HSE Initiates Development of Ethical Standard for Anthropomorphic Robots

Photo: EFKO Group

Beyond technological solutions, the development of anthropomorphic robotics also demands ethical ones. In July 2026, the HSE Institute for Robotics Systems hosted a foresight session dedicated to developing an Ethical Standard for Anthropomorphic Robotic Complexes. Representatives from businesses, government bodies, scientific organisations, and universities gathered to discuss key ethical and legal issues surrounding the development of anthropomorphic robotic complexes. The main outcome of the meeting was a draft of the Ethical Standard.

Opening the session, Sergey Ivanov, Executive Director at EFKO Group, drew the participants’ attention to the growing importance of ethical principles in corporate strategy. According to him, establishing a socially responsible company position and understanding the relationship between morality and economic models have a direct impact on the investment climate. He pointed out the global trend in which major companies are increasingly engaging professional philosophers to help solve strategic objectives, viewing their competencies as an important competitive advantage.

Anastasia Ugleva

The meeting organiser and moderator, Anastasia Ugleva, Director of the Centre for Robot Ethics and Ontology at the HSE Institute for Robotics Systems, identified two key problems that currently make it difficult to apply ethical principles to business and public administration. The first is that ethical categories are hard to formalise and measure. The second is the lack of convincing empirical evidence demonstrating the practical and economic value of applied ethics. These limitations can be overcome only through meaningful interaction between society, the academic community, government, and businesses.

The foresight session served as a platform for interdisciplinary dialogue, within which experts discussed the most complex ethical and legal issues arising from the development of anthropomorphic robotic systems. The discussion focused on the limits of physical similarity between robots and humans, acceptance criteria for such similarity, the distribution of responsibility for decisions made by robotic systems under conditions of uncertainty, as well as approaches to conducting ethical audits.

One of the key outcomes of the discussion was the decision to treat ethics in relation to anthropomorphic robots as a discipline grounded in practical rationality and social conventions. In the context of humanoid robotics, this means moving beyond debates about whether a machine possesses consciousness or a soul in favour of a functional approach: what role does a robot play in the system of social relations? This approach will make it possible to translate philosophical principles into engineering solutions and technical regulations.

Photo: EFKO Group

During the discussion, participants compiled a comprehensive map of social and ethical risks, concluding that extensive research is needed to identify the technical constraints to be integrated into humanoid robot architecture to ensure safe human–robot interaction. The experts paid special attention to protecting the most vulnerable population groups—children, the elderly, and people with mental disorders. Unconditional human safety was recognised as a fundamental principle in the development of such systems.

Using a scenario-based approach, participants examined several models of human–robot interaction in detail, analysing them through the lens of ethical principles, possible risks, and technical requirements. Following the foresight session, a draft of the Ethical Standard for Anthropomorphic Robotic Complexes will be prepared. The document is expected to lay the groundwork for further interdisciplinary dialogue and to serve as a practical tool for interaction between government, businesses, and the scientific community in designing and operating general-purpose humanoid robots.

Leonid Gokhberg

‘The development of an ethical standard for anthropomorphic robots is not just a reaction to technological progress, but rather the early establishment of the rules of the game for future markets,’ said Leonid Gokhberg, First Vice Rector at HSE University. ‘HSE has traditionally served as an interdisciplinary foresight venue, combining academic rigour, an evidence-based approach, expertise in the social sciences, and the demands of the real economy. The project, initiated by our Institute for Robotics Systems together with the university’s strategic partner EFKO Group, provides for the active participation of all stakeholders, including businesses, government, and the scientific community. Only through joint efforts can ethical principles be translated into the language of engineering solutions and—something I consider equally important—into the language of economic efficiency, thereby ensuring public trust in new technologies.’

Sergey Ivanov

Photo: EFKO Group

According to Sergey Ivanov, Executive Director at EFKO Management Company, the key risk of robotisation lies not only in technology or the cost of solutions. ‘Another question is far more important: can we create a technically perfect system whose behaviour will be deemed socially unacceptable?’ Sergei Ivanov pointed out. ‘If humans do not accept robots, the robots’ actions will trigger fear, irritation, or protest—which can undermine the very idea of mass adoption of anthropomorphic robotics. That is why ethical issues must be discussed at the design stage, not when finished products appear. We thank HSE University for organising this discussion and creating a platform where businesses, science, and government can jointly seek answers to these challenges.’

Alexander Voronin

Photo: EFKO Group

‘Within the framework of the foresight session, four practical scenarios were considered: a delivery robot, elderly care, teaching children (including those with autism spectrum disorders), and a robot assistant for production facilities,’ said Alexander Voronin, Technical Director at RoboPro and a foresight session participant. ‘The key idea that permeated the entire discussion was to integrate ethics directly into the architecture, design, and functionality of anthropomorphic robots. In fact, this is an attempt to conceptualise Isaac Asimov’s famous three laws of robotics and translate them into practical, applied engineering.’ The integration of ethical standards will require a serious overhaul, the expert emphasised. ‘When decomposed into specific tasks, seemingly obvious postulates can turn into constructs that are difficult to grasp—even within the four scenarios considered. During the discussion, participants also touched upon pressing engineering issues related to the current level of robotics: the limitations of physical design, software (especially the AI component), and cybersecurity. They also identified clear gaps in the legislative framework, standardisation, and technical regulation. A lively debate was sparked by the issue of responsibility for harm a robot might cause to a human. Here, a rare consensus emerged between engineers and lawyers: everyone agreed that the owner of the robot is always responsible—an individual or a company that can later seek recourse against other actors in the creation and integration chain.’

According to the expert, the foresight session participants had an excellent opportunity not only to present their vision but—more valuably—to hear constructive criticism and become acquainted with important aspects far beyond their usual professional fields. ‘This is crucial for a genuine exchange of views and for developing a real, rather than declarative, consensus on the requirements for anthropomorphic robots,’ said Alexander Voronin. ‘Ethics may well become a real engineering constraint in the future. The key question is how to ensure that this constraint does not slow down technological development, but rather benefits both ethics itself and its practical implementation in the complex interaction between humans and robots.’

The foresight session was attended by representatives of Rosatom State Corporation, the Commission on Education and Upbringing of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation, the Scientific Council on the Methodology of Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), the All-Russian Institute for Scientific and Technical Information of the RAS, the Institute of Philosophy of the RAS, the National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, MIPT, HSE University, Saint Petersburg State University (SPbU), the Moscow Aviation Institute, Skoltech, the Sukharev Moscow Academy of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, the Technical Committee on Standardisation 164 ‘Artificial intelligence,’ Technical Committee 141 ‘Robotics,’ the Kulakov National Medical Research Centre for Obstetrics, Gynaecology, and Perinatology, Korporatsiya Robotov, EFKO Management Company, the Skolkovo Foundation, the Robot Testing Centre of the Moscow Innovative Cluster, the Sberbank Robotics Centre, the National Association of Robotics Market Participants, RoboPro, Apromtech, Agrobit, Newdiamed (MeDiCase), MTS Web Services, and others.