Paradoxes of meaningful work in human-robot automotive production lines: Flow versus repair, recognition versus audit, safety versus work precarity in Sweden and Türkiye

Debates on human-centric Industry 5.0 often promise safer, more meaningful production line work, but are these promises realised or undermined in everyday work on human-robot production lines? This study explores how work becomes meaningful or meaningless for production line workers. We draw on interviews with production line workers (N = 24), developers (N = 13), and managers (N = 19) at two automotive plants, one in Sweden and one in Türkiye, where robots structure everyday work. Our analysis foregrounds three paradoxes: (1) Flow versus repair: smooth productivity flow is valued, yet workers' learning, pride, and satisfaction often derive from moments of solvable breakdowns and skilled repair; (2) Recognition versus audit: visibility infrastructures (dashboards, thresholds, routines) affirm workers for good work and foster a sense of belonging, yet they also function as auditing mechanisms by tightening tempo and narrowing the room for human judgment; (3) Safety versus work precarity: robots reduce bodily strain and enhance safety, while simultaneously narrowing work tasks and rendering future work more uncertain. Together, the paradoxes link repair, auditability, and precarity with lived experiences of work in robotised car manufacturing. We refine prior accounts of car manufacturing and robot engineering ethics by identifying the production line conditions under which visibility infrastructures recognise workers' contributions versus function as audit, and by illustrating how solvable robot breakdowns routinely serve as sites of learning and meaning in automotive production. Further, we outline design and policy implications for configuring industrial automation in ways that both protect workers’ bodies and sustain their capacity to shape and value their work.