What an exoskeleton suit is: passive and active designs

Passive and active designs

Passive devices have no motors. They store energy from the wearer’s own movement, in springs or elastic elements as the user bends forward, then release it to help them back upright or to hold an arm overhead. Nothing is powered, so these devices tend to be lighter, need no charging and have fewer parts to maintain. A peer-reviewed evaluation of passive exoskeletons is a good starting point for their advantages and for the design improvements still needed.

Active devices add actuators that supply assistive force. In principle they can support heavier or more varied loads, but they bring extra weight, batteries and control software, and more to maintain. The Ryggo range includes back and shoulder devices from several vendors. You can browse the full exoskeleton range to see how designs differ by body region and support principle.

One practical point: a suit supports a specific body region. A back-support device will not help someone who works with their arms above shoulder height, and a shoulder device does little for repeated stooping. Decide which region and which movement matter before you choose a design.

EU regulation for workplace exoskeleton suits: PPE, machinery and medical device status

The regulatory picture in Europe is not yet tidy, and buyers should know that before signing anything. The Federation of the European Ergonomics Societies notes in its overview of the legal status of exoskeletons that devices sold on the European market for workplace use have been certified with a CE mark under the Medical Device Regulation, even though by definition they would more naturally fall under the PPE regulation. The route a vendor used to certify a device does not always match how it is used at work.

Three frameworks matter in practice:

• Personal protective equipment (PPE). Passive suits worn to reduce strain on the wearer arguably fit here, which would bring conformity assessment and employer duties around selection and training.
• Machinery. Powered or active devices may raise machinery-safety questions, particularly where actuators and control systems are involved.
• Medical devices. Some workplace products have been certified by this route even though they are not intended for patients.

A foresight document from the EXSKALLERATE project describes regulation of exoskeleton use as still in its infancy, with standardisation emerging but far from complete. Check the date and scope of any such document against your own case.

So ask each vendor which regulation the device was certified under, and ask to see the documentation. Then confirm with your own safety and legal advisers what that means for your risk assessment, training and records. A CE mark on its own does not settle the question for your site.

Matching a suit to the task: lifting, bending and overhead work

Most failed pilots trace back to a poor match between device and task, not a poor device. Start by asking what the worker actually does for most of the shift, and which body region carries the load while they do it.

Repeated lifting and forward bending. Warehouse order picking, parcel handling, assembly line loading and patient-handling-adjacent tasks all put the lower back under repeated strain. Back-support suits are designed for exactly this. They work best when the movement is a recognisable forward bend and return, and less well where there is constant twisting, crawling or work in confined spaces where the frame gets in the way.

Sustained bending or static postures. Working at low benches, inspection and floor-level installation involve holding a flexed position rather than lifting. The question here is whether a device can support the held posture without restricting movement when the worker needs to shift.

Overhead work. Drilling, fitting, painting or maintenance above shoulder height loads the shoulders and upper arms. Shoulder-support suits assist arm elevation and are a better fit than a back device. The benefit depends on how long the arms stay raised and how heavy the tool is.

Task fit also depends on the person. Comfort, body size, clothing, any PPE worn underneath and the working environment (heat, confined access, vehicles) all affect whether a suit actually gets worn. A device that is effective on paper but uncomfortable will sit unused in a locker.

If you are unsure which tasks carry the highest risk, the free video-based ergonomics analysis lets you assess a posture from a short clip before you decide on a device. The Exo Advisor can then narrow the options to devices suited to the task and body region.

What the evidence shows so far, and how to weigh vendor-reported ROI

The research base is growing, but it has not caught up with the marketing. A 2022 systematic review of industrial exoskeletons found that wide-scale adoption remains limited, partly because it is hard to evaluate effectiveness across such different applications. A roadmap paper on large-scale adoption makes a similar point about the methods and challenges of bringing exoskeletons into workplaces. Put plainly: lab results and short trials look encouraging for some tasks, while long-term, sector-specific evidence is still developing.

There is useful work on comparing devices. A benchmarking study of commercially available passive back exoskeletons recommends testing devices for their intended industrial use rather than assuming one performs the same everywhere, which supports trialling before buying.

Treat vendor-reported ROI with care. Figures that manufacturers quote for reduced discomfort or productivity gains usually come from small samples, selected sites and self-reported measures. They are a fair prompt for questions, not a foundation for a business case. When you see a number, ask four things: how many workers, for how long, measured how, and by whom. Be wary of headline injury-reduction percentages with no traceable source.

For help turning your own numbers into a case, see the guide to calculating the payback period.

Trialling an exoskeleton suit in your own workplace: baseline to go/no-go

Only your own workplace can tell you whether a suit works for your tasks, your people and your constraints. A structured trial turns opinion into evidence and avoids the common trap of a pilot that never ends in a decision.

1. Define the task and the question. Pick one or two tasks with a known strain problem and write down what success looks like: lower reported discomfort, comfortable use across a full shift, or fewer awkward postures.

2. Capture a baseline before anyone puts a suit on. Record current discomfort scores, posture observations (a video-based RULA assessment works well), absence and incident data where you have it, and throughput for the task.

3. Choose a realistic duration. Short trials show first impressions and fit. Longer ones show whether people keep wearing the device once the novelty fades. Ryggo’s Deploy & Decide programme offers 2, 4 or 8 weeks, and the try-before-you-buy guide explains how to pick. How a Ryggo order works sets out the steps, and the article on the cost of exoskeleton trials covers the commercial side.

4. Involve workers from the start. Explain the purpose, make sure the device is fitted properly, and collect feedback regularly, not only at the end. Voluntary participation and honest comments matter more than a high wearing rate that hides discomfort.

5. Set go/no-go criteria before the trial begins. Agree in advance what result justifies a purchase, what justifies trying a different device, and what means stopping. Include comfort, usability, safety observations and any effect on task time alongside discomfort and posture data.

6. Decide and document. Compare results against the baseline, record why you chose to proceed or not, and plan the rollout or the next trial. A clear decision, even a negative one, is a good outcome: it saves money and builds trust for the next idea.