On 7 September 2026, the European Commission published a decision that most design teams in robotics will never read. Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2026/2015 added EN ISO 10218-1:2025 and EN ISO 10218-2:2025 to the list of harmonised standards under the Machinery Directive. The two documents are the core safety standards for industrial robots and robot applications.

What makes this interesting for designers is a vocabulary change. According to A3, the US robotics association, "the terms 'collaborative robot' and 'collaborative operation' will not be found in the revised ISO 10218." The standard now speaks of the "collaborative application" instead.

Meanwhile, the industry has kept its language. The International Federation of Robotics, in its World Robotics 2026 press presentation, still reports that "collaborative robot installations establish at 11% of industrial robots." In my experience, datasheets, trade-fair walls and plenty of cell HMIs still say cobot, sometimes with a mode button called something like "Cobot mode".

My view is that this gap is not a matter of pedantry. It is a design problem, and it sits on the screens, in the manuals and in the marketing that designers own.

What actually changed in ISO 10218:2025

ISO published the revised ISO 10218-1 in February 2025, replacing the 2011 edition. Part 1 covers industrial robots. Part 2 covers industrial robot applications and robot cells. In the US, A3 and ANSI published R15.06-2025 in September 2025, which A3 describes as adapted from the two ISO parts.

The changes that matter for anyone who writes labels, screens or claims:

• Collaboration moved from the product to the application. A3's announcement of R15.06-2025 explains why the term was dropped: "human-robot collaboration relates to the application and not to the robot alone."

• Collaborative technologies are named, not implied. Todd Dickey, chair of the R15.06 drafting subcommittee, lists them as "hand-guiding controls, speed and separation monitoring, and power and force limiting."

• A familiar function got a new name. "Safety-rated monitored stop" is now "monitored standstill", and according to A3 it applies to both collaborative and non-collaborative applications.

• ISO/TS 15066 content moved into the main series. A3 states that collaborative application content from ISO/TS 15066 was folded into Part 2. ISO itself lists ISO/TS 15066:2016 as "to be revised", to be replaced by a new ISO 15066-1 that is under development.

• Robots now have classes. A paper by researchers at INAIL, Italy's National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work, summarises the Class I criteria: a manipulator mass of 10 kg or less, a maximum tool centre point speed of 250 mm/s or less, and a maximum force of 50 N or less. IBF Solutions describes Class II as covering "all other industrial robots", which "should therefore include the vast majority."

• Safety functions and cybersecurity became explicit. A3 says the 2025 revision made "functional safety requirements more explicit rather than implied" and added "cybersecurity requirements pertaining to industrial robot safety."

Two quotes from the people who wrote the US adoption sum up the intent. Dickey says the term "collaborative robot" "has mistakenly become synonymous with robots utilizing power and force limiting technology." Bill Edwards of Yaskawa Motoman, vice chair of the same subcommittee, puts it plainly: "It is the entire Collaborative application that must be safe."

Figure 1: Old terms and their ISO 10218:2025 / R15.06-2025 equivalents. Terminology from A3 (R15.06-2025 announcement including Todd Dickey, and ISO 10218 FAQ) and INAIL (Ferraro, Freda, Pera, ESREL 2025). HMI label suggestions: author's view.

Why the September listing changes the timing

The 2025 standards have been available for a year and a half. So why care now?

Because a harmonised standard does something a published standard does not. IBF Solutions summarises it: with their references in the Official Journal, the 2025 editions "are therefore now harmonised standards under the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC," and their application "provides a presumption of conformity with the essential health and safety requirements."

That window is short. Decision 2026/2015 repeals the previous list, Decision 2023/1586, with effect from 20 January 2027, when references under the Machinery Directive cease to have legal effect and the Machinery Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 takes over. Standards Drift, an independent record of EU harmonised standards lists, gives 20 January 2027 as the end of legal effect for EN ISO 10218-1:2025 under this decision. The Commission is preparing a new list under the Regulation; Safety Software reports that "the first list should be published before the end of 2026."

For engineering, this is a transition to manage. For design, I read it as a deadline in disguise. The vocabulary of the standard that now carries presumption of conformity is the vocabulary that auditors, integrators and safety engineers will increasingly use. If your interface, your manual and your trade-fair video speak a different language, someone will have to translate at the worst possible moment: during a risk assessment, an acceptance test or an incident review.

Figure 2: Key dates. Sources: ISO, A3, EUR-Lex (Decision 2026/2015), Standards Drift, Safety Software, EU-OSHA.

Where the old vocabulary hides

In my experience, "cobot" lives in three places at once, and each is owned by a different team.

1. The HMI

A mode button labelled "Cobot mode" or "Collaborative mode" tells the operator something the standard no longer supports: that the robot itself is the safe thing. It does not say which collaborative technology is active, what its limits are, or under which conditions the cell leaves that state.

A better label describes the application state. "Power and force limiting active." "Speed and separation monitoring: reduced speed, person in zone." "Monitored standstill." These are longer, so they need design work: abbreviations agreed with safety engineering, iconography that does not suggest a friendly robot, and a status area that shows what triggers the change. The test I use is simple. Could an operator explain, from the screen alone, why the robot is allowed to move near them right now?

2. The documentation

The current Machinery Directive already has a sentence aimed at marketing. Annex I, section 1.7.4.3 states: "Sales literature describing the machinery must not contradict the instructions as regards health and safety aspects."

Picture a robot cell whose instructions say a collaborative application requires a risk assessment of the whole cell, including the tool and the workpiece. Now picture the brochure for the same cell showing a person working beside the arm, no guarding, under the headline "safe by design". Those two documents are telling different stories about health and safety. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but as a designer I would not want my layout to be the evidence.

3. The visuals

This is where my own work sits: 3D animations, product renders, trade-fair LED walls. I find that visuals make claims faster than copy does. A render of an operator handing a part to an arm with a sharp gripper, no visible safeguard and no indication of speed or force limits, implies a collaborative application that may never have been assessed.

The fix is not to stop showing people next to robots. It is to show the application honestly: the active collaborative technology, the zone layout, the tool, and the speed. A cell in monitored standstill with a person inside the zone is a true and compelling image. A smiling worker beside an unguarded arm at full speed is not.

The real risk is overtrust

Vocabulary matters because people act on it. In a 2024 study in Frontiers in Robotics and AI, Pietrantoni and colleagues surveyed 31 technical experts from nine European countries about cobot integration. The experts raised "the potential for over-reliance on technology", and one expert called for "developing intuitive interfaces for human workers to monitor and intervene when necessary", a point the authors return to in their discussion.

That second phrase is a design brief. An interface that labels the robot as collaborative invites trust in the machine. An interface that shows the collaborative application, its active safety function and its limits invites the right kind of attention. The standard has moved from the first model to the second. Our screens should follow.

A vocabulary audit in five steps

This is the method I would run with an HMI, documentation and marketing team before the new list under the Machinery Regulation arrives.

1. Inventory every instance. Search HMI string tables, alarm texts, manuals, datasheets, web pages, video scripts and trade-fair files for "cobot", "collaborative robot", "collaborative mode", "collaborative operation" and "safety-rated monitored stop". Count them. In my experience, the number is larger than anyone expects.

2. Map each instance to an application state. For every hit, ask: which collaborative technology is meant? Hand guiding, speed and separation monitoring, or power and force limiting? If nobody can answer, the label was never precise.

3. Rewrite HMI labels with safety engineering in the room. Use the standard's terms. Agree on abbreviations and icons. Make sure every collaborative state shows what triggers entry and exit.

4. Align instructions and sales literature. Put the instructions' health and safety statements next to the brochure, the website and the product video. Anything that implies more safety than the instructions grant gets rewritten.

5. Brief the visual team. Give 3D artists and AI image users a one-page rule set: show the active safety function, show the zone, show realistic speeds and tools, and never show a person beside an arm in a configuration the risk assessment does not cover. Route every robot visual through an accuracy review before release.

   
   

   

Figure 3: The vocabulary audit as a flow across HMI, documentation and marketing. Method: author's view.

A note on product names. Many companies use "cobot" in a product line or brand name. Renaming a product is a business decision, and nothing in the standard tells a manufacturer what to call its products. My point is narrower: inside the interface and next to any safety claim, describe the application, not the product category.

Where this leaves us

I do not expect "cobot" to disappear from LinkedIn, from trade fairs or from the IFR's statistics any time soon. It is a useful market label, and it will stay one.

But the standard that now carries presumption of conformity in Europe has moved collaboration from the robot to the application. In Bill Edwards' words, quoted earlier: "It is the entire Collaborative application that must be safe." Every designer who labels a mode, lays out a manual or renders a cell is either reinforcing that idea or quietly undermining it. I would rather our screens tell operators the truth about why a robot is allowed near them than flatter the product. That is a design choice, and it is ours to make.

Sources

• EUR-Lex, Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2026/2015 of 4 September 2026: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32026D2015

• EUR-Lex, Directive 2006/42/EC (Machinery Directive), Annex I 1.7.4.3: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32006L0042

• EU-OSHA, Regulation 2023/1230/EU machinery: https://osha.europa.eu/en/legislation/directive/regulation-20231230eu-machinery

• ISO, ISO 10218-1:2025: https://www.iso.org/standard/73933.html

• ISO, ISO/TS 15066:2016: https://www.iso.org/standard/62996.html

• A3, Updated ISO 10218 FAQ: https://www.automate.org/robotics/blogs/updated-iso-10218-faq

• A3, ANSI and A3 publish revised R15.06: https://www.automate.org/robotics/industry-insights/ansi-a3-publish-revised-r15-06-industrial-robot-safety-standard/anc

• IBF Solutions, New standards for industrial robots EN ISO 10218-1 and -2: https://www.ibf-solutions.com/en/seminars-and-news/news/new-standards-for-industrial-robots-en-iso-10218-1-and-2

• Ferraro, Freda, Pera (INAIL), New Standards for Industrial Robots, ESREL SRA-E 2025: https://rpsonline.com.sg/proceedings/esrel-sra-e2025/html/ESREL-SRA-E2025-P3635.html

• Standards Drift, EN ISO 10218-1:2025 status: https://standardsdrift.com/standards/en-iso-10218-1-2025/

• Safety Software, Harmonised Machinery Standards September 2026 Update: https://safetysoftware.eu/en/blog/harmonised-machinery-standards-september-2026-update

• IFR, World Robotics 2026 press conference presentation: https://ifr.org/downloads/press_docs/Market_Presentation_WR_Press_Conference_2026.pdf

• Pietrantoni et al., Frontiers in Robotics and AI (2024): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11646840/

Claims ledger

• C1: Decision (EU) 2026/2015 of 4 September 2026 added EN ISO 10218-1:2025 and -2:2025 (rows 223a, 224a) to harmonised standards under Directive 2006/42/EC; in force 7 September 2026. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32026D2015 | "Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2026/2015 of 4 September 2026 ... row 223a EN ISO 10218-1:2025 Robotics, Safety requirements, Part 1: Industrial robots; row 224a EN ISO 10218-2:2025 ... Part 2: Industrial robot applications and robot cells. Entry into force 7 September 2026."

• C2: Article 2 repeals Decision 2023/1586 with effect from 20 January 2027. | same URL | "repealed with effect from 20 January 2027"

• C3: Standards Drift: EN ISO 10218-1:2025 OJ date 7 September 2026, end of legal effect 20 January 2027. | https://standardsdrift.com/standards/en-iso-10218-1-2025/ | "OJ date 7 September 2026 ... End of legal effect: 20 January 2027"

• C4: "Collaborative robot" and "collaborative operation" not in revised ISO 10218; "collaborative application" used instead. | https://www.automate.org/robotics/blogs/updated-iso-10218-faq | "The terms 'collaborative robot' and 'collaborative operation' will not be found in the revised ISO 10218. 'Collaborative application' is used instead."

• C5: Functional safety more explicit; cybersecurity added; ISO/TS 15066 content incorporated. | https://www.automate.org/robotics/blogs/updated-iso-10218-faq | "making functional safety requirements more explicit rather than implied ... cybersecurity requirements pertaining to industrial robot safety have been added ... (formerly, the content of ISO/TS 15066) have also been incorporated."

• C6: IFR: collaborative robots at 11% of industrial robot installations. | https://ifr.org/downloads/press_docs/Market_Presentation_WR_Press_Conference_2026.pdf | "Slide 12: Collaborative robot installations establish at 11% of industrial robots."

• C7: ISO 10218-1:2025 published 2025-02-05, edition 3, replaces 2011 edition. | https://www.iso.org/standard/73933.html | "Publication date 2025-02 ... Edition 3 ... replaces ISO 10218-1:2011"

• C8: R15.06-2025 published September 2025, adapted from ISO 10218-1/-2:2025. | https://www.automate.org/robotics/industry-insights/ansi-a3-publish-revised-r15-06-industrial-robot-safety-standard/anc | "publication of the R15.06-2025 standard ... adapted from ISO 10218-1:2025 and ISO 10218-2:2025" (dated September 10, 2025)

• C9: Collaboration relates to the application. | same A3 URL | "human-robot collaboration relates to the application and not to the robot alone"

• C10: Todd Dickey, chair of R15.06 drafting subcommittee: technologies and quote. | same A3 URL | "has mistakenly become synonymous with robots utilizing power and force limiting technology ... hand-guiding controls, speed and separation monitoring, and power and force limiting"

• C11: Bill Edwards, Yaskawa Motoman (source spells "Yasakawa"), vice chair. | same A3 URL | "It is the entire Collaborative application that must be safe."

• C12: Monitored standstill rename. | same A3 URL | "Safety rated-monitored stop is renamed monitored standstill, which applies to both collaborative and non-collaborative applications."

• C13: ISO/TS 15066 content folded into Part 2. | same A3 URL | "Collaborative application content pulled from ISO/TS 15066 has also been folded into this section"

• C14: ISO/TS 15066:2016 to be revised, replaced by ISO/AWI 15066-1. | https://www.iso.org/standard/62996.html | "Stage: 90.92 (To be revised) ... Will be replaced by ISO/AWI 15066-1 ... Under development"

• C15: Class I criteria. | https://rpsonline.com.sg/proceedings/esrel-sra-e2025/html/ESREL-SRA-E2025-P3635.html | "mass per manipulator (M) is 10 kg or less; maximum achievable speed of the tool center point is 250 mm/s or less ... maximum achievable force per manipulator (FMPM) is 50 N or less"

• C16: IBF: Class 2 majority; harmonised; presumption of conformity. | https://www.ibf-solutions.com/en/seminars-and-news/news/new-standards-for-industrial-robots-en-iso-10218-1-and-2 | "Class 2 is intended for all other industrial robots and should therefore include the vast majority ... They are therefore now harmonised standards under the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC. Their application provides a presumption of conformity with the essential health and safety requirements"

• C17: First list under Regulation expected before end of 2026. | https://safetysoftware.eu/en/blog/harmonised-machinery-standards-september-2026-update | "the first list should be published before the end of 2026"

• C18: End of legal effect of Directive references 20 January 2027. | same URL | "20 January 2027 marks the end of the legal effect of references under Directive 2006/42/EC"

• C19: Directive Annex I 1.7.4.3 sales literature. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32006L0042 | "Sales literature describing the machinery must not contradict the instructions as regards health and safety aspects."

• C20: Pietrantoni et al. 2024: 31 experts, nine countries; over-reliance; one expert on intuitive interfaces. | https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11646840/ | "31 technical experts from nine European countries ... the potential for over-reliance on technology ... developing intuitive interfaces for human workers to monitor and intervene when necessary"

• C21: Machinery Regulation applies from 20 January 2027. | https://osha.europa.eu/en/legislation/directive/regulation-20231230eu-machinery | "The Regulation applies from 20 January 2027."