Redefining Safety in Light of Human-Robot Interaction: A Critical Review of Current Standards and Regulations
This academic critical review examines current safety standards and regulations in light of human-robot interaction (HRI) and artificial intelligence. The authors argue that safety has historically been interpreted narrowly to cover only physical and mechanical risks, neglecting crucial dimensions such as cybersecurity, mental health, and psychosocial impacts. The paper proposes a comprehensive reconceptualization of safety spanning physical, social, cyber, temporal, and societal dimensions to help policymakers and standard makers address evolving robotic and AI capabilities.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Policymakers, standard makers, roboticists, and researchers should read this to understand why and how safety frameworks must expand beyond physical mechanics to encompass AI-driven and psychosocial risks.
What the document contains
The document examines existing safety standards and EU directives (such as the Machinery Directive and General Product Safety Directive) regarding industrial and collaborative robots. It maps out multiple neglected dimensions of safety—including physical, social interaction, psychological, trust, anthropomorphization, cyber, temporal, and societal dimensions—and calls for a multidisciplinary, multidimensional approach to safety standardisation.
It does not provide binding legal rules, a definitive compliance framework, or a complete operational methodology for quantifying all proposed safety dimensions.
- Traditional safety definitions in standards and regulations focus narrowly on physical impacts, such as mechanical or chemical risks.
- The integration of AI, machine learning, and cloud connectivity in robots demands a much broader understanding of safety that includes cybersecurity and mental health.
- Human-robot interaction introduces complex psychosocial factors, including cognitive underload/overload, trust, over-reliance, and anthropomorphisation.
- Safety must also account for temporal dimensions, as psychological attrition and machine learning adaptations can manifest harm at a later stage.
- Societal implications such as workforce displacement, deskilling, and knowledge asymmetries must be incorporated into future regulatory and standard frameworks.
· INTRODUCTION · MAPPING DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON SAFETY IN THE INDUSTRIAL CONTEXT · TOWARD A RECONCEPTUALISATION OF SAFETY, CONSIDERING DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS OF ROBOTS AND AI · CONCLUSION
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
2/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
or the impossibility of experts to anticipate and understand the impact of their work and communicate it to various societal stakeholders and, more importantly, assume responsibility
Societal Dimension
screening score · 2026-10-23
Fairness
2/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
These advancements challenge the Council Directive 2006 42/EC ’s validity and applicability to these new fields, which led the institutions to go through a thorough revision of this instrument. One of the first aspects that changed over the years is the concept of machinery, as it is currently unclear whether this de finition encompasses all the new cyber-physical equipment such as robot/collaborative robot and AI agents.
The Physicality of the Concept of Safety
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Dignity
3/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
Moreover, the interaction between robots and humans may hamper their privacy, autonomy, and even dignity
TOWARD A RECONCEPTUALISATION OF SAFETY, CONSIDERING DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS OF ROBOTS AND AI
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Oversight
3/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
However, the development of AI and its integration in the industrial setting that is now driving the 4th industrial revolution extends technology beyond just being an inanimate tool under full human control
TOWARD A RECONCEPTUALISATION OF SAFETY, CONSIDERING DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS OF ROBOTS AND AI
screening score · 2026-10-23
Privacy
3/5Protection of personal data and private life
The collection of personal data either for person-speci fic performance, analyzing the behaviour of humans collaborating with robots, or research raises multiple ethical questions about how such data is used
Cyber Dimension
screening score · 2026-10-23
Transparency
3/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
Ethical issues of transparency and cybersecurity present also an important concern, and are yet not comprehensively addressed for robots and other cyber-physical systems
Cyber Dimension
screening score · 2026-10-23
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-23
Impact Assessment
4/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
Important clauses to take note of in the BS 8611:2016 is the requirement for ethical risk assessment, which presents guidance on how designers can integrate ethical considerations within the design of robot systems.
Psychosocial and Ethical Considerations for the Design of Robot Systems
screening score · 2026-10-23