European Humanoid Reference PlatformEuropean Humanoid Reference Platform · in formation
Humanoid robotics will not be won in isolated silos. EHRP unites Europe's component makers, robot OEMs, research institutions, and test bodies around open reference architectures, shared safety evidence, and standard interfaces - before closed monopolies lock down the market.
While closed platforms in the US and China pursue vertical integration, Europe's competitive edge lies in precision engineering, specialized sensors, and rigorous safety. Yet without shared reference interfaces, every team spends valuable development cycles recertifying the same baseline from scratch.
Which components, with which properties, at which interfaces, are needed is not defined in European or international standardisation. Suppliers who want to enter the market do not know what to develop for.
The legal framework assesses the robot for its intended use, not the part. Each robot maker therefore translates its suppliers' evidence into its own safety case.
Own questionnaires, own audits, own assumptions about the application. With N robot makers and M components, up to N × M translations of the same kind arise.
Humanoid robotics is not the first industry to face this. Three patterns everyone knows, and one warning.
For years, every phone maker had its own charging socket, and drawers filled up with adapters that fit nothing else. Today one connector, USB-C, works across manufacturers: specified by an industry consortium, and mandatory for new phones sold in the EU since 28 December 2024.[1]
Since the 1990s, chip makers qualify a part once against AEC-Q100, and car makers accept it without repeating component-level tests.[2]
A traffic light means the same everywhere, no matter who built it. Nobody would accept a city where green means "go" on one crossing and "wait" on the next.[3]
In the 1990s, makers of industrial field buses could not agree. The international fieldbus standard IEC 61158 therefore contains numerous incompatible protocol types side by side.[4]
In North America, Tesla's proprietary charging connector became the industry standard SAE J3400 after Tesla opened it to others in 2022. Whoever ships first sets the interface.[5]
In 1980 the technology scholar David Collingridge described a dilemma: while a technology is young, it is easy to shape, but its effects are hard to foresee; once they are clear, it is entrenched and costly to change.[6] For the interfaces and signals of humanoid robots, that window is open now.
Status: October 2026
A shared interface only helps if it is in place before the first large deployments fix their own.
Every EHRP specification has three parts. The model is the Java Community Process; in industry, the EtherCAT Technology Group and AUTOSAR work in a similar way.
| Part | Content | Access |
|---|---|---|
| Specification | Interfaces, data formats, behaviour | open and free of charge, including for non-members |
| Conformance test suite (CTS) | Digital test specifications, test vectors and validation procedures (informational; no physical hardware provided) | open and free for self-testing |
| Reference implementation | Working implementation showing that the specification can be implemented | open |
The conformance test suite (CTS) is normative, not the reference implementation. This way no single implementation becomes the hidden benchmark.
Three building blocks exist as drafts. They are a basis for discussion, not final decisions.
EHRPCore+Motion+ManipulationG2E-HYGPL d
Core+Motion+ManipulationG2E-HYGPL dRead as: a joint actuator for multi-shift operation in washdown areas. Suppliers know the pattern from IP69K or AEC-Q100. Because each axis is tested separately, the evidence adds up instead of multiplying.
View classification draft & abstract →
A humanoid robot has no driver. Its signals address people who know nothing about the system: a visitor in a warehouse, a nurse on a night shift, a resident in a care home. People accept a robot more readily when they can see what it is about to do. The Signal Convention therefore builds on patterns people already know from traffic and everyday devices, and defines, across manufacturers, which state is shown and how. If green means "autonomous" on one maker's robot and "safe to approach" on another's, a mixed fleet becomes a safety problem and loses people's trust.
Yellow · blink
The robot starts moving from standstill. Head ring and torso bands blink yellow; a start-up tone sounds if a person is nearby. Safety-related (I1), mandatory.
Blue · pulse
A remote operator takes control of motion. Head and torso bands pulse blue (Z1), signalling to bystanders that a person is in active control, complemented by privacy indicator D1 (I2-D). Safety-related (I1), mandatory.
Red · flash
The balance controller reports an instability it can no longer correct. Red flashing and an unmistakable warning tone within 200 ms. This is a supplementary warning: it does not give people right next to the robot enough time to step away. Whether it can become a safety function is one of the draft's open questions.
The draft covers 36 states in six groups, 16 of them mandatory, and a small vocabulary of four safety colours under IEC 60073 plus white, four patterns, nine tones and five privacy symbols. Every meaning is coded twice so that it stays readable with colour vision deficiency.
View Signal Convention draft & abstract →
A lidar unit qualified for vehicles comes with evidence on EMC, vibration, temperature, ingress protection and functional safety under ISO 26262. In a humanoid robot, mounting position, motion profile, proximity to people and the safety regime all change. Today each customer works out on its own which part of the evidence still holds.
Today
Up to N × M translations
With EHRP
Essentially M, plus a small delta (Δ) per integrator
EHRP aims to do this translation once per application profile: for each component category it records which existing evidence holds unchanged, which holds with a named additional test, and which does not hold. Up to N × M analyses become essentially M, plus a small delta per integrator.
This is only proven once a pilot case has measured the effort saved. We are looking for that pilot case.
| EHRP is | EHRP is not |
|---|---|
| the owner of shared specifications, application profiles and delta rules | a notified body; CE conformity stays with the manufacturer |
| the operator of a voluntary conformity test against EHRP specifications (planned) | a standards organisation |
| a place to pool case data and position papers | a lobby for lower protection levels |
EHRP supplies input to standardisation and does not compete with it. EtherCAT (today IEC 61158 and IEC 61784) and OPC UA (IEC 62541) took this route.[11][12]
We are looking for organisations that want to work, not just support: experts who lead a working group, co-own a pilot case or contribute test methodology.
And we are looking for disagreement. Is starting with a single pilot case right? Does the axis model hold up in testing practice? What would keep you from taking part?
EHRP is in formation, planned as a registered association (eingetragener Verein) based in Nuremberg.