Clause 6.3: Societal and ethical risk mitigation
The characteristic describes how far the system reduces risk of a societal or ethical kind in its context of use.
What clause 6.3 is
The characteristic describes how far the system reduces risk of a societal or ethical kind in its context of use. The definition points to a set of areas that shape the judgement: who answers for the system, fair treatment, explainability, professional duty, the worth of the person, privacy, keeping people in charge of the technology, participation by the community, respect for law, international norms and labour practice. The second edition widens the reference from risk to society to potential societal or ethical risk.
What the 2023 edition said
The first edition described the characteristic as how far a system lowers risk to society, with the same areas in the note.
What the second edition changes
The wording widens to potential societal or ethical risk, and the characteristic sits under risk mitigation in the aligned quality-in-use model. The areas named in the definition stay.
The FDIS text is not public. The change line above is read from the public draft, which is not the FDIS and may differ. No clause level diff is invented here. The ISO stage record is the authority for the dates.
Why it matters to the buyer
The widening brings risks to individuals and groups inside the definition, not only risks to the public at large. That matters for systems that treat people differently, where the harm is real but not collective.
What to write in the requirement
Assess each named area for the system, record a position with evidence, and name an owner. Disaggregate the evidence by the groups affected. Where an area is not applicable, say why. Keep the assessment live, because the use and the population change.
Evidence a reviewer asks for
A reviewer will ask which groups were considered and whether the evidence is disaggregated. A single aggregate result hides the harm.
- Ethical assessmentA position on each named area, with the evidence and the date
- Fairness evidenceDisaggregated results by affected group, with the method and the threshold
- AccountabilityThe named owner for the societal and ethical position and the review date
Where it commonly fails
- An ethics statement with no assessment
- Fairness is asserted but not measured
- The assessment predates the current use
What to do before publication
Run a disaggregated assessment on one live system before publication. It is the fastest way to find the gap.
Read across
Source for clause 6.3: ISO/IEC 25059, Clause 6.3, retrieved 20 October 2026. The change line rests on the public draft of the second edition and ISO page 88234. The requirement, evidence and gaps are written from our record. Every source.