ISO 10218 (2025) Update: Key Changes for Robotic and Safety Engineers

Introduction

Ensuring your collaborative robot systems comply with ISO 10218 standards is crucial for both safety and operational efficiency. With the 2025 update, robotic and safety engineers must adapt to new safety guidelines, testing protocols, and risk assessment methods to remain compliant.

The new ISO 10218 update introduces:

• Stronger safety requirements for integrated control systems.
• Enhanced risk assessment protocols with stricter evaluation criteria.
• New testing tools and procedures designed to ensure safer interactions between robots and human operators.

🌟 Key Questions for Robotic and Safety Engineers: To assess your readiness for the ISO 10218 (2025) update, consider the following:

✅ Are your robot’s safety systems designed for proactive hazard detection?

✅ Are your risk assessment methods aligned with the latest requirements?

✅ Have you updated your testing protocols to meet the new standards?

By the end of this guide, you’ll understand the most significant changes in ISO 10218:2025, along with practical steps to ensure compliance.

1. Integrated Cobot Safety Guidelines

One of the most significant updates in ISO 10218:2025 is the full integration of collaborative robot (cobot) safety guidelines directly into the main standard.

Simplified Compliance with ISO 10218:2025

This integration simplifies compliance. Robotic and safety engineers no longer need to switch between documents; all key cobot safety provisions — including definitions, modes of collaboration, and human-robot interaction limits — are now contained within ISO 10218-2:2025.

Key Improvements Over Previous Standards

ISO 10218-2:2025 now defines collaborative operation modes that were previously implied or informally addressed. New dedicated sections (e.g., Section 5.14) formally define:

👉 Hand-Guided Control (HGC)

👉 Speed and Separation Monitoring (SSM)

👉 Power and Force Limiting (PFL)

ISO 10218-2:2025 explicitly defines safe collaborative workspaces, transitions between safeguarded and collaborative states, and guidance for designing mixed-mode operations.

Biomechanical Limits and Cobot Design Criteria

ISO 10218-2:2025 adopts the human injury thresholds from ISO/TS 15066, covering 29 body regions, each with specific force and pressure limits during robot-human contact. Robotic engineers must now proactively assess cobot design against these thresholds.

For example:

👉 Selecting cobots with low inertia and rounded edges.

👉 Limiting speeds and specifying tooling that avoids sharp corners or pinch points.

👉 Ensuring contact forces remain below the biomechanical injury thresholds — a requirement that is now mandatory rather than recommended.

Impact on Robotic and Safety Engineers

By embedding collaborative safety directly into ISO 10218:2025, the new standard simplifies cobot system design but also raises the bar for compliance.

Key actions required from engineers:

• Conducting force and pressure analysis for collaborative applications.
• Selecting appropriate safety-rated cobots and supplementary protective measures.
• Redesigning existing cobot systems that may no longer meet these explicit limits.

2. New Testing Tools and Methods

The revised ISO 10218:2025 emphasizes clear and measurable verification of safety systems, making functional safety requirements more explicit rather than implied. Engineers are now required to rigorously test that all safety-related control functions in the robot cell perform as intended and meet specified reliability levels.

ISO 10218:2025 references updated machine functional safety standards like ISO 13849-1:2023 and IEC 62061, aligning with defined Performance Levels (PL) and Safety Integrity Levels (SIL) for control systems. For example, an emergency stop or protective stop must now meet a minimum PLd and adhere to structured stop categories (e.g., Stop Category 0, 1, or 2 per IEC 60204-1).

To support these requirements, modern tools such as safety function test kits (for measuring stop times and safety distances) and PL/SIL calculation software are now vital for effective testing. By ensuring safety circuits meet precise timing and distance criteria, engineers can confidently identify potential issues before commissioning.

Collaborative Robot Validation (Force & Separation Testing)

With collaborative operation limits now standardized, ISO 10218:2025 introduces concrete test methods for validating cobot system safety.

Annexes in ISO 10218-2:2025 provide structured test protocols for:

• Speed and Separation Monitoring (SSM)
• Power and Force Limiting (PFL)

For SSM, Annex L outlines how to calculate and test the minimum separation distance between the robot and human, ensuring safety sensors trigger speed reduction or stops at the correct distance. For example, if a person walks toward a cobot in a fenceless cell, vision systems or laser scanners must slow or stop the robot before contact occurs.

For PFL, ISO 10218-2 incorporates test methods adapted from RIA TR R15.806-2018. Engineers can now:

• Use specialized biofidelic sensors to measure collision forces and pressures.
• Conduct theoretical calculations using provided formulas to define safe speeds and torques.

Cybersecurity Testing and Safeguards

For the first time, ISO 10218:2025 introduces cybersecurity considerations to protect robot systems from safety-compromising cyber threats. Engineers must now implement safeguards to ensure secure access to robot controllers and safety-critical settings.

Recommended cybersecurity practices include:

• Configuring unique passwords for robot controllers.
• Using network segmentation or firewalls to isolate robot control networks.
• Verifying that safety PLCs enter a safe state if communication fails.

Implications for Robotic and Safety Engineers

The new testing methodologies require engineers to invest in updated tools, training, and verification practices. These clearer guidelines ensure safer cobot deployment and improved accountability.

📋 Checklist for Robotic and Safety Engineers:

✅ Conduct detailed acceptance tests to confirm safety circuits and stopping distances.

✅ Use biofidelic sensors or calculated values for PFL validation.

✅ Verify that safety PLC logic meets fail-safe design principles.

✅ Implement cybersecurity best practices to secure robot control systems.

✅ Update risk assessment protocols to include functional safety and cyber threat considerations.

3. Revised Risk Assessment Protocols

Risk assessment remains the cornerstone of robot system safety, and the revised ISO 10218 enhances and clarifies the process, especially for collaborative applications. Robotic and safety engineers will find more detailed guidance on identifying and mitigating risks in the new standard compared to its predecessor.

Emphasis on “Robot Application” Scope

ISO 10218:2025 expands the scope of risk assessment beyond the robot system itself, now requiring evaluation of the full robot application. This includes:

• The robot arm.
• Workpieces and fixtures.
• Task programs and surrounding equipment.

By expanding the assessment scope, ISO 10218 ensures risks tied to the entire robotic environment are considered — not just the robot itself.

Collaborative Scenario Risk Evaluation

ISO 10218:2025 introduces new requirements for analyzing risks when humans and robots share workspaces. Section 4.3.2 mandates a thorough evaluation of potential human-robot contact scenarios, including:

• Quasi-static contacts: Where a person could be trapped or clamped by the robot against a fixed object.
• Transient contacts: Dynamic impacts in free space.

The revised standard requires engineers to:

✅ Identify potential contact points.
✅ Evaluate force and pressure limits for each contact type.
✅ Implement safeguards such as speed reduction or padding where needed.

This expanded assessment ensures collaborative risks are proactively managed rather than relying on assumptions about cobot safety.

Incorporation of Manual Operations and Tooling Hazards

ISO 10218:2025 integrates content from ISO/TR 20218-1 and ISO/TR 20218-2, adding specific risk assessment requirements for:

✅ Manual load/unload stations.
✅ End-of-arm tooling (EOAT).

This broader assessment ensures previously overlooked hazards are now accounted for during design and implementation.

Process and Documentation

While the core risk assessment process (hazard identification, risk estimation, reduction, and documentation) still follows ISO 12100 principles, ISO 10218:2025 expects:

✅ More comprehensive documentation.
✅ Detailed analysis for collaborative scenarios.
✅ Inclusion of cybersecurity risks.

Risk assessment reports should now include:

• Electrical hazards.
• Crushing/impact risks.
• Entanglement hazards.
• Collaborative contact analysis.
• Cybersecurity risks.

This enhanced documentation ensures greater accountability and clarity during system commissioning.

Cybersecurity in Risk Assessment

ISO 10218:2025 adds cybersecurity as part of risk assessment, requiring integrators to account for control system vulnerabilities that could compromise safety.

Engineers should:

✅ Identify potential cyber threats (e.g., malicious changes to robot speed settings).
✅ Implement safeguards like authenticated access and E-stop dominance in case of network failure.
✅ Verify that robot systems enter a safe state if communication fails.

Checklist for Robotic and Safety Engineers

✅ Expand risk assessments to include robot applications, not just robot systems.

✅ Assess collaborative scenarios for quasi-static and transient contact risks.

✅ Document hazards introduced by EOAT, manual operations, and workpieces.

✅ Conduct cybersecurity threat assessments as part of overall safety validation.

✅ Produce detailed risk documentation aligned with ISO 10218:2025 expectations.

4. Industry Adoption and Challenges

The updated ISO 10218 standard arrives at a time of rapid growth in robotics across many industries. Its adoption is expected to be broad, but integrators and end-users face both opportunities and challenges in implementing the new requirements. This section explores how different industries are responding and the key hurdles in compliance.

Adoption Trends across Industries:

Collaborative robots have been a driving force behind increased robot adoption beyond traditional automotive manufacturing. In fact, as of 2023 cobots accounted for about 10.5% of all industrial robot installations worldwide. Early adopters of cobots include automotive and electronics manufacturers, but usage is expanding to aerospace, consumer goods, pharmaceuticals, logistics, and other sectors seeking flexible automation. These industries are attracted by cobots’ ability to work side-by-side with humans, enabling automation in processes that couldn’t be fully fenced off. The integration of cobot safety guidelines into ISO 10218 comes as a welcome support for this trend – it provides a clear safety framework that can be applied across these varied sectors. Companies that were cautious about deploying cobots (perhaps due to safety uncertainty) now have a more solid reference to design their applications. For example, small and medium-sized manufacturers (SMMs) see cobots as a “quick entry into automation” that don’t require expensive safety fencing. The updated standards ensure that even fenceless implementations have a high safety baseline, which could further encourage adoption. Industry experts note that updated standards are shifting the philosophy from “keeping people away from robots” to “keeping people safe with robots,” reflecting a broader acceptance of human-robot coexistence in the workplace.

Integration into ANSI R15.06 and Regional Uptake:

In North America, the adoption of the ISO revisions will be mediated through ANSI/RIA R15.06 (for the U.S.) and CSA Z434 (Canada). Both are in the process of being updated to align with ISO 10218:2025. The U.S. update is expected as a new edition of R15.06, likely adding a Part 3 for user requirements (since ISO standards themselves only cover manufacturer and integrator responsibilities). Industry associations like A3 (Association for Advancing Automation) are actively communicating these changes and encouraging companies to start aligning their safety processes with the new standard ahead of formal national adoption. There is generally strong support for the revisions among large industrial players, who often had internal safety programs anticipating collaborative robot risks. Many have been following ISO/TS 15066 already; for them the new integrated standard simply codifies what they practiced. For smaller integrators or new entrants, the revisions can be a bit daunting at first, but the consensus is that they “enhance clarity and usability, making compliance more straightforward” once understood. In other words, although there’s more content to digest, it’s laid out in a way that’s easier to apply correctly.

Challenges for Integrators:

Despite the overall positive reception, integrators face several challenges in complying with the updated standard:

• Knowledge and Training: The expanded scope means there is more for integrators to learn – from understanding biomechanical injury criteria to basic cybersecurity practices. A lack of expertise is a concern, especially for smaller integrators or those new to collaborative robotics. Research by NIST found that many small manufacturers struggle with robotics integration due to “lack of sufficient knowledge of the capabilities and limitations of robots” and safety standards. This knowledge gap extends to integrators who serve those clients. To address this, training programs are ramping up; for instance, A3 and other organizations offer courses (including risk assessment training and the International Robot Safety Conference) to educate integrators on the new requirements. Robot manufacturers (like Universal Robots via their UR Academy) are also providing safety training modules. The challenge is in scaling up this education quickly so that all integrators, not just large ones, can competently apply the new standard.
• Investment in Tools and Technology: Complying with the updated testing and validation methods often necessitates new tools. Many integrators will need to acquire or access force measurement devices, 3D safety simulation software, calibrated pressure sensors, and network security tools. There may also be costs in implementing more advanced safety systems – for example, using vision systems for SSM or dual-channel safety PLCs for higher PL requirements where previously a simpler solution sufficed. As noted in one industry analysis, meeting the new standard’s provisions (like continuous monitoring of collaborative metrics or enhanced cybersecurity) “may require investments in updated sensors, AI-driven monitoring systems, and advanced safety barriers”.  Smaller integrators might find these costs challenging, potentially leading them to partner with safety consultants or rent equipment when needed. Over time, however, the market is likely to respond with more affordable, integrator-friendly solutions (for example, turnkey force-testing kits or built-in robot safety diagnostics) to ease this burden.
• Compliance Complexity and Documentation: The sheer thoroughness required can be seen as a hurdle. Some integrators might be tempted to see the new standard as bureaucratic – an example being the case of an OEM project where a machine builder initially “took exception to supposedly nebulous ‘safety standards’”and delivered a cobot system without fully complying. That project had to be halted and re-evaluated for safety compliance, causing delays. This illustrates a real challenge: ensuring all integrators take the standards seriously and implement them from the start, rather than treating them as optional. There is also the workload of producing extensive risk assessment reports and technical files for each system. Integrators must allocate time and resources for documentation (which clients may or may not directly pay for). However, the risk of not doing so is high – not only in safety but also legal liability if an incident occurs and the integrator cannot show compliance. Forward-looking integrators have started to streamline this process by developing standard templates and libraries of hazards, using software to generate risk assessment documentation, and incorporating compliance checks into their project management.
• Keeping Pace with Updates: The environment of robot safety is dynamic. With ISO 10218:2025 setting a new baseline, integrators must stay alert for further updates or related standards (for example, ISO 10218 might spur updates in ISO 13850 (Emergency stop) or sector-specific guidelines). Some may face a learning curve now and then have to adapt again when ANSI R15.06 formally updates or if regulators (like OSHA or EU regulators) integrate these standards into law or guidelines. Essentially, a challenge is change management – migrating internal processes from the 2011-era standard to the 2025 requirements. Companies that treat safety standards as living documents, updating their internal protocols regularly, will cope better than those who treat compliance as a one-time checkbox.

Opportunities and Industry Responses:

On the flip side, the updated standard offers opportunities. For integrators, being adept with ISO 10218:2025 can be a competitive advantage – clients will prefer those who can ensure compliance and state-of-the-art safety. It also opens up new service offerings; for example, some integrators or third-party specialists now offer “safety validation as a service” using the latest methods (performing independent risk assessments and validation tests for cobot cells). Industry-wide, there is optimism that clearer standards will further accelerate robot adoption because they reduce uncertainty. As one robotics safety expert put it, “These updates bring much-needed clarity and structure, making it easier for companies to integrate robotics with confidence… ensuring innovation and safety go hand in hand.” Sectors like logistics and warehousing, which have recently begun using cobots for pick-and-place and palletizing, are rapidly learning and applying these guidelines to ensure their deployments are as safe as traditional industrial cells.

Another trend is that end-user companies are increasingly expecting integrators to deliver not just a working robot system, but a complete safety package including risk assessment documentation and training. This is becoming the norm – as noted earlier, many integrators now include this by default. In effect, the bar for what constitutes a “finished” automation project now includes compliance with ISO 10218:2025. Integrators embracing this find that it builds trust with customers and can shorten approval times (since the customer’s safety engineers are presented with clear evidence of compliance). Those who neglect it may find their projects held up or rejected by safety audits, as illustrated by the OEM case study above (where a retrofit was needed to comply).

In summary, industry adoption of ISO 10218’s revisions is underway, guided by aligning ANSI standards and advocacy from organizations like A3. While integrators face challenges in education, tool investments, and thorough compliance work, the changes are largely seen as positive and necessary given the growth of collaborative robotics. The updated standard provides a common safety language that, once mastered, helps integrators deploy robots in more environments (including high-mix production and close human-robot teamwork) with confidence that they are meeting global best practices. The near-term challenge is ensuring the integrator community is fully up to speed; the long-term payoff is a safer work environment and broader acceptance of robots across industries.

5. Practical Implementation – Integrator Use Cases and Best Practices

Implementing collaborative robots under the new ISO 10218:2025 framework involves careful planning and adherence to best practices throughout design, integration, and commissioning. Below are real-world examples and distilled best practices that illustrate how integrators can successfully meet the updated standard in practical applications.

Case Example 1 – Fenceless Assembly with Cobot Assist: A global OEM attempted to roll out a series of fenceless collaborative assembly stations using cobots across 12 plants. Initially, a custom machine builder delivered the systems quickly but without fully applying the safety standards, assuming the cobots were “presumed safe” out-of-the-box. This led the OEM to question the safety and call in experts. A safety engineering firm performed a gap analysis against ISO 10218-2 and RIA TR15.606 and found several non-compliances. For instance, they discovered absence of proper safety stops, and that no formal risk assessment had been done for scenarios where workers’ heads or upper bodies entered the cobot work envelope. The corrective actions included adding area scanners that enforce SSM (slow the robot when an operator comes too close), installing emergency stop pull-cords accessible from anywhere in the cell, and configuring the cobot’s built-in force limit to a lower threshold since the original speed caused forces above ISO limits in some cases. They also standardized a risk assessment process for each station before duplication. Lesson learned: even if using “collaborative” robots, integrators must systematically apply the standards – including validating safety functions and documenting risks – before declaring a system safe. Skipping those steps can lead to costly retrofits. A best practice is to perform a proof-of-concept safety evaluation on the first cell of a multi-cell deployment. This includes measuring collision forces with a sensor (to confirm PFL settings), reviewing reach envelopes for pinch points, and engaging an independent safety expert if needed. Once that initial cell passes all ISO 10218 criteria, the design can be replicated, saving time and ensuring compliance for all subsequent cells.

Case Example 2 – Collaborative Palletizing in Logistics: Groupe TAQ, a not-for-profit enterprise in Quebec, integrated a collaborative palletizing system (“TOMA” cobot solution) to handle 10-pound boxes, aiming to reduce physical strain on their employees. The integrator (an authorized solution partner) delivered an out-of-the-box cobot cell that achieved immediate improvements: it could “easily and efficiently” stack 2,000–3,000 boxes per day and be moved around to different lines as needed. From a safety standpoint, this deployment followed key best practices aligned with the new standard. First, a thorough risk assessment was conducted focusing on ergonomics and safety – the primary “challenge” was to eliminate the injury risks from heavy lifting while not introducing new hazards with the robot. The integrator implemented a power-and-force limiting cobot arm with a custom gripper that had rounded edges and a secure grip on boxes to avoid drops. They programmed conservative speeds since high throughput was not required; the cobot moved within the ISO allowable force limits at all times. To protect nearby workers, they marked a collaborative workspace on the floor and trained staff to not place any body part under a moving box. Because the application involved a known payload (boxes of fixed weight), they used the ISO formulas to calculate a safe maximum speed for transient contact, and set the robot’s speed limit in the controller accordingly. Additionally, the system featured a simple 3-position enable switch for the operator when working next to the robot (a hold-to-run control that immediately stops the cobot if released or fully pressed). According to the case, “ensuring health and well-being” of workers was paramount, and indeed no injuries were reported after the cobot integration – instead, employees previously rotating through strenuous manual palletizing were reassigned to less risky tasks. Best practice highlights: design collaborative applications to remove drudgery and reduce risk, verify that the robot’s safety settings (speeds, forces) are appropriate for the heaviest item it will handle, and incorporate safety stops or enablers for any manual intervention. This example also shows the value of an out-of-the-box solution that likely was pre-engineered to meet standards, which can simplify compliance for the integrator (since the solution provider already took care of many safety design elements).

Case Example 3 – Human-Robot Shared Workstation (Electronics Assembly): In a small electronics assembly shop, an integrator deployed a cobot to work on a task where a human operator also performs fine assembly. They set up a shared workstation: one side for the worker, the other side where the cobot screws in parts and fetches components. Under the new framework, the integrator followed a set of “rules of thumb” to inherently design safety into this collaborative cell. They limited the cobot’s maximum speed to about 250 mm/s whenever the operator’s presence was detected in the shared area, well below the 1.5 m/s default limit, providing a large safety margin. They also used soft covers on the tool and robot arm and ensured no sharp edges anywhere within reach of the operator. The layout was arranged so that any approach by the operator into the robot’s side triggers a light curtain that switches the robot to slow speed (SSM mode) – effectively a hybrid between full collaboration and safeguarding. During the risk assessment, two potential pinch points were identified between the robot arm and the table; to mitigate these, the integrator added simple curved guards at those spots so a hand cannot be trapped. For functional safety, they used a safety-rated controller which was configured and tested to SIL 2/PLd for the stop functions (exceeding the minimum needed). Once installed, they performed a validation test: using a handheld dynamometer, they manually triggered a collision with the robot at various speeds to ensure the force never exceeded safe levels for an arm impact (this was done by one of the integrator’s engineers who had protective gear, to fine-tune PFL settings). They documented all these tests and provided the customer with a user manual containing instructions on safe operation, maintenance tips (e.g. periodically check the light curtain and the robot’s force sensor calibration), and the risk assessment report. The outcome was a smoothly running shared cell that met production goals. The operator reported feeling comfortable working with the cobot, which is a testament to designing not just for safety on paper but also for perceived safety and ergonomics. Best practices from this scenario: Use a combination of engineering controls (physical guards, safety sensors) even in a collaborative setup – cobots are safe, but additional layers often improve safety and productivity. Always involve the end-user (operators) in the risk assessment and design; their feedback can catch practical issues (like awkward reaches or visibility problems) that, if unaddressed, could lead to unsafe workarounds. And finally, don’t skimp on testing – verifying the system’s safety functions under real conditions gave both the integrator and the customer confidence that the cell met the ISO 10218 requirements in practice, not just in theory.

General Best Practices Checklist:

Drawing from the above examples and industry guidance, below is a checklist of best practices for integrators implementing collaborative robots under the new standard:

• Perform Comprehensive Risk Assessments Early: Start the risk assessment in the design phase. Identify all tasks (normal operation, maintenance, etc.) and hazards (robot motion, EOAT, workpiece, environment). Use the ISO 10218-2:2025 framework to cover collaborative scenarios, manual interactions, and new areas like cybersecurity. Iteratively refine the design to eliminate or mitigate hazards before build. Tip: Many integrators now include a risk assessment as a deliverable – treating it as a living document from proposal to final acceptance.
• Apply the Integrated Cobot Safety Measures: If the application is collaborative, ensure inherent design safety: low inertia robot or low speeds, smooth surfaces, minimizing any exposed pinch points. Design the cell layout to avoid trapping spaces around the robot. Plan for how a human will enter/exit the collaborative space safely (“transitions”). Implement the appropriate collaboration mode (or combination) – e.g. PFL by itself, or SSM with sensors and dynamic slowdown. Use ISO/TS 15066 data (now in ISO 10218) to set limits – for example, if the cobot could contact a person’s torso, know the force limit (~170 N for transient torso contact) and program the robot’s speed/torque limits accordingly.
• Verify Safety Functionality: Use a testing plan to validate all safety functions. This means checking that E-stops immediately remove power (Stop Category 0), safety-rated soft axis limits or virtual fences are correctly configured, and that any guarding or presence detection works as intended. Validate the safety distances for sensors using Annex L calculations – e.g. measure the robot’s stopping time and ensure the scanner’s minimum distance covers that. If using hand-guided programming, ensure the hand-guided device has a compliant safety device (enabling switch) and test its response.
• Use Proper Tools for PFL Testing: If power-and-force limiting is in use, plan to test it. Many integrators partner with firms that have certified pressure measurement tools (per Annex N/RIA TR15.806) to do a formal validation test at the end. If that’s not feasible, do at least a qualitative test with a spring scale or similar, and keep robot speeds very conservative to stay in known safe ranges. Document the results.
• Address End-Effector and Workpiece Hazards: Don’t ignore the gripper/tool and the payload. Use fail-safe grippers that won’t drop objects in a loss of power (or implement a secondary catch mechanism if dropping is a risk). Avoid tools that have exposed sharp edges or pinch regions; add guards or shields as needed. If the robot handles a tool that could injure on contact (like a deburring tool), ensure it’s only active in safeguarded conditions or shielded. For any manual load station, put clear markings and consider light curtains or two-hand controls to ensure the robot is stopped when an operator is in the station.
• Incorporate Cybersecurity Safeguards: Simple measures can go a long way: use unique login credentials for the robot controller and teach pendant, limit network access (no direct internet unless behind a firewall/VPN), and disable unused communication ports. Ensure that critical safety parameters cannot be altered by program logic or external devices without proper authorization. It’s wise to treat the robot cell network as part of the plant’s secure network segment, following the IT department’s guidance. While ISO 10218 doesn’t mandate specific IT solutions, integrators should at least note in their risk assessment that they considered cyber risks and implemented protections.
• Document and Educate: Provide thorough documentation to the end user. This includes the risk assessment report, instructions for use (as per ISO 10218’s info for use requirements), maintenance schedules for safety components, and training for operators and maintenance staff. Make sure to communicate any limitations of the system – e.g. “Robot must not be modified to carry heavier payload without re-evaluation” or “If network configuration changes, a safety revalidation is required.” Many accidents stem from lack of knowledge on the user side, so integrators should bridge that gap with training sessions and easy-to-understand manuals.

By following these best practices, integrators can develop collaborative robot installations that not only comply with ISO 10218:2025 and ANSI R15.06, but also genuinely enhance productivity and safety. As one industry expert aptly said, “Our goal has always been to ensure that innovation and safety go hand in hand. These newly revised standards deliver on that promise.”  Real-world use cases are already demonstrating that with the right approach, humans and robots can work together efficiently and safely. Integrators, as the critical link between technology and application, play a pivotal role in this journey – and the updated standard is a powerful tool to guide successful outcomes.

Sources:

1. Association for Advancing Automation (A3) – “Updated ISO 10218: Major Advancements in Industrial Robot Safety Standards Now Available”
2. The Manufacturing Connection – “Updated Safety Standard for Industrial Robotics” (Feb 17, 2025)
3. ISO 10218-2:2025 Introduction (Preview)
4. Workplace Material Handling & Safety – “The Latest in Robot Safety Standards”
5. MDPI Robotics Journal – Villani et al., “Assessing Safety in Physical Human–Robot Interaction…” (2023)
6. Smart Robotics Blog – “How to realize safe collaboration with cobots”
7. Universal Robots Blog – “The Risk Assessment: Complex, Challenging, And Absolutely Required” (Jan 28, 2024)
8. Manufacturing Today – “Industrial Robot Safety Gets a Major Upgrade with ISO 10218 Changes”
9. International Federation of Robotics (IFR) – “Collaborative Robots – How Robots Work Alongside Humans”
10. Machine Safety Specialists Case Study (A3 Robotics) – “Collaborative Robot System”