ISO 25785-1: Humanoid Robot Safety Standards and Liability Implications

The First International Safety Standard for Humanoid Robots

#

In May 2025, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) published the working draft for ISO 25785-1—the first international safety standard specifically addressing humanoid and bipedal robots in industrial settings. This landmark standard establishes safety requirements for “industrial mobile robots with actively controlled stability,” a category that includes the humanoid robots now entering warehouses, factories, and logistics facilities worldwide.

The standard arrives at a critical moment. Companies like Agility Robotics, Boston Dynamics, Figure AI, and Tesla are deploying humanoid robots in commercial environments, while the safety framework has lagged far behind the technology. Until now, employers have operated in a regulatory gray zone, applying standards designed for stationary industrial arms or wheeled mobile robots to machines that walk, balance, and—critically—can fall.

This guide examines ISO 25785-1’s scope and requirements, the parallel IEEE humanoid standards framework, and the liability implications for manufacturers, employers, and workers.

Understanding ISO 25785-1

#

Why “Humanoid” Isn’t in the Title

#

When the ISO working group convened to create safety standards for humanoid robots, representatives from the Association for Advancing Automation (A3), Agility Robotics, and Boston Dynamics made a deliberate decision: they avoided the word “humanoid” entirely.

The official title—“Robotics — Safety requirements for industrial mobile robots with actively controlled stability (legged, wheeled, or other forms of locomotion)"—reflects a technical rather than anthropomorphic focus. This approach:

• Covers all dynamically balanced robots, not just bipedal humanoids
• Includes quadrupedal robots (like Boston Dynamics’ Spot)
• Encompasses wheeled balancing robots (like Segway-based platforms)
• Avoids debates about what qualifies as “humanoid”

Scope of the Standard

#

ISO 25785-1 establishes safety requirements for industrial mobile robots and their systems that:

• Have an unspecified number of legs, wheels, or other mobility types
• Travel on ground surfaces with varying elevations
• Operate in industrial environments
• Require active control to maintain balance
• Could become unstable in the absence of power

Key Terminology: “Actively controlled stability” refers to robots that require continuous power and control input to remain upright. Unlike a traditional wheeled AMR (autonomous mobile robot) that stays stable when powered off, an actively balanced robot will fall if power is lost.

What the Standard Does NOT Cover

#

ISO 25785-1 explicitly excludes hazards related to:

• Severe environmental conditions (extreme temperatures, freezer applications)
• Strong magnetic fields
• Vertical surface traversal (climbing walls)
• Underground operations
• Specific hygienic requirements
• Corrosive or explosive environments
• Nuclear environments
• Ionizing and hazardous non-ionizing radiation
• Handling loads that inherently create dangerous situations

The Leadership Behind the Standard

#

ISO Working Group

#

The U.S. delegation leading ISO 25785-1 development includes:

This industry-led approach ensures the standard reflects real-world deployment challenges while maintaining safety rigor.

IEEE Humanoid Study Group

#

Parallel to the ISO effort, the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society has been developing a complementary standards framework. The IEEE Humanoid Study Group, led by Aaron Prather (Director, Robotics & Autonomous Systems Program at ASTM International), brought together over 60 experts from industry, academia, and regulatory bodies.

IEEE Focus Areas:

1. Classification: Developing taxonomy for humanoid robots by physical capabilities, behavioral complexity, and application domains
2. Stability: Creating quantifiable stability metrics and test methods
3. Human-Robot Interaction (HRI): Guidelines for safe humanoid-human collaboration

The IEEE framework explicitly acknowledges that current standards—designed for fixed industrial arms or statically stable wheeled robots—are insufficient for humanoids.

Core Safety Requirements

#

Fall-Risk Management

#

The primary safety concern identified by both ISO and IEEE working groups is physical stability—the robot’s ability to avoid tipping over.

Why Falls Matter: When an actively controlled robot loses power or encounters an unexpected obstacle, it cannot remain upright. A 150+ pound bipedal robot falling onto a worker presents serious injury risks that don’t exist with stationary industrial arms or wheeled AMRs.

Standard Requirements:

• Define safe operating parameters for stability
• Require fall detection and controlled descent capabilities
• Establish testing protocols for stability under various conditions
• Address payload effects on balance
• Specify recovery procedures after instability events

Power Loss Scenarios

#

The standard specifically addresses what happens when robots lose power:

• Controlled descent: Robots should lower themselves safely rather than collapse
• Warning systems: Audible/visual alerts before power loss where possible
• Clear zones: Requirements for space around robots for potential falls
• Emergency stop behavior: What happens to stability when E-stop is triggered

Collision Force Limits

#

Building on ISO/TS 15066 (collaborative robot safety), ISO 25785-1 addresses force limits when humanoid robots contact humans:

• Maximum permissible impact forces
• Soft materials and compliant joint requirements
• Speed and force reduction in human-proximate zones
• Pain threshold compliance

Workspace Safety

#

The standard establishes requirements for:

• Collaborative zones: Areas where humans and humanoids work together
• Restricted zones: Areas requiring additional safeguards
• Exclusion zones: Areas humans must not enter during robot operation
• Dynamic zoning: Safety parameters that change based on robot activity

Relationship to Existing Standards

#

ISO 10218: Industrial Robot Safety

#

ISO 10218 (Parts 1 and 2, updated in 2025) remains the foundational standard for industrial robot safety. ISO 25785-1 supplements but does not replace it.

Key Distinction: ISO 10218 assumes robots are statically stable—they won’t fall over when power is removed. ISO 25785-1 addresses robots where stability itself is a safety concern.

ISO 13482: Personal Care Robots

#

ISO 13482 covers service robots interacting with the general public, including some humanoid forms. It focuses on non-industrial applications.

Overlap Consideration: A humanoid robot used in an industrial setting falls under ISO 25785-1, while the same robot in a healthcare or retail setting may fall under ISO 13482.

ISO/TS 15066: Collaborative Robot Safety

#

ISO/TS 15066 has been integrated into ISO 10218-2:2025, replacing the term “cobot” with “collaborative applications.” The force and pressure limits established in ISO/TS 15066 inform ISO 25785-1’s collision safety requirements.

Timeline and Implementation

#

Current Status

#

Implementation Timeline

#

Industry experts estimate 18 to 36 months from the May 2025 working draft to a ratified, binding standard. This suggests:

• 2026: Draft International Standard (DIS) stage
• 2027: Final International Standard (FDIS) and publication
• 2027+: Certification bodies begin conformity assessment

Deployment Implications

#

The standards timeline has significant commercial implications:

“The net result is that the opportunity to deploy humanoid robots in volume will not happen until 2027 at the earliest.”

Companies cannot safely deploy humanoid robots collaboratively around humans until standards work is completed and conformity assessment pathways exist.

Liability Implications

#

For Manufacturers

#

ISO 25785-1 creates clear compliance obligations for humanoid robot manufacturers:

Design Requirements:

• Fall-risk mitigation systems
• Collision force limitation
• Power loss handling
• Emergency stop integration

Documentation Requirements:

• Risk assessments demonstrating compliance
• Use-case limitations
• Training requirements for operators
• Maintenance and inspection protocols

Liability Exposure: Manufacturers who deploy humanoid robots before standards are finalized operate in a gray zone. If injuries occur, plaintiffs can argue:

• The manufacturer should have anticipated the standard’s requirements
• Industry best practices (reflected in the draft standard) weren’t followed
• Reasonable care required adherence to emerging consensus standards

For Employers

#

Employers deploying humanoid robots face significant liability exposure:

OSHA General Duty Clause: Under Section 5(a)(1), employers must provide workplaces “free from recognized hazards.” A humanoid robot’s fall potential is a recognized hazard—employers must address it regardless of whether ISO 25785-1 is finalized.

Pre-Standard Deployment Risks:

• Workers’ compensation claims for robot-related injuries
• Potential third-party product liability claims against manufacturers
• OSHA citations for inadequate safeguards
• Negligence claims if industry-recognized safety measures weren’t implemented

Best Practices Now:

• Conduct site-specific risk assessments
• Implement exclusion zones for stability failures
• Train workers on robot behavior and emergency procedures
• Document all safety measures and incident reports
• Monitor ISO/IEEE developments and update practices accordingly

For Workers

#

Workers injured by humanoid robots have multiple potential claims:

Workers’ Compensation: Most workplace robot injuries are covered by workers’ compensation, providing medical expenses and wage replacement regardless of fault.

Third-Party Product Liability: Workers can sue robot manufacturers for design defects, manufacturing defects, or failure to warn—these claims aren’t barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity.

Evidence from Standards: ISO 25785-1 requirements, even in draft form, provide evidence of what manufacturers and employers should have known about humanoid robot hazards.

Insurance Considerations

#

Emerging Insurance Products

#

The insurance industry is adapting to humanoid robot risks:

China’s First Humanoid Robot Insurance: In 2025, China Pacific Insurance (CPIC) launched “Ji Zhi Bao” (Smart Insurance)—the first insurance product exclusively designed for humanoid robots. It combines:

• Property damage coverage for the robot
• Third-party liability for injuries/damage caused by the robot
• Flexible terms (daily, weekly, monthly)

Coverage Types for Humanoid Robots

#

Premium Implications

#

ISO 25785-1 compliance will likely affect insurance premiums:

• Compliant robots/employers may qualify for lower premiums
• Non-compliant deployments may face higher rates or coverage denials
• Insurers may require proof of conformity assessment

Frequently Asked Questions

#

Related Resources

#

• Amazon Warehouse Robotics Injuries — Warehouse robot injury patterns and claims
• Tesla Factory Robotics Injuries — Tesla robot incident documentation
• Understanding Robot Liability — General robot injury liability framework
• Warehouse Robotics Industry — Industry-specific liability guide