Industrial robots have taken over large parts of the American assembly line, but they've barely reached the industries where workers face the greatest physical risk. TRADESAFE compared workplace fatality data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to industrial robot adoption and spending figures from the International Federation of Robotics (IFR) and the Census Bureau, covering dozens of industries and occupations nationwide. This analysis breaks down where the deadliest work is concentrated and where industrial robots have, and haven't, reached.
Key Takeaways
- Wyoming has the highest overall workplace fatality rate of any state, at 13.9 per 100,000, more than four times the national average.
- Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting ranks as America's most dangerous industry group, with a fatal injury rate of 20.9 per 100,000 workers, over 6 times the national average.
- Logging carries the highest fatality rate of any single occupation, at 110.4 per 100,000 workers, more than 33 times the national average.
- The automotive industry has adopted more robots than any other U.S. sector, with 13,747 installations tracked by the IFR.
- Michigan and Ohio lead the nation in robotics capital expenditure, at $365.0 million and $336.4 million, respectively.
How Workplace Fatality Rates and Robotics Spending Compare Across States
This map plots each state's overall workplace fatality rate alongside how much it spent on industrial robotics in 2022. Michigan and Ohio, the two heaviest robotics spenders, both sit at or below the national average for workplace deaths, though other big spenders land well above it.
Wyoming had the highest overall workplace fatality rate in the country, at 13.9 per 100,000 workers, followed by Mississippi (8.0) and Alaska (7.1). At the other end, Rhode Island had the lowest rate (1.1), followed by New Hampshire (1.7) and New Jersey (1.9).
Spending showed a different pattern. Michigan and Ohio led the nation in industrial robotics capital expenditure, at $365.0 million and $336.4 million, respectively. Michigan's fatality rate matched the national average of 3.3, and Ohio's sat just below it at 3.2.
The top 10 states spending the most on industrial robotic equipment were
- Michigan ($365.0M)
- Ohio ($336.4M)
- California ($228.8M)
- Georgia ($227.3M)
- Tennessee ($225.1M)
- Alabama ($223.5M)
- Texas ($207.6M)
- Wisconsin ($195.9M)
- Illinois ($166.2M)
- Missouri ($139.3M)
The lowest spenders were the District of Columbia ($0.2 million), Rhode Island ($1.4 million), and Alaska ($1.9 million). They landed all over the fatality range, from Rhode Island's lowest-in-the-nation rate to DC's near average (3.0) to Alaska's higher rate (7.1).
Agriculture and Mining Post the Highest Industry-Wide Fatality Rates
Fatal injury rates vary sharply by industry, and the gap between the riskiest and safest sectors is stark.
Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting posted the highest fatal injury rate of any industry sector, at 20.9 per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers, over six times the national average of 3.3. Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction followed at 13.8 per 100,000, more than four times the national average. Finance and insurance sat at the opposite end of the scale, recording the lowest fatality rate in the data at just 0.2 per 100,000 workers.
Logging and Fishing Crews Face the Nation's Highest Occupational Fatality Rates
Fatality risk climbs even higher once the data narrows from industry down to specific occupation.
Logging workers face the highest fatality rate of any occupation in the data, at 110.4 per 100,000, more than 33 times the national average. Fishing and hunting workers rank second at 88.8 per 100,000. Construction trades account for three of the eight most dangerous occupations recorded: roofers (48.7 per 100,000), structural iron and steel workers (37.8), and construction helpers (35.8).
Industrial Robot Installations Cluster in Automotive, Not the Deadliest Sectors
Where industrial robots are installed rarely overlaps with where fatality rates run highest. The bulk of U.S. installations are in a handful of manufacturing categories, while the industries topping the fatality charts show little to no presence in the IFR data.
IFR tracks fixed-arm industrial robots, the kind used on manufacturing lines, not the full range of automation across the economy. Sectors like agriculture, logging, and construction may rely heavily on other machinery this data doesn't capture, so their absence below reflects absence from this dataset, not the absence of all automation.
Automotive dominates the installation data, with 13,747 industrial robots, more than three times the total for any other category. The remaining four categories IFR tracks, metal and machinery, electrical/electronics, plastic and chemical products, and food, trail well behind.
Of those, metal and machinery comes closest to a high-risk occupation, with 3,765 installations in a category that overlaps with dangerous metalworking trades. Structural iron and steel workers, for example, face a fatality rate of 37.8 per 100,000.
Even where industrial robots are concentrated, the workers facing the most risk often fall outside their reach. Automotive leads every sector in installations, yet automotive service technicians and mechanics, who work off the assembly line, still carry a fatality rate of 6.3 per 100,000.
The Mismatch Between Robots and Risk
The data points to a consistent mismatch. Industrial robot installations remain concentrated in manufacturing sectors with relatively lower fatality rates, while many of the country's most dangerous jobs sit outside the reach of this kind of automation. At the state level, robotics spending doesn't track fatality rates either, with the heaviest-spending states landing all across the safety range.
This analysis can't say whether more industrial robots would make those jobs safer. What it does show is that robots and risk rarely occupy the same place, and whether that changes depends on where industrial robots go next. For facility managers and safety leaders, it's a trend worth watching.
"Safety leaders should evaluate automation at the task and hazard level, rather than treating overall robot adoption as a measure of safety progress. The more important question is whether technology is eliminating or better controlling the specific tasks most likely to cause serious injuries and fatalities." - Herbert Post, VP, TRADESAFE
Methodology
This analysis compares U.S. occupational fatality rates against industry-level robotics adoption using two federal and international data sources. Fatality data comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, reported as the fatal injury rate per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers. Industry-level rates were pulled at the two-digit NAICS sector level; occupation-level rates were pulled by SOC code. Only industries and occupations with a BLS-published rate were included.
Robot adoption figures, including total U.S. industrial robot installations by industry, come from the International Federation of Robotics, reflecting 2024 data. For the industry-level comparison against occupational fatality rates, this analysis uses the U.S. Census Bureau's 2022 Economic Census, the most recent federal survey to collect robot presence, employee exposure, and capital expenditure data at this level of industry detail. State-level capital expenditure data on industrial robotic equipment was unavailable for Hawaii and Wyoming.
Occupation- and industry-level fatality rates are two separate BLS measures, not a joint dataset. An occupation's fatality rate (for example, roofers) reflects that occupation across all industries where it's employed, not a rate specific to any one industry; BLS doesn't publish a combined occupation-by-industry crosstab.
IFR data measures industrial robots only, primarily fixed-arm equipment used in manufacturing. It doesn't capture other forms of automation or mechanization, such as agricultural machinery, drones, or autonomous vehicles, that may be present in high-fatality sectors like agriculture, fishing, roofing, or logging. A sector's absence from IFR's reported categories reflects absence from this specific dataset, not confirmed absence of all automation in that industry.
Some sector-occupation pairings in this analysis are directional rather than exact matches. Where an occupation is discussed alongside an IFR category (for example, structural iron and steel workers alongside metal and machinery), the pairing reflects industry adjacency, not a verified shared employer or NAICS code. IFR's reported categories also don't account for every U.S. robot installation; additional installations exist outside the five named categories but aren't broken out in publicly available IFR data.
About TRADESAFE
TRADESAFE provides industry-leading safety solutions — including Lockout Tagout devices, safety showers, eye wash stations, spill containment solutions, and workplace safety signs — precision-engineered for durability, compliance, and seamless integration into industrial environments. Designed to exceed OSHA, ANSI, and EPA standards, our solutions are relied upon by the nation's top companies, municipalities, and government agencies.
Fair Use Statement
The findings, data, and visuals in this study may be republished for noncommercial use with proper attribution to TRADESAFE and a link back to this page.