New robot safety standards: what automation marketers need to change in their copy

If your product page says your robot can work next to people without fencing, the robot safety standards your buyers’ engineers now work from say a robot cannot make that promise on its own. The 2025 revision of ISO 10218, adopted in the United States as ANSI/A3 R15.06-2025, dropped the terms “collaborative robot” and “collaborative operation.” In A3’s words, “only the actual use of the robot can be designed, tested, and confirmed as a collaborative application.”

For marketers at robot makers, integrators and cell builders, the fix is specific, and it matters in the sales pitch too. Hexion’s VP of manufacturing and IT told Manufacturing Dive that her biggest concern is AI companies that “don’t understand the safety and compliance requirements that come with it,” and our piece on selling automation to plant managers covers what else they want to hear. Keep “cobot” as a product category, because that is what buyers search. Take it out of your safety sentences. Tie every safety claim to the application, the safety functions your product provides and the risk assessment that decides whether a fence comes down.

What changed in the robot safety standards

The revised ISO 10218 comes in two parts: Part 1 covers robots and is aimed at manufacturers, and Part 2 covers robot applications and cells and is aimed at integrators. A3 announced the publication of the revision in February 2025, as The Robot Report reported on Feb. 18, 2025. The US adoption, ANSI/A3 R15.06-2025, went on sale through A3 on Sept. 10, 2025, as a revision of ANSI/RIA R15.06-2012. A3 then released Part 3, ANSI/A3 R15.06-3-2025, a new US standard covering the use of robot cells by end users, as Robotics 24/7 reported on Jan. 14, 2026.

A3’s FAQ on the revision (March 20, 2025) is blunt: “The terms ‘collaborative robot’ and ‘collaborative operation’ will not be found in the revised ISO 10218.” “Collaborative application” is used instead. The ISO committee’s project page for Part 1, written at the final draft stage, puts it more plainly: “collaborative is not a mode and collaborative is not a robot.”

Other changes that touch copy, from A3’s Sept. 4, 2026 standards update, the FAQ and A3’s September 2025 release:

• Part 1 now classifies robots by total mass per manipulator, maximum force and maximum speed. Class 1 covers robots with lower force and speed; Class 2 covers most industrial robots and carries additional requirements.
• Part 2 is about three times the length of the previous version, with new or expanded material on risk assessment for contact between moving parts and operators, cybersecurity, local and remote control, single point of control and safety function performance.
• The requirements for collaborative applications, formerly ISO/TS 15066, are now part of the standard. A3 names hand-guided control, speed and separation monitoring, and power and force limiting as the approaches, and its Sept. 4, 2026 update adds that “these approaches do not eliminate the need for risk assessment.”
• “Safety-rated monitored stop” is now “monitored standstill.”

If you sell into Europe, the EU Machinery Regulation applies from January 2027, according to SICK, which raises the stakes on documentation further.

What 10 product pages say today

We read 10 public product pages on Oct. 26, 2026: eight from robot makers and two from palletizing cell builders. They are listed under Sources. We pulled every safety claim and sorted the wording into patterns.

A product page is marketing. Conformity to a standard lives in a manufacturer’s technical file, and nothing on any of these pages suggests a robot is unsafe or that any company is out of step with the standards. The question here is narrower: which sentences would a safety engineer, reading the 2025 editions, stop on.

Pattern	Example wording	Pages (of 10)	How it reads against the 2025 editions
Fence-free claim with the condition in the same sentence	“Fenceless applications possible based on risk assessment” (KUKA, LBR iisy page)	2	Matches the standard: collaboration is decided per application
Fence-free claim with no condition anywhere on the page	Works alongside people without fences, barriers or cages (our paraphrase of the pattern)	3	Reads as a property of the robot, which the standard says collaboration is not
A named safety function	“Configurable safety limits for speed, force, axes, and workspaces” (Universal Robots, UR5e page)	5	Gives an engineer something to put into a risk assessment
A rated safety function	“Safety certified Category 3, PL d” (ABB, GoFa page)	1	The most checkable claim in the sample
“Safe” as a general benefit, with no function named	Safe, efficient, alongside workers (our paraphrase)	3	Harmless, but tells an engineer nothing
ISO 10218 or R15.06 named	None found	0	A missed chance to show the edition you design to

The counts miss where the wording sits. A conditioned sentence in one section does not cover a looser one elsewhere, and in our sample broader safety statements without the condition turned up in image captions and other sections of pages that elsewhere got it right. Reviewers read captions, FAQs and every other section too.

Older terms linger in FAQs, and on one of the 10 pages “collaborative operation” still appears in an FAQ answer.

The condition does not cost the sale. Robotiq’s palletizing page says its cobot palletizers are “designed to work safely alongside people (when a risk assessment allows for it),” and the benefit still comes through.

Which claims to rewrite, and how

“No fencing required”

Write the condition next to the claim. KUKA’s “Fenceless applications possible based on risk assessment” and Robotiq’s parenthetical are good models, and both still sell the benefit.

“Collaborative robot” as a safety statement

Keep “cobot” in navigation, product names and page titles. In body copy that makes a safety point, say “designed for collaborative applications” or name the method: power and force limiting, speed and separation monitoring, hand guiding.

“Safe” with nothing after it

Replace it with the safety functions the product actually has and their rating. ABB’s “Category 3, PL d” is the kind of detail an engineer can put in a risk assessment. Universal Robots’ list of configurable limits for speed, force, axes and workspaces is the same idea.

Datasheets and manuals

Change “safety-rated monitored stop” to “monitored standstill.” Replace references to ISO 10218-1:2011, ISO/TS 15066 and R15.06-2012 with the 2025 editions once your engineering team confirms conformity. If you can state your robot’s class under the new Part 1, state it.

Cybersecurity

Part 2 now covers it. If your controller supports user roles, network segmentation or signed updates, put that on the safety page, where a reviewer will look.

Sales decks and demo videos

The demo where someone pushes the robot arm aside is fine. Caption it with the application conditions: payload, speed, tool. Add one slide on who performs the risk assessment for a typical cell and how long it takes. The same captions belong on the show floor; our ProMat and Automate 2027 plan covers the two spring automation shows. In written case studies, state the application conditions the way the best application stories we scored state their constraints.

Instead of	Write
Works alongside people without fencing	Fenceless applications possible based on risk assessment
A collaborative robot that is safe around people	Designed for collaborative applications, with power and force limiting and configurable speed and force limits
Safe	[Safety function], certified [category and performance level]
Safety-rated monitored stop	Monitored standstill
Complies with ISO 10218-1:2011 and ISO/TS 15066	Designed to ISO 10218-1:2025 and ANSI/A3 R15.06-2025 (after engineering confirms)

Left-column wording is a generic pattern drawn from no single page. Right-column wording follows the 2025 editions; confirm every claim with your safety team. Source: Our analysis of the 2025 editions as summarized by A3; KUKA LBR iisy page wording, read Oct. 26, 2026.

What to do Monday

1. Search your site, datasheets and deck library for these strings: “without fencing,” “no fence,” “no cage,” “inherently safe,” “collaborative robot,” “collaborative operation,” “safety-rated monitored stop,” “ISO/TS 15066,” “R15.06-2012” and “10218-1:2011.” Check captions, FAQs and meta descriptions as well as body copy. Paste every hit into one spreadsheet with its URL.
2. Send that sheet to whoever owns product safety and ask two questions for each line: is it still accurate under the 2025 editions, and what condition belongs next to it.
3. Rewrite the top five pages by traffic first, then datasheets, then decks.
4. Add a short standards page: which editions your products are designed to, their class if your engineers have determined it, and what your partners provide for risk assessment. Integrators will link to it and sales will send it; our guide to marketing through system integrators covers what else they need from you.

This is marketing guidance. Your safety and legal teams have the last word on every claim.