From Care Robots to Car Sharing: What other transitions teach us about a future with CCAM

How do technological transitions reshape societies, labour markets, and everyday life? And more importantly: what can we learn from past and ongoing transitions in other areas when preparing for Connected, Cooperative and Automated Mobility (CCAM)?

To explore this, we conducted a structured literature review, analysing a set of diverse case studies through an Input–Output–Outcome–Impact (IOOI) lens. The focus was not only on measurable socio-economic and employment effects, but also whether they were intended or unintended. Our key insights from this analysis are presented here. 

Case Study 1 - Care Robots: Technology cannot thrive without acceptance 

The case of care robotics offers a powerful lesson: technological feasibility does not guarantee societal uptake. Although robots promise improved quality of life, independence, and even enhanced professional status for care workers, the main barrier remains acceptance among both elderly users and nursing staff.

What is our key takeaway? Acceptance is not automatic, but it must be designed.

For CCAM, this raises critical questions:

  • Do we need to promote a “relationship” between users and automated systems? 
  • How can we communicate benefits in a way that resonates, especially for those undergoing reskilling?

Equally important: systems must be designed with the target group in mind. Too often, innovations in the care sector are tested on younger populations and later fail to meet the needs of older professionals and end-users. 

Case Study 2 - Car Sharing: Innovation changes behaviour (and skills)

Car sharing demonstrates how new mobility models reshape both user behaviour and labour demand. What began as a cooperative and user-driven innovation has evolved into highly professionalised, platform-based services. This shift has created demand for new skills (from data analytics to fleet management and customer service). At the same time, user motivations have changed: sustainability matters less than flexibility, convenience, and cost.

What is our key takeaway? Business model evolution drives skill transformation.

For CCAM, this implies that:

  • Skills foresight must be closely linked to business model development.
  • Inclusive design is essential, especially for users with limited digital skills or special needs.
  • Alternatives to fully digital access (e.g. phone-based booking) remain crucial 

Case Study 3 - Climate Jobs (Solar Power): Reskilling Is Systemic, Not Optional 

The solar energy transition highlights a common misconception: new technologies don’t necessarily create entirely new jobs, but they rather transform existing ones. Electricians, technicians, and engineers active in the solar sector are becoming “greener,” but require continuous upskilling. Yet participation in training, especially among SMEs, remains low. Encouragingly, the sector also shows:

  • Increasing gender diversity
  • Opportunities to integrate marginalised groups into the workforce

Our key takeaways are that reskilling must be continuous, inclusive, and accessible.

For CCAM, this implies that:

  • SMEs must be actively involved early in training design
  • Training should go beyond technical skills to include safety, inclusion, and social aspects
  • New target groups should be addressed through evolving job profiles

Case Study 4 - Energy Transition (Coal Phase-Out): Transitions Are Social Processes 

The coal phase-out in Europe and elsewhere underscores that transitions are not just technological; they are deeply political and social.

Despite substantial funding, challenges remain:

  • Mismatches between where jobs are lost and created
  • Overemphasis on economic subsidies vs. skills development
  • Insufficient attention to gender and inclusivity

At the same time, new forms of stakeholder engagement have emerged, highlighting the importance of participation and transparency in transition processes.

Key takeaway for is is that, without inclusive, participatory governance, transitions risk losing legitimacy. 

For CCAM:

  • Regional differences must be taken seriously
  • Skill mapping can help anticipate local impacts
  • Broad stakeholder involvement is essential to foster ownership and acceptance

What does it all mean for CCAM?

Across all of our cases, a common theme emerges: technological change succeeds only when social, economic, and human dimensions are addressed together/jointly.

For the CCAM transition, this means:

  • Designing for acceptance, not just efficiency
  • Linking business models with skills development
  • Embedding inclusive and continuous reskilling systems
  • Ensuring transparent, participatory governance
  • The future of mobility is not just about automation, it’s about people. 

Engage with us! What do you think will be the biggest barrier to CCAM adoption: technology, skills, or acceptance?