A scoping review and bibliometric analysis on sustainability-related cobotics and targeted recommendations for the industry
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The clock is ticking. The industry should have been half-way to its duty to contribute to a sustainable future by 2030, which is the target date defined by the United Nations (UN) to achieve its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Sustainability is one of the three pillars of the Industry 5.0 concept. However, scientific reviews on cobots do not holistically address sustainability as their intent. The present study provides a comprehensive scoping review and bibliometric analysis on sustainability in the field of cobots, industrial robots inherently designed to collaborate with humans. The aim of this paper is to explore the following research questions: (i) which criteria, sub-criteria, and dimensions of sustainability does the scientific literature from 1996 to 2022 on cobots in an industrial context focus on?, (ii) to what extent are economic, social, and environmental dimensions considered holistically rather than separately?, (iii) which journals, institutions, countries, and authors are most influential in advancing sustainability-related cobot research?, and (iv) which SDG does sustainability-related cobot research align with? Findings show that the social dimension is most frequently studied (71.92%), followed by economic (51.34%), and environmental (1.87%). Only 0.53% of publications consider all three sustainability dimensions holistically. Although the field overall is experiencing exponential growth, particularly in social and economic aspects, the environmental dimension remains critically underexplored. Term analysis indicates a shift from technical and social concerns toward psychological issues. The bibliometric analysis further identifies key journals and opportunities for collaboration. This paper introduces an analytical framework that links sustainability criteria and sub-criteria to the SDGs, offering guidance for researchers in selecting impactful topics that contribute to global sustainability. It also emphasizes the need to expand sustainability assessments beyond the organizational level toward a global perspective. The sustainability-related cobot literature is linked mainly to SDGs 3 (good health and well-being), 8 (decent work and economic growth), 10 (reduced inequalities), and 5 (gender equality), respectively. Consequently, the paper provides targeted recommendations for both industry and researchers to: (1) balance the way sustainability is addressed with cobots; and (2) align with the SDGs that are deemed suitable for the field.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,064 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».