warehouses: Human–robot coordinated order picking systems. Production and
Production and Operations Management, 32(3), 794–812. https://doi.org/10.1111/ Operations Management, 31(1), 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13406
poms.13899 Warsame, M. H., & Ireri, E. M. (2018). Moderation effect on mobile microfinance services
Simões, A. C., Pinto, A., Santos, J., Pinheiro, S., & Romero, D. (2022). Designing human- in Kenya: An extended UTAUT model. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance,
robot collaboration (HRC) workspaces in industrial settings: A systematic literature 18, 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2018.01.008
review. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 62, 28–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Winkelhaus, S., & Grosse, E. H. (2020). Logistics 4.0: A systematic review towards a new
jmsy.2021.11.007 logistics system. International Journal of Production Research, 58(1), 18–43. https://
Srinivas, S., & Yu, S. (2022). Collaborative order picking with multiple pickers and doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1612964
robots: Integrated approach for order batching, sequencing and picker-robot routing. Winkelhaus, S., & Grosse, E. H. (2022). Chapter 3 - Smart warehouses—a sociotechnical
International Journal of Production Economics, 254, Article 108634. https://doi.org/ perspective. In B. L. MacCarthy, & D. Ivanov (Eds.), The digital supply chain (pp.
10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108634 47–60). Elsevier.
Statista Search Department. (2022). Robotics Worldwide [Infographic]. Retrieved from htt Winkelhaus, S., Grosse, E. H., & Glock, C. H. (2022a). Job satisfaction: An explorative
ps://www.statista.com/outlook/tmo/robotics/worldwide. study on work characteristics changes of employees in Intralogistics 4.0. Journal of
Steger, J., Knitterscheidt, K. (2018, December). Voestalpine zeigt, wie Mitarbeiter die Business Logistics, 43(3), 343–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12296
Angst vor Kollege Roboter verlieren. Handelblatt. Retrieved from https://www.han Winkelhaus, S., Grosse, E. H., & Morana, S. (2021). Towards a conceptualisation of Order
delsblatt.com/unternehmen/it-medien/digitalisierung-voestalpine-zeigt-wie-mi Picking 4.0. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 159, Article 107511. https://doi.org/
tarbeiter-die-angst-vor-kollege-roboter-verlieren/23742180.html?tm=login. 10.1016/j.cie.2021.107511
Sulaiman, F., Zailani, S., & Ramayah, T. (2012). Intranet portal utilization: Monitoring Winkelhaus, S., Zhang, M., Grosse, E. H., & Glock, C. H. (2022b). Hybrid order picking: A
tool for productivity - Quality and acceptance point of view. Procedia - Social and simulation model of a joint manual and autonomous order picking system. Computers
Behavioral Sciences, 65, 381–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.138 & Industrial Engineering, 167, Article 107981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Szafir, D., Mutlu, B., & Fong, T. (2017). Designing planning and control interfaces to cie.2022.107981
support user collaboration with flying robots. The International Journal of Robotics Zacharaki, A., Kostavelis, I., Gasteratos, A., & Dokas, I. (2020). Safety bounds in human
Research, 36(5–7), 514–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364916688256 robot interaction: A survey. Safety Science, 127, Article 104667. https://doi.org/
Tarhini, A., El-Masri, M., Ali, M., & Serrano, A. (2016). Extending the UTAUT model to 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104667
understand the customers’ acceptance and use of internet banking in Lebanon: A Zhang, M., Grosse, E. H., & Glock, C. H. (2023a). Ergonomic and economic evaluation of
structural equation modeling approach. Information Technology & People, 29(4), a collaborative hybrid order picking system. International Journal of Production
830–849. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-02-2014-0034 Economics. , Article 108774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2023.108774
Tausch, A., & Kluge, A. (2020). The best task allocation process is to decide on one’s own: Zhang, J., Zhang, N., Tian, L., Zhou, Z., & Wang, P. (2023b). Robots’ picking efficiency
Effects of the allocation agent in human–robot interaction on perceived work and pickers’ energy expenditure: The item storage assignment policy in robotic
characteristics and satisfaction. Cognition, Technology & Work, 24, 39–55. https:// mobile fulfillment system. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 176, Article 108918.
doi.org/10.1007/s10111-020-00656-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2022.108918
Tausch, A., Peifer, C., Kirchhoff, B. M., & Kluge, A. (2022). Human-robot interaction: Zhen, L., & Li, H. (2022). A literature review of smart warehouse operations
How worker influence in task allocation improves autonomy. Ergonomics, 65(9), management. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 9, 31–55. https://doi.org/
1230–1244. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2022.2025912 10.1007/s42524-021-0178-9
Turja, T., Särkikoski, T., Koistinen, P., & Melin, H. (2022). Basic human needs and Zheyuan, C., Rahman, M. A., Tao, H., Liu, Y., Pengxuan, D., & Yaseen, Z. M. (2021). Need
robotization: How to make deployment of robots worthwhile for everyone? for developing a security robot-based risk management for emerging practices in the
Technology in Society, 68, Article 101917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. workplace using the Advanced Human-Robot Collaboration Model. Work, 68(3),
techsoc.2022.101917 825–834. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-203416
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of Zhu, S., Wang, H., Zhang, X., He, X., & Tan, Z. (2022). A decision model on human-robot
information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. collaborative routing for automatic logistics. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 53,
https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540 Article 101681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2022.101681

22