Trust, Safety and Standards in Service Robotics

Normative and operational frameworks governing the responsible deployment of service robots in environments shared with humans.

From Fiction to Formal Standards

Early discussions about robot safety and trust were shaped by fictional concepts long before formal engineering standards existed. The most widely known example is Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics, which articulated intuitive ideas about harm prevention and human protection.

While influential in cultural and ethical discourse, these laws were never intended as operational, technical or regulatory frameworks. They lack mechanisms for risk assessment, verification, fault handling and accountability under real-world conditions.

Modern service robotics replaces fictional constraints with formal standards, engineering controls and governance structures. Trust is not assumed through rules, but established through defined terminology, safety requirements, system reliability and auditable deployment practices.

This shift from narrative principles to standards-based frameworks marks the transition from conceptual ethics to responsible, scalable deployment.

These narratives remain relevant for ethical reflection, but they are not referenced in contemporary standards, certification processes or deployment assessments.

Why Standards Matter

Service robots operate in environments shared with humans. As a result, safety and trust are foundational requirements rather than optional features.

Unlike experimental systems, deployed service robots must meet defined expectations regarding predictable behaviour, risk mitigation and operational consistency.

These expectations are expressed through international standards and professional guidelines. Standards do not describe innovation. They describe minimum conditions for responsible deployment.

In this context, standards define safety requirements, while trust emerges from consistent compliance, transparency and operational reliability over time.

Service robot operating in different environments

Definition of Standards

In service robotics, standards fulfil two distinct but interdependent functions. One defines what a service robot is and where its application scope begins and ends. The other defines the minimum safety conditions under which such systems may operate in environments shared with humans.

Together, these standards establish a common reference frame: terminology ensures comparability and consistency across reporting and evaluation, while safety requirements translate this shared understanding into concrete deployment constraints.

Terminology and Scope

Before safety and trust can be assessed, terminology must be consistent.

The foundational vocabulary for robotics is defined by ISO 8373, which establishes shared definitions for robots, autonomy and service robotics.

For service robotics, scope clarity is essential. The systems addressed here operate outside industrial manufacturing environments and interact directly or indirectly with humans in professional or everyday contexts.

ISO 8373:2021 — Robots and robotic devices — Vocabulary
Official ISO reference ↗

Safety Requirements for Service Robots

ISO 13482 specifies safety requirements for personal care and service robots operating in human environments.

The standard addresses risks arising from motion, contact, instability and unexpected behaviour. Its focus is not task performance, but harm prevention under foreseeable conditions.

ISO 13482 is widely used as a baseline reference for evaluating whether a service robot is suitable for deployment in proximity to people.

ISO 13482:2014 — Robots and robotic devices — Safety requirements for personal care robots
Official ISO reference ↗

Trust-Relevant System Conditions

In service robotics, trust does not emerge from a single standard or regulation. It results from a set of system conditions that collectively determine whether autonomous systems can be deployed, operated and scaled in human environments.

The following conditions are recurrent across standards, guidelines and professional deployment practice.

In professional service robotics, trust is established through verifiable system properties rather than abstract principles.

→

Operational Reliability

Consistent behaviour over time, fault tolerance, predictable failure modes and maintainability. Reliability determines whether robots move beyond pilot deployments into operational infrastructure.

→

Safety Compliance

Conformance with defined safety requirements for operation in proximity to humans, including risk mitigation, stability and harm prevention under foreseeable conditions.

→

Transparency and Governance

Clarity regarding system behaviour, accountability, oversight mechanisms and responsible operation, particularly in public or regulated environments.

→

Security and Data Protection

Secure communication, controlled access and responsible handling of operational and sensor data in connected robotic systems.

→

Connected Autonomy

Networked operation enabling fleet control, monitoring and lifecycle management, while expanding the system’s trust surface.

→

Integrity and Auditability

Traceability mechanisms such as logging, version control and attestation that support operational transparency without replacing formal certification.

Together, these conditions define the practical trust envelope within which service robots can be deployed and scaled responsibly.

AI Governance as a Regulatory Overlay

As service robots increasingly incorporate AI-based components, trust and safety considerations extend beyond classical robotics standards. In the European Union, this governance layer is formally addressed by the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) ↗ which introduces a risk-based regulatory framework for AI systems.

The AI Act does not replace existing robotics standards. Instead, it overlays them by introducing governance obligations related to risk classification, oversight, transparency and accountability for AI-driven functionalities embedded within robotic systems.

Whether a service robot falls within the scope of AI-specific regulation depends on its functional role, deployment context and potential impact on human safety or rights. Not all service robots are classified as high-risk systems, but governance expectations increase as autonomy and decision-making expand.

In this sense, AI governance complements established safety standards by addressing system behaviour, lifecycle controls and responsible use, while technical safety requirements continue to be defined through robotics-specific norms and certification frameworks.

Outside the European Union, AI governance in service robotics is currently shaped by national regulations, sector-specific rules and voluntary frameworks, reflecting a fragmented and non-harmonised global landscape.

This overview provides contextual orientation only. It does not constitute legal interpretation, compliance guidance or deployment approval.

▲