Summary
An international research team led by Empa researcher Mirko Kovač has published a manifesto for a new scientific discipline in the journal «Nature Machine Intelligence»: «Sustainability Robotics». The researchers propose that robotic systems should be evaluated in the future not only on their technical performance, but also on their impact on the environment, society, and economy. The concept goes beyond «Green Robotics» and demands that robots actively contribute to solving sustainability challenges. A laboratory has already been established at Empa and EPFL that translates these principles into concrete technologies. A competence center at Empa, supported by the Canton of Schaffhausen, promotes further research and innovation in this field.
People
- Mirko Kovač (Head of Laboratory of Sustainability Robotics, Empa/EPFL)
- Barbara Mazzolai (Deputy Director of Robotics, Italian Institute of Technology)
Topics
- Sustainability Robotics
- Artificial Intelligence and Environment
- Circular Economy in Robotics
- Bio-inspired Technology
Clarus Lead
The research initiative addresses a central governance gap: While robotics and physical AI are growing exponentially, there is a lack of a framework that systematically evaluates their sustainability impact. The manifesto thus establishes a new research standard that obligates decision-makers in industry, politics, and research to evaluate robotic systems not only on efficiency, but on their contribution to ecological and social goals. This has immediate implications for investment decisions, regulation, and technology transfer to emerging markets.
Detailed Summary
The manifesto is based on the diagnosis that previous robotics primarily focused on precision, speed, and autonomy – criteria that obscure ecological and social consequences. The researchers distinguish two complementary objectives: First, robots themselves should become more sustainable through responsible material use, circular economy, and energy efficiency. Second – and this is the core innovation – robotic systems should be deliberately deployed for ecosystem monitoring, disaster response, and infrastructure maintenance. Concrete examples range from biodegradable drones to air-water robots for ecosystem monitoring to flying inspection systems for hard-to-reach infrastructure.
The manifesto formulates three guiding principles: Minimal invasiveness reduces ecological and biological impacts through energy-efficient systems and compostable electronics. Universal accessibility ensures that technologies are not reserved only for wealthy regions, but can be deployed where they are urgently needed. Symbiosis is the central concept: Robotics should not fulfill isolated tasks, but create maximum benefit for people, environment, and economy. Kovač illustrates this through a comparison – while autonomous systems can regenerate damaged coral reefs, robotics for deep-sea mining would have critical ecological consequences. What matters is not technical performance, but purpose and environmental relationship.
Implementation occurs through the «Laboratory of Sustainability Robotics» at Empa and EPFL, which combines robotics, physical AI, materials science, and environmental science. Research priorities include bio-inspired robotics, multifunctional hardware, and multimodal locomotion for distributed environmental monitoring. This is complemented by the «Competence Centre for Sustainability Robotics» (CCSR) at Empa, supported by the Canton of Schaffhausen, which promotes research, innovation, and international collaboration.
Key Statements
- Paradigm Shift: Robotics must transform from pure efficiency optimization to active sustainability solutions
- Three Guiding Principles: Minimal invasiveness, universal accessibility, and symbiotic human-machine-environment relationships
- Institutionalization: Laboratory and competence center anchor sustainability robotics as an independent discipline
- Long-term Goal: Sustainability in robotics becomes standard like today's safety standards
Critical Questions
Evidence/Data Quality: What empirical metrics are used to evaluate the «sustainability impact» of robotic systems, and how are trade-offs between different sustainability dimensions (ecological vs. social) operationalized?
Conflicts of Interest: Could the focus on «sustainable» robotics redirect investments from problematic applications (e.g., military, surveillance) into a green narrative without actually reducing them?
Causality/Alternatives: Is non-robotic automation (e.g., stationary systems, human labor) more sustainable in certain contexts than mobile robotics, and how is this alternative considered in the manifesto?
Feasibility: How are the three guiding principles (minimal invasiveness, universal accessibility, symbiosis) translated into concrete design standards and certification criteria that are binding for manufacturers?
Side Effects: Could the promotion of environmental monitoring robots in emerging markets lead to dependencies on technology providers or create data sovereignty problems?
Governance Gap: Who decides whether a robotics application is «symbiotic», and what conflict resolution mechanisms exist between sustainability goals and economic interests?
Bibliography
Primary Source: Manifesto «Sustainability Robotics» – M Kovač, B Mazzolai, S Song: A Manifesto for Sustainability Robotics; Nature Machine Intelligence (2026). doi: 10.1038/s42256-026-01260-6
Supplementary Sources:
Verification Status: ✓ 13.07.2026
This text was created with the support of an AI model. Editorial Responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-Check: 13.07.2026