Robots earn more trust on the factory floor

Hexagon published new findings on June 16 from its global Robot Generation study, based on surveys of 9,000 adults and 9,000 children aged 8 to 18 across nine countries. The clearest result is a setting test: 63% of adults said they would be comfortable with robots helping in factories and warehouses, compared with 45% in hospitals and clinics, and 39% in classrooms. For robotics, that matters because adoption is not only a question of dexterity, autonomy or cost. It also depends on where people believe a machine belongs.

The finding cuts through some of the noise around humanoid robots. Recent demonstrations often stress human-like form, general-purpose movement and the possibility of deployment across many environments. Hexagon’s data points to a more limited and probably more realistic path. People appear more willing to accept robots when the task is physical, repetitive or hazardous, and when the surrounding environment already looks designed to manage risk. A factory or warehouse has marked zones, safety rules, trained operators and defined workflows. A classroom or care setting involves relationships where handing responsibility to a machine feels more sensitive.

The study also shows that governance is not a side issue. Hexagon says 86% of adults consider clear rules on what robots can and cannot do essential. Security was the leading concern, cited by 51% of adults, followed by trust and reliability. That is an important signal for industrial robotics vendors. A mobile robot, collaborative arm or warehouse humanoid is no longer just a mechanical device. It is often a connected system, sometimes guided by AI models, that senses its environment, makes bounded decisions and exchanges data with warehouse or factory software. The public question is therefore not only whether the robot can lift, move or sort. It is whether its limits are visible and its failures are accountable.

Exposure also changes attitudes. In China, where 75% of adults surveyed said they had encountered robots in real life, 63% would be comfortable with a robot in the home. In the United Kingdom, where exposure was the lowest in the sample, that share fell to 32%. The lesson is not that robots should be pushed quickly into every private or public space. It is more restrained: familiarity, narrow use cases and explicit rules may matter as much as hardware performance or human-like design. For companies building the next wave of robotic systems, the most credible route to broader acceptance may start with clear industrial deployments, where the robot’s role is specific and responsibility remains understandable.