A technically suitable exoskeleton only delivers its benefits in operation if employees actually wear it. Employee acceptance is therefore not a side effect of its introduction, but one of its most important prerequisites.

It is not enough to simply provide an exoskeleton and explain its benefits. Employees must experience that the system fits the task, can be used safely, and offers them a tangible benefit in their everyday work. Equally important is an environment in which wearing an exoskeleton is perceived neither as a sign of weakness nor as special treatment.

The implementation phase plays a crucial role in this. An operational practice studied by the French occupational safety institute INRS showed that users were sometimes insufficiently involved and were given little time for acclimation and training. It was precisely these factors that hindered acceptance.

An exoskeleton can be selected for sound ergonomic reasons and be of high technical quality. If employees find it uncomfortable, disruptive, unnecessary, or stigmatizing, it will still not be used long-term.
Companies should therefore not wait until resistance arises to assess acceptance. It must be a selection criterion from the very beginning. This includes questions such as:

• Does the exoskeleton support the movement that is actually strenuous?
• Does it fit different body sizes?
• Can it be put on and adjusted without much effort?
• Do necessary movements remain possible?
• Can employees express their experiences openly?
• Do they understand why the company is introducing the technology?

According to findings by the Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, long-term use depends, among other things, on wearing comfort, availability, and adjustment options. A precise fit is therefore not just a detail, but an essential factor for acceptance.

Employees must be able to understand the support provided in their specific work. General statements about ergonomics are not sufficient for this. What is decisive is the experience at the respective workstation: Does a strenuous posture feel less taxing? Is a repetitive movement being supported? Or do new limitations arise elsewhere?

In the study described by the Commission for Occupational Health and Safety and Standardization, employees did report less physical exertion, but not automatically less fatigue. The production output was described by the respondents as being the same with and without an exoskeleton. Such results suggest that benefits should not be communicated solely through productivity or a general promise of relief.

An exoskeleton is worn directly on the body. Pressure points, heat accumulation, heavy weight, restricted movement, or frequent readjustments are therefore immediately noticeable.

Employees should be able to try out different sizes and settings. A system that fits one person well is not automatically suitable for another. The interaction with work clothing, personal protective equipment, tools, vehicles, and spatial conditions must also be considered in the actual workflow.

The research results from the BAuA underline both the importance of suitable adjustment options and the potential changes in body kinematics and movement sequences.

Employees must know which activities the exoskeleton is intended for, what its limitations are, and how it is correctly adjusted. Unresolved safety concerns create uncertainty and have a direct impact on the willingness to use the device.

Instruction should therefore not only explain how to put it on. It should also clarify:

• which movements are supported,
• which activities are not intended,
• what to do in the event of pressure marks or discomfort,
• who to contact for technical or ergonomic questions,
• how feedback is documented and processed.

Safety and ease of use are described as indispensable factors in the evaluated acceptance study. Therefore, forced use of a technology that is not accepted can entail additional physical or psychosocial risks.

Acceptance is not just a matter between human and technology. Equally important is how colleagues and supervisors react to the exoskeleton.

In the group studied by the INRS, wearing it was not positively received by colleagues. The social context can thus become a hurdle even if the system functions technically.

Managers should therefore make it clear early on: An exoskeleton is not a sign of a lack of resilience. It is a tool for the ergonomic design of suitable tasks. Derogatory remarks or demonstratively singling out individual users undermine this message.

“The exoskeleton restricts me”
This objection must be tested in practice. Possible causes include an unsuitable design, incorrect settings, or a task that requires many other movements in addition to the supported motion.
Appropriate reaction: Observe the movement sequence, correct the settings, test alternative systems, and use the exoskeleton only for suitable subtasks.

“It is uncomfortable and too much effort”
If putting it on, adjusting it, and taking it off are complicated, the likelihood of regular use decreases. The same applies to pressure points, heat buildup, or frequent readjustment.
Appropriate reaction: Conduct sufficiently long practical tests, document individual settings, and integrate putting it on into the actual workflow. Complaints must not be dismissed as merely a matter of getting used to it.

“Now everyone will think I’m not capable of doing the work”
This concern does not relate to the product, but to the culture of implementation. It arises particularly easily if only individual persons with known complaints receive an exoskeleton.
Appropriate reaction: Link the offer to strenuous activities rather than to supposedly weak individuals. Communicate the preventive purpose and enable all suitable employees to test a appropriate system.

“This is just supposed to make me do more”
If the introduction is justified exclusively by performance, cycle time, or efficiency, the exoskeleton may appear as an instrument for increasing work intensity.
Appropriate reaction: State goals transparently. The focus should be on reducing strain, ergonomic workplace design, and safe processes. Expectations regarding work performance must not be changed without a sound operational assessment.

“I don’t know if it’s really safe”
Uncertainty arises when selection criteria, operational limits, and responsibilities remain unclear.
Appropriate reaction: Involve occupational health and safety, ergonomics officers, and users in the selection process. Suitability must be verified for the specific task and in the specific work environment.

The most sensible solution is neither to provide all employees with equipment across the board nor to limit it to individuals with existing physical ailments.
A task-related approach is recommended: All employees who perform a suitable, strenuous task should be given access to trials regardless of age, gender, ailments, or perceived performance capability. Actual use should remain voluntary and depend on fit, the task, and personal suitability.

This approach offers three advantages:

• It positions the exoskeleton as an instrument for prevention and workplace design.
• It reduces the risk of stigmatizing individual employees as "weak" or "ill."
• At the same time, it prevents the indiscriminate equipping of unsuitable individuals or workstations.
  

The most important factor for acceptance is the credible involvement of employees. Anyone expected to wear an exoskeleton must have a real voice in its selection, testing, and evaluation.
Acceptance cannot be mandated. It arises when employees:

• understand the purpose,
• recognize a personal benefit,
• feel safe,
• experience the system as comfortable and manageable,
• do not fear social stigmatization,
• and can voice criticism without negative consequences.

The company should therefore not ask: "How do we convince our employees of our exoskeleton?" The better question is:"Which solution will employees accept because it genuinely supports their work?"

Exoskeletons are wearable assistive devices. Their introduction therefore has a greater impact on the individual's daily work routine than the provision of many other technical aids.
Successful companies do not start with a full-scale procurement. They analyze the activity, involve the employees, test suitable systems, and evaluate the benefits as well as the limitations based on real workflows.

Treating acceptance as a selection criterion from the very beginning improves the conditions for voluntary and long-term use. This is precisely where professional exoskeleton consulting should start: not with the sale of a specific model, but with the question of which system suits the activity, the workplace, and the people.

Would you like to test exoskeletons in your company?

Get support with activity analysis, product selection, and the test phase. Together, we will create the conditions to ensure that an exoskeleton not only fits technically, but is also accepted by the future users.