Reshaping the market for robotics
Arthur Bellamy, Chief Revenue Officer at Exotec
US foreign-made robotics crackdown could give Chinese suppliers a bigger opening in Europe, says Exotec. The new rules have the potential to reshape competition without immediately disrupting existing robotic systems.
The FCC recently tightened US rules concerning foreign-made robotics. The new rules will not automatically ban European robotics systems authorised for sale and use in the US. But the measures are set to hit robotic companies selling into the US hard, as suppliers now have to consider where their systems are manufactured, their supply chain and structure and if they can meet the new security and regulatory requirements.
The new rules have emerged in line with Washington’s tougher stance on Chinese technology suppliers, and many worry the changes will elevate competition between US, European and Chinese robotics companies.
According to French warehouse robotics company Exotec, the new measures could create significant implications beyond the US market and could make Europe an attractive destination for Chinese suppliers.
Arthur Bellamy, Chief Revenue Officer at Exotec, claims that “The FCC’s new measures do not create an immediate disruption to the sale, operation or support of currently authorised European robotic systems in the United States. They primarily affect new foreign-produced mobile robots that require a new FCC authorisation. Existing authorised systems can continue to operate under the current rules, and many European companies are monitoring developments closely.
“While the measure appears to be driven in significant part by concerns about Chinese suppliers, the FCC framework is not designed to target individual countries. Any differentiated treatment is instead handled through discretionary approval or exemption processes.
“For European robotics suppliers, the impact will depend on the type of product, where it is manufactured and whether it already has the required US authorisations. European companies should not assume that their origin alone provides an exemption. At the same time, suppliers with transparent supply chains, strong cybersecurity and reliable long-term service capabilities may be well positioned as customers place greater emphasis on resilience and trust.
“Previous FCC measures on drones provide a useful comparison: the FCC has granted conditional approvals to companies including Mobilicom (Israel) or AIR6 Systems (Austria and Germany), while none has been established for Chinese companies. This suggests that regulatory treatment may depend not only on the product itself, but also on the ability to demonstrate trust, supply-chain transparency and alignment with US security requirements.
“The US measures could make Europe a relatively more attractive market for some non-US suppliers, especially Chinese manufacturers. However, it is too early to say that they will lead to a significant increase in Chinese competition in Europe. Market outcomes will also depend on cybersecurity, data governance, service capabilities, quality and total cost of ownership.”
Europe has not introduced a blanket ban on foreign-made warehouse robots. The European approach is currently more targeted, combining safety and cybersecurity requirements with additional scrutiny in areas such as critical infrastructure, public procurement and foreign investment.
“However, Europe should not focus only on security risks,” added Bellamy. “It should also address the risk of structurally distorted competition. State support, preferential financing and other structural advantages can allow foreign products to enter the market at prices that are difficult for European companies to match, putting European industrial capacity and value creation under pressure. European companies and consumers can be tempted by low upfront prices without fully accounting for the long-term consequences. This short-sighted approach can transfer design, technology, margins and industrial value outside Europe, increase dependence on foreign suppliers and ultimately weaken Europe’s own industrial base and purchasing power. What appears to be a saving at the point of purchase can become a much larger economic cost over time.
“Partnerships such as the one between Stellantis and Leapmotor show how a Chinese automotive company can reach European customers through established European brands, distribution networks and industrial infrastructure. Even when products are assembled in Europe, the underlying design, technology and a significant share of the value creation can remain outside Europe.
“The same issue is critical in logistics, where customers can purchase a complete automation solution from well-known European providers such as SSI Schäfer or TGW, even though their catalogues can include solutions developed or manufactured by Chinese companies. By presenting those solutions through a recognised European brand or integrator, they can be perceived by customers as European offerings, even when the underlying technology, manufacturing origin, ownership and value creation remain predominantly Chinese.
“Europe should therefore combine security and resilience requirements with stronger tools to assess subsidies, ownership, supply-chain transparency and product origin. Where products cannot demonstrate adequate security, transparency or fair competitive conditions, targeted procurement safeguards or restrictions on market access should be available.
“The objective should not be to exclude foreign suppliers as a category, but to prevent structurally distorted competition from undermining Europe’s industrial and technological capabilities,” concluded Bellamy.
