WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/760 
26 February 2007 
 (07-0794) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
TYPOLOGY OF GLOBAL STANDARDS 
 
Communication from the United Nations Conference on 
 
Trade and Development (UNCTAD)  
 
 
 The following communication, received on 22 Fe bruary 2007, is being circulated at the 
request of UNCTAD.  
_______________ 
 
 
BACKGROUND  
1. Standards have emerged to address a wide range of issues, from quality assurance, food 
safety, working conditions, to various ethical, environmental and social concerns.  Meeting these 
standards is a key policy concern, especially in de veloping countries.  More generally, understanding 
the making, applications and working conditions, and implications of these standards is very 
important for policy makers as well as producers' ass ociations and export associa tions.  This brief note 
aims to contribute to reducing the complexity and conf usion in this area.  It identifies the networks of 
actors engaged in the stages of formulation and implementation, and show how distinguishing 
between different generations of standards help  to understand the current standards and their 
evolution. 
The Policy Cycle:  Four Steps 
 
2. The policy cycle for standards has within it four  distinct steps: standard setting, standard 
monitoring, assistance on achieving standard compliance, and sanctions for non-compliance.  The 
credibility of a standard is in large measure rela ted to the types of actors engaged in setting the 
standard, and in monitoring compliance.  With co mpliance, for example, there are three distinct 
alternatives.  First party certification relies solely on self-monitoring.  In terms of public legitimacy, 
this usually results in the least degree of credibilit y and institutional trust.  Second party certification 
shifts monitoring to the user of the product or services, or alternatively to trade bodies who monitor 
on behalf of their members.  While this can enha nce the credibility of the standard, there can be 
conflict of interest.  Third party certification transf ers monitoring to neutral and independent auditors.  
The credibility of the certification is directly linke d to the credibility of the author.  Auditors can 
include accredited firms who provide market-based certification services, or NGOs and civil society groups who uphold the values associated with the speci fic standard.  The range of actors engaged in 
these four distinct steps can be extensive, especi ally where complex standards exist, or require 
complex forms of monitoring.  Table 1 below, summa rizes the main categories of such actors, ranging 
from private business, NGOs, trade unions, to the pub lic sector.  Moreover, such actors can operate at 
local, national and global levels, and be engaged in the distinct functi ons of formulating standards and 
monitoring the implementation of standards.  To understand how standards are set and assessed we need to have an unders tanding of networks. G/SPS/GEN/760 
Page 2  
 
   
Table 1: Types of actors engaged in defining and implementing standards 
 
TYPES OF ACTORS LOCAL/NATIONAL INTERNATIONAL 
BUSINESS Local or National Firms, 
Trade Associations and 
Certification Firms Multinationals (TNCs), 
Global Trade Associations, Global 
Certification Firms PRIVATE 
SECTOR 
NGOs 
 Local or National NGOs, 
Consumer Groups and 
Trade Unions Global NGos, 
International Trade Union 
Federations 
PUBLIC SECTOR Local and National 
Government & Standards 
Organization International and 
Regional Organizations 
 Typology for Global Standards 
 3. Standards can be distinguished according to the following criterion: 
•  Scope :  process, product standards 
•  Geographical reach :  national, regional, international 
•  Function :  social, labour, environmental, quality, safety, ethical 
•  Key drivers :  public, private (business, NGOs), public-private 
•  Forms :  management standards, company codes, labels 
•  Coverage :  generic, sector specific, firm/value chain specific 
•  Regulatory implications :  legally mandatory, necessary for competition, voluntary 
 On the basis of these distinctions, a review of global standards is set out in Table 2.  G/SPS/GEN/760 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Table 2:  Typologies for Global Standards 
 
Field of 
Application Form Coverage Key Dr ivers Certification 
Process Regulatory 
Implication 
IS0 9000 Standard (& 
label) Generic International 
business 3rd party 
private 
auditors Voluntary, 
market 
requirement 
and legally mandatory in some markets 
QS9000/AS9000 Standard 
label Sector 
bpecific International 
business 3rd party 
private auditors Voluntary and 
sector requirement 
EUREPGAP1      
HACCP Standard Sector 
specific International 
organizations &government 3
rd party 
public & private 
bodies Increasingly 
legally mandatory 
Firm QA codes Codes Firm specific International 
business 1st and 3rd 
party Voluntary 
SA 8000,ETI, 
FLA Standard & 
code Generic State, business 
& NGOs 3rd party 
private 
auditors and NGOs Voluntary 
ISO14000 Standard & 
label Generic Business 3rd party 
private auditors  Voluntary 
Fair Trade, FSC Standards 
codes & labels Sector 
scpecific NGOs, unions 
& business 3
rd  party 
NGOs Voluntary 
Firm-level 
Company codes Codes Firm specific Business 1st and 3rd 
party firm 
and NGOs Mandatory for 
all suppliers 
                                                      
1 EUREPGAP : Harmonized standards and procedures for global certification of Good Agricultural 
Practices (GAP) (i) developed by a coalition of retailers; (ii) now 275 members from farm to fork; (iii) business-
to-business (not communicated to consumers); (iv) inde pendent audits and certifica tion to measure compliance; 
(v) 35,000 producers certified in 62 countries; (vi) Protocol includes Integrated Crop Management (ICM), 
Integrated Pest Control (IPC), Quality Management System (QMS), Hazard Anal ysis and Critical Control 
Points (HACCP), worker health, safety, welfare an d environmental pollution and conservation management; 
(vii) Horticulture:  210 Control Points (Food Safety, Environmental, Social). G/SPS/GEN/760 
Page 4  
 
  Table 3:  Examples of Private Food Safety and Quality Standards 
 
 Public Mandatory Public Voluntary Private 
National  
National Legislation Food Safety 
Enhancement Program 
HACCP Collective 
 Dutch 
HACCP, 
BRC Global Standards, Assured Food Standards  Business-to-
Business  
Nature's Choice 
(Tesco Stores, UK) Field-to-Fork (Mark & Spencer, 
UK) 
Filière Agriculture Raisonnée (Auchan, 
France) 
Filière Qualité (Carrefour, France)  Focus 
International EU Regulation ISO 9000 
 
ISO 22000 International 
Food 
Standard 
 EUREPGAP  
 
Quality Management Standards 
 
4. Using the typology set out earlier, the followi ng table outlines the constellation of actors 
engaged in the formulation of these standards, an d details how these standards are implemented.  
These standards can be differentiated according to di stinct "generations".  These generations capture 
the nature of coverage of standard s, from those that are generic, to  sector-specific, and more recently 
firm-specific standards.  G/SPS/GEN/760 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Table 3:  Different generations of global quality management standards 
 
Generation Examples Actors 
involved Key drivers Influence in 
international 
trade Certification 
Process 
1st 
generation 
   GENERIC ISO 9000
 The 
International 
Organization of Stand. (ISO) represented through 
national 
standardization bodies and large business actors mainly 
from 
developed countries, accredited certification bodies  Industry
 
(trade 
associations, TNCs, certification bodies) Voluntary, but 
increasingly 
becoming mandatory in some European markets, also 
gaining 
influence in the US and Japan 3
rd party, 
market based 
auditors  
2nd 
generation 
  SECTOR-SPECIFIC  (a) AS 9000, 
QS 9000  
     
 
   (b) HACCP
: 
Health and 
standards    
 
     
 
    
 (a) Large 
TNCs, sector 
business associations, accredited certification bodies 
 
   (b) 
International 
public institutions (e.g.WHO, FAO) national control 
institutions 
with public duties, governmental representatives 
 
Food retailers, importers and suppliers (a) TNCs, 
lead firms in 
the chain     
 
   (b) National 
governments, 
especially in developed countries  
 
     
 
    
 Increasing 
influence in 
technically complex sectors where specialized quality 
assurance 
codes are required  Increasing 
influence in 
international pharmaceutical and food-based trade with growing 
concerns 
relating to process management in the 
international 
food chain    
 (a) 3
rd party 
market-based 
auditors     
 
   (b)3
rd-party 
certification 
through public/private institutions with public duties 
 
    
 
    
 G/SPS/GEN/760 
Page 6  
 
  Generation Examples Actors 
involved Key drivers Influence in 
international 
trade Certification 
Process 
(c) 
EUREPGAP : 
Food Quality, 
& Crop 
Management standards (c) Private 
sector industry Extremely 
prominent in European fresh 
produce value 
chain, adopted by all leading supermarkets & food importers  (c) 3
rd party 
market-based auditors 
3rd 
Generation 
  Company based Nestlé
 
 
Supermarket Codes (Wal Mart, Tesco, Ahold) Powerful 
TNCs with a 
dominant position in the world market and a leading role in their 
supply chain TNCs, 
lead firms in 
the chain Increasing 
influence due 
to technological based complexity in know-how 
intensive 
sectors, and also in the food products sector 1
st and 3rd  
Party 
monitoring 
 
Implications for Small Producers 
 
5. UNCTAD's experience in the area of standards is that2: 
•  Voluntary or private standards are becoming the entry conditions for markets particularly at 
the national level and, increasingly for many  producers, for international markets. 
•   Producers can gain a price premium if they can get the standards right. 
•   There are concerns that these standards can have a negative impact on equity and 
livelihoods if they are not designed carefully to integrate the views and concerns of these small producers. 
 6. In this light, it is important to learn more about the rapidly changi ng market requirement.  It is 
hard to keep pace and it's important to have good empi rical work on the ground to take stock of what's 
happening.  An overarching concern is how do we develop non-exclus ionary standards?  Standards 
that meet the needs of the large distribution netw orks such as supermarket chains and the buyers, and 
at the same time, help and support the small producers. 
                                                     
 
2 To enable them to meet internationally recognize d standards, UNCTAD, in 2005, completed a project 
on “Agri-food safety and SPS compliance”  in the horticultural sector in Guinea, but also in other least 
developed countries (Ghana, Pacific Island Countries, Mozambique and Tanzania). The current follow-up 
project "A Model for the Development of a Public/Private Safety Control System for the Horticultural Sector in 
Guinea",  financed by the Standards Trade Development Facility (STDF),  was designed to assist producers' 
associations and export associations in Guinea to comply  with SPS requirements and retailer’s agri-food safety 
standards.  G/SPS/GEN/760 
 Page 7 
 
 
  (i) There is limited access by small producers to standards-setting processes.  The 
standards are being imposed on them.  So, a key part of the chain is being excluded 
from the standard-setting process. 
(ii) There is inadequate study of the share of  cost and benefits between the standard 
makers and the standard takers.  An invest ment is required by a supermarket to work 
with small producers but there is also a cost  to the producer that wants to work with 
the supermarkets and we need to think about that.  If the costs are being borne 
primarily by the small producers then these st andards are really regressive instruments 
that work against their livelihoods. 
(iii) Compliance and certification – proof that st andards are being met involves some cost 
and this cost right now is not being borne by the private companies themselves.  In 
some cases this is being funded by public  money coming in to support their active 
participation in this changing supply chain.  Why is it that we need to have foreign 
development assistance and NGOs supporting this with public money?  Doesn't it make more sense for the private companies to pick up all that?  We've heard some 
examples of companies seeking to do this but it's not easy. 
(iv) Transaction costs related to inspections for the buyers makes it difficult for them to 
deal with small producers and at some point  there is going to be a rationalization of 
the supply chain.  This has big implications  for what development agencies are able to 
do, and how can they contribute to and make sure that this is a win-win situation? 
7. Some questions addressed to expert s and/or panelists for discussions: 
•  How do we develop non-exclusionary standards? 
•  How do we reduce the cost of compliance for t hose small actors that actively participate in 
those chains? 
•  How do we review certification/conformity assessment processes to give them a fair shake? 
•  Can we include small producers in standard se tting or is it only about helping them comply 
with externally imposed standards?  Can they  be assisted in the process to set their own 
standards? 
•  Can we learn from some of the social and e nvironmental certification bodies for identifying 
best practices in the area? There is a lot of wo rk going on in the fair-trade movement, etc. to 
make sure that small producers are part of the chain, so can we learn from them? 
•  Can we make small farmer pa rtnerships part of the selling point?  Can it be part of the 
brand image of a particular retailer or company? 
•  Can we create a policy framework to set out how business can help create sustainable 
markets? 
•  Can we have a supportive groups of actors (NGOs, Chambers of Commerce, etc) that can 
act as advocates and watchdogs to make sure there are fair deals between the producers and 
the retailers?  
 
__________