According to a typical definition, a social institution is “a complex of positions, roles, norms and values lodged in particular types of social structures and organising relatively stable patterns of human activity with respect to fundamental problems in producing life-sustaining resources, in reproducing individuals, and in sustaining viable societal structures within a given environment.” References to humans and life aside, this provides several important questions, in which I focus on two: First, can robots hold significant positions or have roles? Second, are they subject to norms and values, and do they take part in the social construction of the same? After answering these questions partially in the affirmative, I examine the requirements that must be met before robots can be perceived as fully in social institutions. If these requirements are met, I argue that social robots can indeed be in social institutions conducive to meeting fundamental needs and sustaining viable societal structures. Finally, I argue that meeting the most important requirements rely on design choices that can potentially be made with existing technologies. Meeting the requirements would potentially allow social robots a different social standing, but designers and regulators also have good reasons not to design—or allow robots to be designed—in such ways.