Cobot safety risk assessment: what it must cover

Cobots in manufacturing are bought as arms and assessed as applications. A risk assessment for a cobot cell covers the arm together with its tool, the part, the fixtures, the process and the layout, and it should be completed and documented before the cell is commissioned. The integrator normally produces it; the plant, as employer, keeps the cell in the condition that was assessed. This guide is planning help for buyers; it is not legal or compliance advice.

The assessment follows the application, not the arm

ISO divides the subject in two. ISO 10218-1:2025 sets safety requirements for the robot itself, which ISO describes as partly completed machinery. Its scope notes that applications such as welding, laser cutting and machining create additional hazards, handled during application design under ISO 10218-2:2025, the part covering robot applications and cells.

One arm can therefore sit in two very different risk pictures. A FAIRINO FR10 moving sealed cartons with a padded vacuum tool and the same FR10 unloading sheared blanks from a press brake share only a datasheet. A3 makes the point in its September 2026 review of industrial robot safety: collaborative capability in the robot does not by itself make an application safe, because the application includes the end effector, workpiece, fixtures, guarding, nearby machinery and people.

Where the standards stand today

Editions changed in 2025, so ask every bidder which edition their assessment follows. The status below is what each publisher's page showed on October 9, 2026.

• ISO 10218-1 and 10218-2. Both 2025 editions are published (February 2025). ISO lists the 2011 editions as withdrawn.
• ISO/TS 15066. ISO/TS 15066:2016, the collaborative technical specification that supplements ISO 10218, is still listed as published and was confirmed in 2022. ISO marks it as due for revision, with a replacement under development.
• ANSI/A3 R15.06 (United States). A3's listing for ANSI/A3 R15.06-2025 describes Parts 1 and 2 as a revision of ANSI/RIA R15.06-2012 and a national adoption of both 2025 ISO parts. Part 3, on the use of robot cells, gives guidance to users. A3's release announcement says the revision integrates guidance for collaborative applications, consolidating ISO/TS 15066.
• ISO 12100. ISO 12100:2010 supplies the general method: identify hazards, estimate and evaluate risk, reduce it, then document and verify. A replacement draft is in progress.
• OSHA. The agency's robotics standards page states that there are currently no specific OSHA standards for the robotics industry. It points to general industry rules such as lockout/tagout (1910.147) and machine guarding (1910.212), and to consensus standards. That page still names the 2012 edition of R15.06.

Collaborative operation, at a buyer's level

The OSHA Technical Manual chapter on industrial robot systems describes four techniques a collaborative application can use in automatic mode.

• Safety-rated monitored stop. The robot holds still while a person is in the shared space. A3 says the 2025 standard renames this "monitored standstill". Cycle time depends on how often someone enters.
• Hand guiding. The worker moves the arm directly for part of the task.
• Speed and separation monitoring. Sensors detect a person and the robot slows or stops as the distance closes. This needs sensing hardware and floor space.
• Power and force limiting. Contact is expected and permitted, with forces and pressures held within limits. OSHA's manual applies this to robot, end effector and workpiece together, with each contact event measured against the allowable value before factory acceptance.

Ask which technique the proposal relies on and what speed the cell runs at in that configuration.

Why tools, parts and process change the answer

Force limiting manages blunt contact with a moving arm. It does nothing for an edge, a hot surface or an arc.

Payload class matters here. An FR30 rated for 30 kg carries far more energy than a 3 kg arm, so expect speed limits, sensing or guarding to do more. A welding configuration such as the FR5-WML brings the arc and fume questions covered in our welding budget guide. A conventional guarded cell may be the better answer for either; see the industrial robot versus cobot comparison.

What to request from the supplier

• Safety documentation for the specific arm model and controller version quoted: declarations, certificates and the manual's safety chapter. This guide states no FAIRINO certification, performance level or safety rating; request the documents for your exact configuration and read what they cover.
• A description of each safety function used, its configurable limits and the manufacturer's safety function data, plus stopping time and distance data for the loaded arm.
• The risk assessment results. OSHA's manual says the integrator is responsible for seeing that the assessment is completed and documented before commissioning and for giving the results to the employer.
• Validation records: the safety settings as installed, who verified them, and contact measurement results where power and force limiting is used.
• The standards and editions applied, plus operating and recovery instructions.

If you buy an arm and integrate it yourself, the integrator role falls to you.

What the plant must own

OSHA's manual places continuing duties on the employer. Site acceptance should be performed before first startup. Workers need training before they are assigned to the cell. Inspection and maintenance follow the manufacturer's requirements, and stopping performance is rechecked periodically. The assessment is reviewed whenever the application changes. The manual also recommends involving affected workers in the assessment.

Our demo and acceptance test guide carries safety validation into factory and site acceptance. To review your process and proposed cell configuration, request a consultation and include the tool, the part and a sketch of the station.