Connect with us

Tech

Warehouse automation hasn’t made workers safer—it’s just reshuffled the risk, say researchers

Published

on

Warehouse automation hasn’t made workers safer—it’s just reshuffled the risk, say researchers


Credit: Unsplash/CC0 Public Domain

Rapid advancements in robotics are changing the face of the world’s warehouses, as dangerous and physically taxing tasks are being reassigned en masse from humans to machines. Automation and digitization are nothing new in the logistics sector, or any sector heavily reliant on manual labor. Bosses prize automation because it can bring up to two- to four-fold gains in productivity. But workers can also benefit from the putative improvements in safety that come from shifting dangerous tasks onto non-human shoulders.

At least, that’s the story employers such as Amazon have—largely successfully—promoted to the public.

In a recent study, Brad N. Greenwood, Dean’s Distinguished Professor at the Costello College of Business at George Mason University, investigated this question: Does automation make warehouse jobs safer? His co-authors include Gordon Burtch of Boston University and Kiron Ravindran of IE University. Their findings, which appear in ILR Review, reveal that the answer depends on how safety is defined.

The researchers distinguish between two types of injuries: severe and non-severe. Severe injuries include broken bones, traumatic falls, and other incidents that cause employees to miss work. Non- include sprains, strains, and repetitive motion problems, often leading to reassignment or light-duty work, but not missing work.

The findings showed that robots do seem to reduce severe injuries. In robotic fulfillment centers (FC), tasks like heavy lifting and long walks are handled by machines, reducing workers’ exposure to physical hazards. The researchers found a meaningful drop in the number of severe injuries in these facilities.

However, the overall picture is not so clear. In the same robotic warehouses, the researchers observed a sharp increase in non-severe injuries, especially during high-demand periods such as Amazon Prime Day and the winter holidays. The robotic fulfillment centers experienced a 40% decrease in severe injuries but a 77% increase in non-severe injuries compared to traditional centers.

To better understand their results, the researchers also analyzed thousands of online posts from Amazon warehouse workers.

“There was an immediate and obvious discrepancy in opinion, based on whether their fulfillment center was roboticized or not,” says Greenwood.

Humans working alongside robots described their daily experience as “not physically exhausting” and “better than working at a legacy FC.” However, they also reported being expected to meet much higher performance metrics than their counterparts in non-automated FCs—amounting to a two-to-three-times higher “pick rate” in some cases. The faster pace of the human/robot dance was accompanied by a far more repetitive work routine that induced burnout in some workers, while causing others to “zone out.”

This dual reality—robots reducing some injuries while exacerbating others—has serious implications. For employers, simply introducing automation is not enough. Without careful job design, task rotation, and realistic performance goals, the shift to robotics can create new health and safety risks.

“Companies have bottom-line reasons to take this issue seriously. Beyond simple issues of liability, there is a cost to the firm of workers being unable to perform their duties,” says Greenwood.

Traditional safety metrics often focus on injuries that result in lost workdays. But as the nature of work changes, this approach may miss more subtle forms of harm. Chronic, repetitive injuries may not lead to time off, but they still decrease worker well-being and performance.

Looking ahead, Greenwood and his colleagues plan to explore how these trends play out over longer timeframes and in other industries. As robots become more common in fields like manufacturing, retail, and health care, similar patterns may emerge. The researchers hope their findings will help inform both corporate and public policy, ensuring that the future of work is not only more efficient but also humane.

“That isn’t to deny that warehouse robotics benefits workers,” Greenwood explains. “But we need to think more carefully about how to use them, and what that means for the humans they work with.”

More information:
Gordon Burtch et al, Lucy and the Chocolate Factory: Warehouse Robotics and Worker Safety, ILR Review (2025). DOI: 10.1177/00197939251333754

Citation:
Warehouse automation hasn’t made workers safer—it’s just reshuffled the risk, say researchers (2025, August 28)
retrieved 28 August 2025
from https://techxplore.com/news/2025-08-warehouse-automation-hasnt-workers-safer.html

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.





Source link

Tech

The Best Chromebooks Are Doing Their Best to Course Correct

Published

on

The Best Chromebooks Are Doing Their Best to Course Correct


I was delighted to see that the Acer Chromebook Plus 516 didn’t skimp on a crappy touchpad. That goes a long way toward improving the experiencing of actually using the laptop on a moment-by-moment basis. I wasn’t annoyed every time I had to click-and-drag or select a bit of text. This one’s biggest weakness is definitely the screen, which is true of just about every cheap Chromebook I’ve tested. The colors are ugly and desaturated, giving the whole thing a sickly green tint. It’s also not the sharpest in the world, as it’s stretching 1920 x 1200 pixels across a large, 16-inch screen. But in terms of usability and performance, the Acer Chromebook Plus 516 is a great value, combining an Intel Core i3 processor with 8 GB of RAM and a 128 GB of storage. For a Chromebook that’s often on sale for $350, it’s a steal.

While we’re here, let’s go even cheaper, shall we? Asus has two dirt-cheap Chromebooks that I tested last year that I was mildly impressed by. The Asus Chromebook CX14 and CX15. Notice in the name that these are not “Chromebook Plus” models, meaning they can be configured with less RAM and storage, and even use lower-powered processors. That’s exactly what you get on the cheaper configurations of the CX14 and CX15, which is how you sometimes get prices down to as low as $130. I definitely recommend the version with 8 GB of RAM, but regardless of which you choose, the both the CX14 and larger CX15 are mildly attractive laptops. You’d know that’s a big compliment if you’ve seen just how ugly Chromebooks of this price have been in the past.

With these, though, I appreciate the relatively thin bezels and chassis thickness, as well as the larger touchpad and comfortable keyboard. The CX15 even comes in a striking blue color. The touchpad isn’t great, nor is the display. Like the Acer Chromebook Plus 516, it suffers from poor color reproduction and only goes up to 250 nits of brightness. It only has a 720p webcam too, which makes video calls a bit rough. But that’s going to be true of nearly all the competition (and there isn’t much).

Of the two models, I definitely prefer the CX14 though, as it doesn’t have a numberpad and off-center touchpad, which I’ve always found to be awkward to use. Look—no one’s going to love using a computer that costs the less than $200, but if it’s what you can afford, the Asus Chromebook CX14 will at least get you by without too much frustration.

Whatever you do, don’t just head over to Amazon and buy whatever ancient Chromebook is selling for $100 for your kid. It’s worth the extra cash to get something with better battery life, a more modern look, and decent performance.

Other Good Chromebooks We’ve Tested

We’ve tested dozens and dozens of Chromebooks over the past years, having reviewed every major release across the spectrum of price. Unlike Macs and Windows laptops, Chromebooks tends to stick around a bit longer though, and aren’t refreshed as often. I stand by my picks above, but here are a few standouts from our testing that are still worth buying for the right person.

Photograph: Daniel Thorp-Lancaster



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Join Our Livestream: Musk v. Altman and the Future of OpenAI

Published

on

Join Our Livestream: Musk v. Altman and the Future of OpenAI


Two of Big Tech’s most influential billionaires, Sam Altman and Elon Musk, will go head-to-head in a highly anticipated trial beginning April 27. In Musk v. Altman, a judge, advised by a jury, will ultimately determine whether OpenAI has strayed from its founding mission to ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI) benefits humanity, and the ruling could influence how the world’s leading AI developer controls and distributes its technology. For now, you can learn more about the trial here.

On the Panel

On May 8, a panel of WIRED experts will go live to answer your questions about this consequential case.

  • Zoë Schiffer: WIRED’s director of business and industry, who oversees coverage of business and Silicon Valley.
  • Maxwell Zeff: a senior writer at WIRED covering the business of artificial intelligence. He writes the weekly Model Behavior newsletter, which focuses on the people, communities, and companies behind Silicon Valley’s AI scene.
  • Paresh Dave: a senior writer at WIRED covering the inner workings of Big Tech companies. He writes about how apps and gadgets are built and about their impacts while giving voice to the stories of the underappreciated and disadvantaged.

Ask a Question

Submit all your burning questions about this historic legal battle at WIRED’s next, subscriber-only livestream scheduled for May 8 at noon ET / 9 PT. To leave questions in advance as the trial unfolds, head to the comment section below.

Become a Subscriber

The event will be streamed right here. For subscribers who are not able to join, a replay of the livestream will be available after the event. Not a subscriber yet? Subscribe now to get access to this livestream, plus full access to WIRED.

In the meantime, check out past livestreams on Big Tech and the military, the future of electric vehicles, and more.



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

UK government beats drum for fintech industry at London Fintech Week | Computer Weekly

Published

on

UK government beats drum for fintech industry at London Fintech Week | Computer Weekly


The UK government has declared its intention to modernise payment services regulation, updating it to support innovations in money and payments, according to an HM Treasury statement. It is also set to publish a consultation inviting feedback from the payments sector.

Lucy Rigby, economic secretary to the HM Treasury, said: “Fintech is a true British success story, and we are backing the industry to maintain its competitive edge and go even further and faster in driving growth.

Rigby will attend events during Fintech Week in London to promote the government’s efforts in maintaining the UK as the leading destination for fintechs to start, scale and succeed, said the Treasury.

“Today’s package is our latest stake in the ground as we build a payments ecosystem that is secure, competitive and fully equipped to harness the opportunities created by rapid technological change,” said Rigby.

Britain is a world-leading destination for fintech, second only to the US in global fintech investment rankings. More than 3,000 fintech firms operate in the country, which account for tens of thousands of jobs.

Revolut – a UK-headquartered fintech firm – reported a £23bn value jump last year, bringing the company to £57bn. The digital bank has since been called Britain’s “leading technology company” by The Finanser CEO Chris Skinner. But in 2025, fintech investment in the UK fell to its lowest level since 2020.

Now, during this week’s London Fintech Week, the government is announcing strategies to grow Britain’s fintech industry, keep pace with technological progress and protect consumers. As part of the announced plan, the government has committed to spending a additional £1m to fund the Centre for Finance, Innovation and Technology (CFIT) from April to continue the centre’s work facilitating collaboration across the fintech sector.

The plan includes:

  • Bringing the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) into the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA);
  • Laying out a single framework for both traditional and tokenised payment;
  • Setting guidelines on how payment service regulation should respond to AI agents conducting purchases for customers and businesses;
  • And regulating stablecoins use while cutting administrative burdens for companies who want to provide stablecoins payments.

Alongside this, the government is appointing Chris Woolard CBE as wholesale digital market’s champion to make the country’s financial sector more competitive.

Woolard praised British investment in the sector, claiming the country offers “a thriving startup ecosystem, global banks and insurers, and leading universities”, as well as regulators who keep up with innovation to let firms “test, learn and scale responsibly”.

Ultimately, he called for open dialogue between the private and public sectors to create a tokenised wholesale financial markets ecosystem. To improve communication, the government will publish a consultation, asking the payment sector for feedback.

This isn’t the first step in Britain’s path to fintech leadership. A few months ago, the government decided to establish itself as globally competitive by creating a financial service regulatory regime for crypto assets. Recently, the FCA outlined its open finance plan for 2030, which set out a roadmap to giving consumers and businesses more control over their financial data.

In a press release, stakeholder Philip Belamant, co-founder and CEO of Zilch, said: “The UK has a real opportunity to lead globally in enabling agentic finance, helping consumers benefit from smarter, more efficient ways to manage their money.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending