Ethical Design of Social Robots in Aged Care: A Literature Review Using an Ethics of Care Perspective
This literature review examines 18 qualitative and mixed-method studies on humanoid social robots in residential aged care through Joan Tronto's ethics of care framework and the Care-Centered Value-Sensitive Design methodology. The paper analyzes how caring values are expressed or undermined in interactions involving older adults, caregivers, and robots, highlighting the potential negative impacts of robots on care quality and the essential collaborative roles of human caregivers and designers. Finally, it proposes four practical design principles to guide the integration of care ethics into robot design requirements and promote wellbeing in aged care settings.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Robot designers, researchers, and aged care practitioners should read this to understand how care ethics can inform the ethical design and implementation of social robots.
What the document contains
The document reviews qualitative and mixed-method literature concerning the deployment of humanoid social robots in residential aged care. It evaluates these empirical findings through Joan Tronto's ethics of care framework and proposes four ethical design principles to guide future robot development.
The document does not provide binding regulatory standards, legal enforcement mechanisms, or technical compliance specifications for robot manufacturers.
- Current humanoid social robots in aged care cannot fully recognize or respond to the emotional and complex needs of older adults as human caregivers can.
- Introducing robots into residential care often creates additional labor and operational burdens for already stretched care workers rather than alleviating their workload.
- Effective care in robot deployments requires acknowledging a care quartet involving older adults, caregivers, robots, and robot designers.
- Four key design principles are proposed to align robot design with care ethics, addressing user needs, evaluating costs and benefits, balancing the division of labor, and supporting ongoing improvement.
· Introduction · Background and Theoretical Framework - The Ethics of Care Framework - The CCVSD Methodology · Method - Using Ethics of Care to Define Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria - Search Strategies and Outcomes · Results - Overview of Included Studies - Four Ethical Elements in Care Practices Involving Robots · Discussion - Robot Design should Address the Needs of Both Older Adults and Caregivers - Robot Design should Evaluate the Cost–Benefit Profile of Robots - Robot Design should Consider the Division of Labour Between Robots and Caregivers - Robot Design should Support the Ongoing Improvement of Care · Limitations and Future Work · Conclusion
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
2/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
Previous researchers agree that for robots to be used ethically in care, they should not aim to replace human caregivers, but rather act as tools to assist caregivers
5.3 Robot Design should Consider the Division of Labour Between Robots and Caregivers
screening score · 2026-10-24
Fairness
0/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Oversight
0/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
screening score · 2026-10-24
Privacy
0/5Protection of personal data and private life
screening score · 2026-10-24
Transparency
0/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
screening score · 2026-10-24
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
screening score · 2026-10-24
Impact Assessment
3/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
Thereafter, it is crucial for designers to evaluate how the robots will enhance or undermine the manifestation of the moral elements in a specific context
2.2 The CCVSD Methodology
screening score · 2026-10-24