Ethical values and social care robots for older people: an international qualitative study
This study explores how older people and their formal and informal carers perceive six ethical values—autonomy, safety, enablement, independence, privacy, and social connectedness—in relation to social care robots. Conducting 21 focus groups across France, the Netherlands, and the UK as part of the ACCOMPANY project, the research examined how participants believed potential conflicts and tensions between these values should be resolved. The findings indicate that participants generally prioritized autonomy over other values (except safety), favored compromise and negotiation over coercion, and emphasized the ongoing need for human interaction and individualized pre-introduction agreements.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Researchers, roboticists, policy-makers, and care professionals interested in the ethical integration of assistive social robots in eldercare.
What the document contains
The paper covers qualitative data regarding stakeholder perceptions of six ethical values applied to social care robots, mechanisms for resolving value tensions, and implications for robotic design, policy, and practice.
It does not provide quantitative generalization across all global demographics, nor does it address multi-user household privacy implications or commercial data monetization frameworks in detail.
- Potential users and carers prioritize autonomy over other values in social robot care, except when balanced against serious safety risks.
- Participants favored compromise, persuasion, and negotiation over robotic coercion or persistent nagging.
- The integration of social robots into an older person's home should be governed by individualized pre-introduction agreements.
- Robots cannot replace human care workers because they lack the capacity for genuine negotiation, emotional support, and human connection.
- Data collection and monitoring by robots must respect privacy norms and ensure the older person retains control over their information.
· Abstract · Introduction · Method · Findings · Discussion · Limitations · Conclusions
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
This paper attempts to determine the relative weight of values like privacy, autonomy, and safety when the overall aim of assistive technology is to help older people retain as much of their autonomy as younger people do.
Overarching aim
screening score · 2026-10-24
Fairness
1/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
Our FC groups tended to discuss privacy in relation to formulas and routines that they took to be embedded in their professional codes of conduct and good practices.
Privacy
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Oversight
2/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
In their responses to the scenarios, many assumed or asserted the need for a human intermediary between the older person and the robot, who would persuade or conduct the negotiation.
Compromise, persuasion and negotiation
screening score · 2026-10-24
Privacy
3/5Protection of personal data and private life
A person enjoys privacy when there is restricted access to information about them, including information that can be gained by observation. Our participants generally agreed on the importance of privacy.
Privacy
screening score · 2026-10-24
Transparency
1/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
The third scenario was devised to draw out issues raised by the empathic ‘mask’ being developed in ACCOMPANY.
Method
screening score · 2026-10-24
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-24
Impact Assessment
0/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-24