COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
COM(90) 456 final 
Brussels, 8 October 1990 
COMMISSION GREEN PAPER ON 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF EUROPEAN STANDARDIZATION 
ACTION FOR FASTER TECHNOLOGICAL INTEGRATION 
IN EUROPE 
- 1 -
COMMISSION GREEN PAPER ON 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF EUROPEAN STANDARDIZATION : 
ACTION FOR FASTER TECHNOLOGICAL INTEGRATION IN EUROPE 
Table of contents (P) 
INTRODUCTION 2 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 
PART ONE : THE CHALLENGE 
I. THE IMPORTANCE OF EUROPEAN STANDARDIZATION FOR THE 
INTERNAL MARKET 8 
(I) European standards for legislation 8 
(II) European standards in an integrated market 10 
II. EUROPEAN STANDARDIZATION TODAY 12 
( I) CEN/CENELEC: 
- Estab I i shment 1 2 
- Recognition by the Community 12 
-Present Structure 14 
(II) ETSI 16 
PART TWO : MEETING THE CHALLENGE 
III. THE MAIN ISSUES FOR EUROPEAN STANDARDIZATION IN THE 
1990'S: 19 
A. The role of European Industry and other Interested 
par tI es 20 
B. The organization of European Standardization 2 2 
Priority i ssues 
( i) Efficiency 22 
( II) Coordination and structure 27 
(III) Membership and International cooperation 31 
Other important Issues 
( iv) Accountability 35 
( v) F InancIng 37 
( vI) InformatI on 40 
(vli) Status of the European Standard 42 
(viii) Testing and Certification 44 
(Ix) Intellectual property rights and patents 46 
C. The roie of public authorities 47 
THE NEXT STEPS 49 
SUMMARY OF COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 50 IV. 
V. 
Annex 
Annex 1 Standardization Order Vouchers given to CEN 
and CENELEC since 1986 
2 Proposed organizational structure of the 
European Standardization System 
- 2 -
INTRODUCTION 
The credibility and success of the White Paper on completing 
the Internal market do not come from the fact that three 
hundred subjects were Identified for legislative 
harmonization, but that a thousand or more Community 
Directives were abandoned which might have been necessary If 
the old approach, based on detailed harmonization, had been 
foI lowed. 
The new approach is based on two principles: 
mutual recognition of national rules Is the basic 
principle. This presupposes that the objectives of 
national legislation - health, safety and so on - are 
equivalent and that only the means of achieving them are 
di fferent; 
legislative harmonization at Community level only occurs 
exceptionally In those areas where the objectives of 
national legislation are not equivalent; when 
harmonization Is necessary, Community legislation must be 
limited to laying down essential requirements for safety, 
health, and so on. It Is up to producers to chose by what 
means they wish to comply with these requirements. 
Let us take domestic electrical applicances as an example. 
Technical safety requires the presence In the electrical lead 
of a third wire, connected to the earth. Before taking 
legislative initiatives, the Commission will see whether the 
twelve Member States all require this third wire. If so, there 
is no need for legislation to be harmonized; if not, Community 
legislation will provide for an earth connection for this type 
of appliance throughout the Community, without going into the 
details of whether the third pole should be round or square, 
or placed in the middle or at the edge of the plug. 
This policy will bring about a single Europe for traders, but 
not for manufacturers or consumers. A Community citizen may 
purchase a washing-machine in the country-next-door and bring 
it across frontiers without difficulty, but he may still find 
that the plug of the appliance does not fit the socket in his 
house. 
Thus neither mutual recognition nor the new approach to 
harmonization can operate satisfactorily unless manufacturers 
come together and agree upon common Instruments - plugs and 
sockets - which are intended to achieve the legislator's 
objectives. That is the role of the standardization 
organ I zat i ons. 
Only European standards will bring about a common economic 
area. National standards on the contrary compartmentalise the 
common market. They cannot be the subject of mutual 
recognition, since, not laid down by the authorities, they 
are not obligatory; each producer is free to fulfill 
- 3 -
essential requirements by other means and no purchaser can be 
obliged to recognize foreign products. Standards will only 
fulfill their role In the common market If they are agreed at 
the European level and published as European standards. 
That Is why the Community encourages the work of CEN, CENELEC 
and ETSI , which brings together the standardization bodies of 
the eighteen member countries of the Community and EFTA. 
The output of the European standardization bodies has risen 
spectacularly. Over 800 standards have been adopted In the 
last six years, three times as many as in the previous twenty 
years. But the completion of the Internal Market requires the 
adoption of at least 800 additional standards, or about one 
standard a day until 31 December 1992. 
The Commission is responsible for the operation of the common 
market, not only for traders but also for producers and 
consumers. In order not to have to return to the old approach 
of detailed harmonization, It wishes to assist standards 
organizations to respond to the growing demand for 
standardization in anticipation of 1992. In this Green Paper, 
the Commission proposes for discussion suggestions for 
improving the efficiency of standardization organizations as 
well as their cooperation and cohesion. 
- 4 -
COMMISSION GREEN PAPER ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF 
EUROPEAN STANDARDIZATION 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
The single Community market will become a reality for European 
Industry only insofar as common technical standards can be 
developed progressively at European rather than national 
I eve I . 
Less than 900 days from the Community's deadline for 
achievement of the internal market, European standardization 
has become central to that objective. Hundreds of European 
Standards are today being drawn up to accompany the 
Community's technical legislation which will come into force 
before 1 January 1993. This Is the Immediate goal of the 
European standardization process. 
But as the regulatory barriers to the free circulation of 
industrial products within the Community are removed, 
differences In national technical standards still constitute a 
significant obstacle to the acceptability of those products In 
the market . 
Although under Community law Member State authorities are 
required to accept on their market products which conform to 
the legislation and standards of other Member States where 
these are intended to achieve equivalent objectives, the same 
principle of "mutual recognition" cannot be applied to the 
individual purchaser in the market, who remains free to set 
his own requirements, often by reference to national 
standards. Only through the gradual voluntary harmonization of 
standards can the Community market fully achieve the economic 
rationalization and competition which are prime objectives of 
the EEC Treaty. 
The objectives of the Green Paper 
The main purpose of this Green Paper - a consultation document 
addressed to all interested parties - is to draw to the 
attention of producers and users of industrial product's in the 
private and public sector the strategic significance of 
European standardization for the realization of the internal 
market. Nothing less than the future technological 
environment for products on the European market is at stake. 
A second purpose of this Green Paper is to accelerate the 
delivery of European standards, especially those required for 
the implementation of EEC product legislation. The European 
standardization bodies have made major efforts to respond to 
the increased demand for their services In recent years, for 
which they are to be congratulated, but demand for European 
standards is outstripping supply. 
- 5 -
A third objective of this paper Is to stimulate debate on how 
to ensure long-tern dynamism and stability In European 
Standardization so that this economlcaI Iy-Important activity 
can be sustained at the pace which will be required during the 
next decade. 
Contents of the Green Paper 
The Green Paper examines a number of Issues relating to the 
organizational structure, financing and policies and practices 
of standardization bodies, both at European and national 
level, and assesses what changes may be needed to make 
standardization serve the European market more effectively. 
It Is divided Into two parts. 
Part One identifies the challenges and problems facing 
European standardization. Section I explains the importance of 
European standardization for the Community's internal market, 
both for EEC Directives adopted under the so-called New 
Approach to technical harmonization and in terms of common 
technical standards In the Community market. Section II 
briefly describes the structure and operation of the European 
standardization bodies, CEN, CENELEC and ETSI. 
Part Two puts forward possible solutions to the challenges 
facing European standardization in the 1990's and addresses 
the role of European Industry and other parties in the 
standardization process, the organization of European 
standardization and the role of public authorities. 
The Commission's main recommendations can be summarized as 
foI lows : 
European Industry is called upon to give European 
standardization a much higher priority in its strategy 
for the internal market. Without greater involvement of 
industry In standardization work, and the commitment of 
more money and expertise to that process, the ambitious 
objectives which the Commission and European 
standardization bodies have set themselves may not be 
met. Lack of involvement at a strategic level by 
European industry is likely to be a high-cost option, and 
will reduce the potential of the internal market. 
- 6 -
Standardization bodies are asked to take further steps to 
Improve their efficiency and to consider restructuring 
the European standardization system to permit sectoral 
autonomy In standards-making while ensuring coordination 
through new European-love I structures (a European 
Standardization Council and Board) which will lay down 
the strategic direction of European standardization. 
Other recommendations Include greater direct 
participation of Interested parties in European 
standardization work, the creation of self-standing 
European Standards and a long-term policy for the 
financing of European standardization bodies, which 
should allow future Community funding of European 
standardization to decline from its present high levels 
over the next few years. 
The Commission also recommends measures by which the 
European Standardization bodies might respond to their 
changing external environment, especially In Eastern 
Europe. 
Governments are asked to step up their promotion and 
support of standardization at national and at European 
level. At the Community level, the Commission recommends 
that the Council of Ministers should decide upon the 
basic principles for future cooperation between the 
European standardization system and public authorities 
and commit Itself to long-term financial support. 
(A full summary of Commission recommendations is given in 
Section V of the paper). 
Follow-up to the Green Paper 
This Green Paper will be widely distributed by the Commission. 
Interested parties will be consulted In the three months 
following publication, with a view to identifying the main 
points of consensus. 
The Commission will at the same time consult the European 
standardization bodies on the priority issues (efficiency, new 
structures and external relations) with a view to agreeing 
appropriate action as soon as possible. 
The Commission will, In the light of the discussion of the 
Green Paper, also consider making proposals to the Council of 
Ministers for decisions to formalize its recognition and 
support of European standardization. 
For further copies of the Green Paper, please apply preferably 
by letter or telefax to: 
Un 11 I I I .B.2, 
Directorate General for Internal Market and Industrial Affairs 
Commission of the European Communities 
200, rue de la Loi 
B - 1049 Brussels 
Telephone: 32/2/235.46.50 
Telefax: 32/2/236.08.51 
- 7 -
PART ONE: THE CHALLENGE 
- 8 -
I. THE IMPORTANCE OF EUROPEAN STANDARDIZATION FOR THE 
INTERNAL MARKET 
1. The elimination of technical barriers to trade has been 
recognized at the highest political level of the 
Community as a priority task in the programme for the 
completion of a market without internal frontiers by 31 
December 1992. Since the adoption by the Council of the 
so-called "New Approach to technical harmonization and 
standardization" In 1985, the harmonization of European 
Industrial standards In the areas covered by Community 
technical legislation has become an essential Instrument 
in achieving that objective. 
As 1993 approaches, European standardization is also 
being perceived as a tool by which to obtain the full 
economic benefits of that market. As well as being a 
means of eliminating regulatory barriers to trade, 
European standards are becoming an economic objective in 
the Ir own r ight. 
(I) European standards for législation 
2. In the Council Resolution of 7 May 1985 on the new 
approach to technical harmonization and standardization, 
which is now the basis of most Community technical 
legislation, reference to voluntary standards was 
accepted as the appropriate method of giving technical 
expression to the essential requirements of Community 
Directives. Under the new approach, EEC legislation 
confines Itself to laying down the essential requirements 
to which products must comply in order to ensure the 
protection of public health or safety, of the environment 
or the consumer. European standards are developed In 
respect of each Directive in order to provide 
manufacturers with a set of technical specifications 
recognized in the Directive as giving a presumption of 
conformity to the essential requirements. The European 
standards concerned, the so-called "harmonized 
standards", remain voluntary; manufacturers are still 
able to put on the Community market products which either 
met other standards or no standards at all, subject to 
fulfilling the procedures for assessment of conformity 
laid down by the Directive. 
3. The Council has now adopted several Directives based on 
the new approach (toys, simple pressure vessels, 
construction products, electro-magnetic compatibility, 
machines, personal protective equipment and gas 
appliances). Further Directives for medical devices and 
telecommunications terminal equipment are likely to be 
adopted this year. A large amount of work has been given 
to the European standardization bodies by means of 
individual "standardization mandates" 
from the Commission, which, after consultation of the 
standardization body concerned, establish the scope of 
the work, lay down any supplementary guidelines and fix 
the timetable by which the standards should be adopted. 
- 9 -
(It should be noted that the EFTA countries, whose 
national standardization bodies are also members of the 
European standardization organizations, have consistently 
supported the Community's approach and contribute to the 
financing of mandated standardization work). 
In a separate initiative, the Community has given 
harmonized European standards a prominent role in the 
opening up of public procurement markets. The revised 
Community Directives on public supplies and works(1), 
and the proposed Directive which will shortly extend the 
same disciplines to such sectors as telecommunications, 
transport, energy and water supply, require purchasing 
entities to refer to national standards transposing 
European standards where they exist, subject to some 
IImI ted except Ions. 
The final success of the new approach and of the use of 
European standards in public procurement policy depends 
largely on the European standardization bodies. The pace 
at which the Community has adopted Its legislation has 
resulted In an unprecedented Increase In their workload. 
Since 1986 about 30 standardization mandates related to 
EEC legislation have been given to the two main European 
standardization bodies, CEN (Comité Européen de 
Normalisation) and CENELEC (Comité Européen de 
Normalisation E lectrotechnI que) for approximately 800 
European Standards, most of which are to be completed by 
1993(2), More mandates are being prepared, which are 
likely to bring the total to over 1,000 standards. This 
demand for new standards work has led to a doubling of 
CEN/CENELEC Technical Committees and working groups; 
between December 1987 and December 1989 the number of 
Technical Committees alone rose from 122 to 239. The 
number of draft European standards in course of 
development in CEN rose from 220 in 1986 to 950 in 1989. 
Several thousand people currently participate in 
standardization work directly related to mandated 
European Standards. 
Despite this response from the standards bodies the 
overwhelming part of this standardization work for the 
EEC internal market still has to be done before 1993. 
The annual output of new European standards is still low 
(about 150 were published by CEN/CENELEC in 1989) 
compared to the target of at least 800 additional 
standards needed for EEC legislation or the production of 
national standards in the main standards-producing 
countries of the Commun Ity(3*. Even though current 
CEN/CENELEC output represents a rapid increase from 
previous levels (19 in 1985, 102 in 1988), demand for 
European standards is Increasing faster than supply. 
(1) Reference: OJEC N° L 127, 20/5/88, p. 1. 
(2) A list of the subjects for which standardization 
mandates have been given Is contained In Annex I. 
(3) Purely national standards published by France, Germany 
and the United Kingdom in 1989 were approximately 
350, 650 and 400 respectively. 
- 10 -
(II) European standards In an integrated market 
7. The Community's Interest In common European standards Is 
not limited to those to which can be referred to In 
Community product legislation. More European 
standardization will benefit the single European market 
In all sectors, not only In those subject to regulation, 
by bringing about the very economic rationalization and 
competition which are prime objectives of the EEC Treaty. 
8. The main motive for promoting any standardization 
activity is economic. The motivation for standardizing 
products, processes or services at the national level -
namely, to reduce costs for producers and to Improve 
transparency of the market for consumers - clearly exists 
at the European level. Given the current fragmentation of 
the European market, economic gains should be much 
higher from European standardization than from further 
national standardization. Common European standards will 
reduce research, production and distribution costs for 
producers, and promote more intensive competition, to the 
benefit of consumers, In respect of the non-standard 
features of products. 
9. A second reason Is that, even in the absence of technical 
regulations Imposed by governments, national standards 
inhibit intra-CommunIty trade and add to costs for 
manufacturers. National standards tend to shape customer 
preference for products. Important customers in national 
markets, such as government agencies, reinforce this 
effect by favouring national standards in public 
procurement. Pressure in favour of known national 
standards Is also exercised by bodies such as insurance 
companies. More European standardization can gradually 
eliminate these hidden technical barriers to trade, by 
building up a degree of commonality in technical 
specifications where the market considers it useful. 
10. For newly-developing technologies (information 
technology, telecommunications or new industrial 
materials) standards are often a pre-condition for 
industrial production or marketing. It is crucial that in 
these sectors, where markets are becoming global, 
standardization should, where possible, proceed at the 
international or at least the European level from the 
outset. 
- 11 -
While Europe may have to come to terms with an 
Inheritance of conflicting national standards in more 
traditional technologies for some time, It must not 
repeat history In the technologies of tomorrow. 
Standards for new technologies must also be delivered 
more quickly than ever before If they are to meet the 
needs of the market.d) 
11. For all the reasons alluded to above, the work which the 
European standards bodies are being called upon to do is 
extensive and growing quickly.For most of It (two-thirds 
of CEN's activity and one-half of CENELEC's is covered by 
standardization mandates from the Community and EFTA) the 
European standards bodies have contracted to complete the 
Job within the next two-and-a-half years. This task alone 
requires more than doubling the current annual output of 
European standards. To this must be added the growing 
demand from industry for European standards in other 
areas, which, although perhaps less urgent, is of long-
term economic importance. 
European standardization is faced with a huge challenge. 
It is unlikely to succeed without a heightened level of 
commitment from those who want the standards and from the 
standardization bodies themselves. 
(1) The Community's research and development programmes 
already have an important role In pre-standardization. 
One of the objectives of the Community Bureau of 
Reference (BCR) is to facilitate the implementation of 
standards, and links between research, standardization 
and certification policies are currently being 
re i nforced. 
- 12 -
II. EUROPEAN STANDARDIZATION TODAY 
In this Section the origin and current structure of the 
three European standardization bodies (CEN, CENELEC and 
ETSI) is briefly reviewed, and the main constraints on 
expansion of their activity are Identified. 
( I) CEN and CENELEC 
Establishment and early development 
12. The European standardization organizations were set up to 
ensure more effective implementation of International 
standards by national standardization bodies In Europe, 
the harmonization of divergent national standards or the 
preparation of standards where none existed. An 
association of European national standards, bodies from 
the member countries of the EEC and EFTA, the Comité 
Européen de Normalisation - CEN, was established In 
1961, to be followed In 1962 by a similar organization 
for the e lectrotechnlea I area (CENELCOM, which became 
CENELEC in 1973). 
13. In the first twenty years the output of these European 
organizations was low. CEN adopted 96 European standards 
between 1961 and 1982; CENELEC adopted in the same period 
37 European standards and 303 harmonized documents (texts 
which, while containing common elements, allow for 
national deviations on a permanent or temporary basis). 
An important distinguishing feature of both 
organizations, however, was that their decisions on 
common European standards, once adopted, became binding 
on those members which had voted for them. Outside the 
limited area covered by common standardization work, 
national standardization bodies continued to develop 
their own standards independently. 
Recognition by the Community 
14. A stronger regional orientation was given to European 
standardization after 1983, as a result of initiatives 
taken by the Community in order to eliminate technical 
barriers to intra-CommunIty trade. 
- 13 -
15. The first of these was the adoption, on 28 March 1983, of 
Council Directive 83/189/EEC laying down an Information 
procedure for. standards and technical regulations. This 
Directive established the procedures for cooperation 
between the members of CEN/CENELEC and the Commission 
which still apply today. In particular, It provided for: 
the collection by the European standardization bodies 
of Information from their members concerning their 
planned and current activity (Articles 2 and 4); 
requests from national standards bodies to be 
associated with the work of another body, or to have 
work taken up at European level (Article 3); 
a Standing Committee on Technical Regulations and 
Standards, composed of Member State representatives 
and chaired by the Commission, in whose work the 
European and national standards organizations could 
participate (Article 5); 
requests from the Commission, after consultation of 
the Standing Committee, to the European 
standardization bodies to draw up standards on 
specific subjects (Article 6) ; 
best efforts by Member State authorities to ensure 
that national standardization did not continue on 
subjects for which the Commission had requested 
European standards (Article 7). 
Directive 83/189/EEC provided a mechanism through which 
national standardization could become open to collective 
scrutiny and the Commun Ity author 111 es could initiate 
European standardization work. 
16. The Council of Ministers has formally recognized the role 
of European standardization in Community legislation. 
The Conclusions of the Council on Standardization of 1984 
and the Resolution on the New Approach of May 1985 refer 
to the place to be given to voluntary standardization in 
future Community legislation, to the advantages of 
standardization for industrial competitiveness in the 
Community and In external markets, and to the need for "a 
very rapid strengthening of the capacity to standardize, 
preferably at European level". 
- 14 -
17. In 1984 the Commission defined Its relationship with 
CEN/CENELEC In General Guidelines for Cooperation. The 
Commission committed Itself to following the New Approach 
as widely as possible, and to giving financial support to 
CEN/CENELEC. CEN/CENELEC agreed to coordinate their 
activity, to Increase their resources, to align as far as 
possible with International standards, to ensure that all 
Interested parties were associated with their work, and 
to maintain an effective Information service. 
The financial aspects of Commlsslon-CEN/CENELEC 
cooperation were laid down in a Framework Contract, first 
agreed in 1985 and renewed In 1989. 
18. Following ratification of the European Single Act in 
1987, the Internal regulations of CEN/CENELEC were 
revised at the request of the Commission to permit the 
adoption and obligatory transposition of European 
standards by weighted majority vote. Under CEN/CENELEC 
rules, a draft European standard which receives a 
favourable vote from a qualified majority of member 
bodies is deemed to be adopted and is Implemented by all. 
In the event that a standard does not receive a 
favourable vote from a majority of the entire CEN/CENELEC 
membership, the votes of members from the EEC Member 
States are counted separately and a qualified majority in 
favour requires the adoption of the standard by all EEC 
Member bodies and those EFTA member bodies which had 
voted In favour. (D A similar procedure is also 
provided for In the rules of the European 
Telecommunications Standardization Institute (ETSI). 
Present structure 
19. The structure of CEN and CENELEC Is that of associations 
of national standards bodies or electrotechnIcaI 
committees, which have the last word on all questions 
relating to standardization activity at the European 
level. The budget of each European organization is voted 
by the national members, as are its Internal rules, work 
programmes, and decisions on the allocation of resources. 
In contrast to the situation at national level, the 
governing bodies of CEN contain no direct representation 
of other interests than of professional standardizers 
(such as public authorities, manufacturers, or other 
users of standards), although CENELEC Is closely 
associated with the electrotechnicaI Industry and 
appoints some of Its office-holders from Industry. 
(1) It should be noted, however, that the weighted majority 
voting procedure used In CEN/CENELEC is not Identical 
to that of the EEC Treaty. In particular, the condition 
for a proposal to be adopted that no more than 3 members 
may vote negatively constitutes a more restrictive 
approach than that of Article 148. The Commission has 
asked, so far unsuccessfully, for this condition to be 
removed from the CEN/CENELEC regulations. 
- 15 -
20. CEN and CENELEC have responded with energy and commitment 
to the Increasing demand for common European standards. 
The secretariats of both organizations have expanded 
quickly ; In the period 1985 - 89, staff members have 
Increased from 10 to 70 In CEN, from 13 to 32 In CENELEC. 
A comparison of the annual output of the organizations in 
1989 with that of, say, 1982 is also eloquent: CEN last 
year adopted almost seven times as many standards as in 
1982 (130 instead of 19) and CENELEC six times as many 
standards and Harmonized Documents (126 compared to 20). 
But the distance between today's achievement and 
tomorrow's goal Is still great. There are today about 
1250 adopted European standardization documents of which 
about 800 In the e IectrotechnicaI area ; the number of 
national standards in Germany, France and United Kingdom, 
is about 20,000, 13,000 and 10,000 respectively (a 
significant proportion of these is Identical to or 
related to international or European standards). 
21. CEN and CENELEC have in recent years recognized the value 
of using the services of other organizations, the so-
called "Associated Standardization Bodies" (ASB's), in 
the preparation of technical documents destined to become 
European Standards. A number of such bodies have been 
given this status, such as ECISS - European Committee on 
Iron and Steel Standardization, AECMA - Association 
Européenne des Constructeurs de Matériel Aérospatial, and 
EWOS - European Workshop for Open Systems, and have been 
responsible for the programming and drafting of documents 
which have only to be submitted to public enquiry by CEN 
and voting and CENELEC before becoming European 
Standards. Some of these bodies provide for direct 
participation in their work of Interested parties at the 
European level. Approximately 100 European Standards so 
far adopted by CEN and CENELEC have been provided by 
ASB's. 
22. Despite this impressive response to the challenge, the 
limits to CEN and CENELEC's flexibility are becoming 
apparent as European activity has Intensified: 
In spite of the introduction of weighted majority 
voting for final decisions on standards, a concern to 
achieve consensus on draft standards has led to long 
de I ays ; 
- 16 -
CEN/CENELEC have not yet applied the "project team" 
approach to work up Initial drafts of standards system 
outside Information technology field; Instead the 
organizations continue to apply a "collegiate" system, 
In which every stage of the standardization process 
assures parity of treatment on a national basis: 
Procedures for public enquiry, examination of comments 
and final voting are widely Judged to be slow and to 
delay the delivery of European standards, particularly 
for new technologies ; 
The requirement that adopted European standards be 
transposed as national standards In each member 
country before they can be applied leads to delays In 
their availability for use ; 
Procedures for the collection and distribution of 
Information on national standardization activity under 
Directive 83/189/EEC have been applied loosely (in 
1989 an independent report described the Information 
as not responding to the needs of the market); 
Information on European standardization activity is 
not yet made available In a clear and comprehensive 
way to European Industry. 
These and other difficulties are the subject of further 
analysis and recommendations for change in PART TWO of 
this document. 
(il) ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) 
23. In Its Green Paper on the development of a Community 
telecommunications policy (1987) the Commission proposed 
that the development of harmonised specifications would 
be accelerated by the creation of a new European 
standardization body. In response, the members of the 
European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications 
Administrations (CEPT) decided to establish such a body, 
which represented a radical change in approach to 
European standardization insofar as it provided for the 
direct participation at European level of all interested 
parties in standardization work rather than for 
representation through national delegations headed by the 
national standards body. 
- 17 -
24. The establishment of ETSI In March 1988 outside the 
CEN/CENELEC framework posed a number of problems for the 
coherence of European standardization. In the first 
place, coordination between ETSI and CEN/CENELEC was 
necessary to avoid duplication of effort In 
standardization, particularly as the extension of 
telecommunications technology Into other technologies 
made overlapping increasingly likely. A second problem 
was the need to ensure that the basic principles of 
standardization, such as transparency and Independence of 
particular interests, were respected by the new body. 
Finally, there was a concern to ensure that the 
standards produced by ETSI would be effectively 
integrated into the corpus of European and national 
standards. 
25. During 1988 and early 1989 the Commission negotiated with 
ETSI In order to resolve these issues. This led to 
amendments to the ETSI rules of procedure and to a 
commitment by ETSI to cooperate with CEN and CENELEC. Two 
years after the establishment of ETSI, the three European 
standardization bodies have recently decided to establish 
a Joint Presidents Group in which matters of common 
Interest can be discussed, and have negotiated a 
cooperation agreement for the handling of technical work. 
Because of the pragmatic approach followed In recent 
months the dangers of duplication of work appear to have 
been avoided. At the time of writing, however, the 
Commission is still concerned that the role of national 
standards bodies in ETSI's standardization activity 
should be fully recognized. 
26. ETSI has in two years already developed into a 
substantial organization. It currently has 212 members 
and 31 observers, representing PTT administrations, 
public network operators, manufacturers, users and other 
organizations. Its programme of work aims to deliver 
nearly 300 European Telecommunications Standards, of 
which 40 will be adopted this year and a further 260 are 
at the stage of public enquiry. The Commission has 
provisionally concluded a framework agreement with ETSI 
for one year, and has issued nine standardization 
mandates to it. 
- 18 -
PART TWO: MEETING THE CHALLENGE 
- 19 -
III. THE MAIN ISSUES FOR EUROPEAN STANDARDIZATION IN THE 
1990'S 
27. This central section of the Green Paper Is divided Into 
three parts 
A. - The role of European Industry and other Interested 
parties 
B. - The organization of European standardization 
C. - The role of public authorities. 
\ 
- 20 -
A. The role of European Industry and other interested 
part les 
28. Effective standardization depends on the motivation and 
commitment of those who use standards. The Commission 
believes that companies intending to exploit the benefits 
of a single European market, and other Interests, such as 
users and consumers of Industrial products, should ask 
themselves whether they are giving European 
standardization the attention It deserves and whether 
that attention Is exercised at a sufficiently strategic 
level within the organization. 
29. In view of the Impact of European standardization on the 
acceptability of products in the market (and therefore on 
profitability) companies should accord standardization a 
higher priority In their planning for the Internal 
Market. Standards have now become too important to be 
the exclusive preserve of technical experts. The European 
standards developed over the next decade will have a 
decisive Influence on the technological structure of the 
entire European market; they will change the conditions 
of trade not Just in export markets but in each national 
market as well. European standardization work is already 
under way In a wide and growing number of sectors. The 
speed and scale of this process means that companies need 
to be attentive to what is going on in their sector and, 
above all, must become involved in this negotiation. 
Standards are not written by or for professional 
standard I zers, but by and for those motivated enough to 
seek a place at the negotiating table. 
30. The long-term benefits of standardization require 
Investment by individual companies, Just as Improvements 
in productivity, marketing or distribution systems. 
Standards organizations need personnel and physical 
resources to provide an efficient service. But direct 
financial contributions to the costs of standardization 
bodies, either at European or national level, is not the 
main expense. That comes from participation In the 
standardization negotiations themselves, through the 
release of technical experts to assist in the drafting of 
European standards or in discussion of them in Technical 
Committees and working groups. Although streamlining the 
procedures of the European standardization bodies may 
reduce the time taken to produce European standards in 
future, the cost of participation in standards-making 
will still appear high. Companies wishing to influence 
their future technical environment, however, should ask 
themselves whether they really have a choice. 
- 21 -
31. Besides Influencing the pace of European standardization, 
European Industry and other Interested parties will be 
asked to play a bigger role in deciding its future 
direction. Although much current European work Is 
dictated by the needs of EEC legislation, this will not 
always be the case. Even now, a number of Industries are 
proposing subjects for harmonization of standards to CEN, 
CENELEC and ETSI. The possibilities outlined later in 
this document for more sectoral autonomy within the 
European standardization system should encourage 
industry to identify where the absence of European 
standardization Is inhibiting economic rationalization 
and, if necessary, to set up Its own organizations to do 
something about It. Nor is European standardization a 
concern limited to large companies; it should also 
interest small and medium companies, since It offers an 
opportunity to agree on common technical specifications 
openly and democratically. In the absence of 
standardization, specifications will be set by the most 
powerful forces in the market. 
32. European industry is faced with a choice. It can accept 
the present structure of standardization in Europe, from 
which European standards will emerge relatively slowly 
over the next few years, or It can decide to commit 
Itself whole-heartedly to the rapid development of common 
European standards. The second choice will be more 
expensive in the short term than the first, and may well 
be perceived by some parts of industry as more of a 
threat than a benefit. The Commission considers, however, 
that companies which delay in coming to terms with what 
Is an inevitable process will find themselves at a major 
disadvantage compared to their more enlightened 
competI tors. 
33. Other Interests, too, such as consumers, users, or 
workers, will have to be prepared to organize themselves 
more effectively to participate in European 
standardization. The Commission has already provided 
financial assistance to European Trades Union 
Confederation for the establishment of a Technical Bureau 
intended to monitor European standardization work which 
affects the Interests of organized labour. The Commission 
later in this paper recommends that the European 
standardization bodies be more open to participation in 
their work by non-manufacturing interests. Any greater 
access to the standardization process for such interests 
will only lead to an Improved system, however, If those 
concerned take up the opportunities that are offered, and 
ensure that their needs are articulated. 
- 22 -
B. - The organization of European standardization 
34. Not all of these challenges facing European 
standardization are of the same Immediacy or importance. 
A distinction is, therefore, made between priority and 
other Issues. Priorities which mainly concern improving 
the capacity of European standardization organizations to 
meet their commitment to deliver harmonized standards for 
the Internal Market. The other issues, while important, 
are more relevant to the period Immediately following 
1992; for some of these too, however, It would be useful 
to make progress in the near future to lay the foundation 
for the longer term. 
Priority Issues 
(i) Eff ic lency 
35. Efficiency In the production of European standards is, 
from the Commission's poInt-of-view, the highest 
priority; the operation of Community product legislation 
effectively depends upon It. In spite of the mobilization 
of an army of technical experts to work on standards for 
the Directives that will enter into force In 1991 and 
beyond (such as construction products, machines, electro­
magnetic compatibility, gas appliances or medical 
devices), It is probable that without a fairly radical 
change In working methods delays will occur which will 
have a tangible economic cost for Community 
manufacturers. 
- 23 -
36. There seems a real risk that the current working methods 
of European standard Izers may not be capable of 
delivering the large number of European standards needed 
before 1993. It usually takes CEN about two to three 
years to produce a draft standard from the initiation of 
work at European level, another year between the 
beginning of a public enquiry on that draft and the 
adoption of a standard, and at least six months between 
adoption and transposition of the standard In all member 
countries of CEN/CENELEC. Delays can occur at several 
stages: the setting-up of a new Technical Committee, the 
ratification of a work programme by executive bodies, or 
the translation of working documents. Although the speed 
of standardization work ultimately depends on the 
difficulty In obtaining consensus on the technical 
issues, the procedural rules under which technical 
discussions take place can and do affect delivery times. 
37. New working methods are indispensable and urgent for 
European standardization If It Is to match the current 
pace of European Integration. At a time when important 
decisions at the political level are taken on the basis 
of majority vote, there needs to be a shift away from an 
unqualified commitment to consensus in European 
standardization, although the Commission accepts that the 
use of standards is related to the degree of consensus 
reached in their elaboration. 
38. The Commission recommends for urgent consideration by the 
European standardization bodies: 
(I) New methods for establishing common working 
documents 
The traditional Committee-based procedure bringing 
together 18 national delegations (12 from the EEC, 
6 from EFTA) to. discuss conflicting solutions to a 
technical problem is costly, laborious and at times 
Inefficient. Technical Committees, although an 
indispensable part of the standards-making process, 
need to be assisted In their deliberations by 
working documents which already put forward common 
solutions. One way of doing this would be to use 
"drafting secretariats", "project teams", or even 
outside consultants to bring together a summary of 
the technical issues in a single document which did 
not give a particular advantage to a given national 
so lut ion. 
The viability of this approach, however, is 
directly related to the availability of technical 
experts from industry. Without greater commitment 
from European Industry, there can be no significant 
improvement in the present situation. 
(4) 
- 24 -
(II) Greater use of Associated Standards Bodies 
CEN and CENELEC could actively encourage more 
Industry-based associations to offer their services 
as Associated Standards Bodies to develop technical 
documents as the basis for future European 
standards. Such an Initiative would not only 
reduce the administrative and financial burden on 
European standardization bodies themselves, but 
also provide the advantages of a more decentralized 
approach, such as direct industry Involvement In 
priority-setting and the execution of work. . (CEN 
and CENELEC have recently indicated that they are 
prepared to reexamine their rules on Associated 
Standards Bodies in order to ensure that sufficient 
flexibility is given to potential candidate 
organ Izat ions). 
(ill) Use of new technology to accelerate discussion on 
working documents 
The distribution by conventional means of working 
documents to a membership spread across Europe 
takes time. Some of this time could be gained by 
more systematic use of modern communications 
technology, such as electronic mail. It would be 
possible to circulate both working documents and 
final drafts by this means, and to encourage the 
development of discussion outside formal meetings 
by exploiting this channel of communications. 
(i v) Majority voting on proposed draft standards 
Much time is spent in Technical Committees trying 
to arrive at a consensus^1) before a draft 
European standard Is put out to public enquiry. 
This may be appropriate where a standard is not 
particularly urgent; In the case of most of the 
European standards now under discussion, however, 
decisions are indeed urgent if the single European 
market Is to become a reality. 
Majority voting on proposed draft standards should 
therefore be used as a matter of course If 
consensus (which remains the ideal objective) is 
difficult to achieve within the time available; 
this would be particularly, important in the case of 
mandated standardization work. 
(1) Consensus is defined by the ISO as the absence of 
sustained opposition to a particular proposal. 
- 25 -
The executive bodies of the European 
standardization bodies (Technical Boards In the 
case of CEN/CENELEC, the Technical Assembly In the 
case of ETSI) could, for example, regularly review 
progress In Technical Committees and require a vote 
to be taken where appropriate. Voting might also 
take place at the request of a quorum of members, 
to be fixed by each standardization body. 
(The Commission assumes that weighted national 
voting rules would be aligned with those of the EEC 
Treaty) . 
(v) Shorter and more flexible public enquiries 
If all Interested parties have an opportunity to be 
represented in European standardization work and 
the quality of Information about that work Is 
Improved, there is scope for the public enquiry for 
a draft European standard to be reduced from the 
present six months. Such enquiries could also take 
more account of the degree of consensus which has 
already been reached on the draft. Where consensus 
has been reached without voting, then a two months 
public enquiry might be sufficient ; where a draft 
standard has been agreed on the basis of a majority 
vote, a longer enquiry (but no more than four 
months) might be necessary. 
(vI) More rapid handling of comments 
At present, the speed with which comments received 
in an enquiry are processed depends on the 
Technical Committee concerned. Some acceleration of 
the examination of comments (which can now take up 
to six months) would result by establishing a 
general rule that comments must be examined and 
responded to within two months of the conclusion of 
a public enquiry. Exceptions would have to be 
decided case-by-case by the executive of the 
standardization body concerned. 
- 26 -
(vil) Immediate application of adopted standards 
Standards agreed at European level currently have 
to be "transposed" as national standards before 
they become official. A period of six months Is 
usually allowed for this, although longer periods 
may be granted and national bodies often do not 
respect the agreed timetable. National 
transposition should no longer be a pre-condition 
for the use of a European standard (See "Status of 
the European standard"). This would eliminate the 
time-lag between adoption of a European standard 
and its availability to users. 
39. The adoption of some, or all, of these procedural 
recommendations In the short term would speed up the 
delivery of European Standards. But care must also be 
taken to avoid overburdening the European standardization 
system. It Is Indispensable to set priority objectives 
for the first generation of harmonized European 
standards, and to discard objectives which are not 
strictly related to priorities. 
in respect of standardization mandates related to EEC 
legislation, for instance, the technical expression of 
essential requirements of a given Directive has to be 
incorporated into European standards within the timescale 
agreed. Other aspects of standardization related to, for 
example, the efficiency or fitness for use of products, 
can be dealt with only If the delivery of mandated work 
on time is not compromised. Responsibility for sticking 
to priorities lies mainly with the European standards 
bodies themselves, but the Commission, with the advice of 
the Standing Committee on Technical Regulations and 
Standards, may give further guidance on priorities to 
the standards bodies through supplementary mandates. The 
Commission will also limit the issuing of new 
standardization mandates In the next two years as far as 
possible to items that are essential to achievement of 
the InternaI Market. 
40. Those concerned with keeping to priorities may have to 
discourage attempts to Include every feature of existing 
national standards in early European standards. Even if a 
full convergence of technical standards In Europe is 
desirable In the long-term, to try to proceed quickly on 
all fronts will jeopardize agreement on the essential 
minimum for the functioning of the Internai Market. 
Concentrating on performance rather than design 
parameters in European standards-making would also assist 
the process of reaching agreement. 
- 27 -
(II) Coordination and structure 
41. improvement In the coordination of European 
standardization and organ IzatlonaI stab I I Ity are a high 
priority for the Commission. Efficiency and structural 
issues are to some extent linked. The Commission 
recognizes, however, that more time may be needed before 
the recommendations In this section can be implemented. 
Nevertheless, ideas on this mather need to be developed 
and discussed as soon as possible. 
42. Of the three European standardization organizations, CEN 
and CENELEC have a common set of rules for their 
activity, while ETSI has a separate set of rules 
reflecting a different structure. Although some 
adjustment of the ETSI rules has already taken place to 
bring that organization Into line with commonly-accepted 
principles of standardization, and further changes are 
being considered, the approach to European 
standardization is fundamentally different between ETSI 
and CEN/CENELEC. In future other branches of the economy 
than telecommunications (such as information technology, 
or the food Industry) may propose that they, too, need to 
organize their own standardization activity at European 
level. The Commission, while wishing in the spirit of 
the New Approach to encourage voluntary standardization 
as a preferred alternative to regulation in bringing 
order to markets, Is also concerned that new 
standardization activities should be properly integrated 
Into the rest of the standardization system. 
43. Standardization activity can only gain public recognition 
and legitimacy if it is governed by a clear set of rules, 
known and approved by all Interested parties. Standards 
that are established in an open way, providing all 
parties with an opportunity to Influence the final 
outcome, have a far better chance of being applied in the 
market than those which are not -, standardization is a 
process by which technical documents acquire legitimacy 
through adequate consultation. A variety of 
organizations, such as individual companies, trade or 
professional associations, may develop technical 
specifications for their own purposes, but if these are 
to become standards they must be subject to review 
through a formal process open to all interested parties. 
- 28 -
44. The absence. In 1990, of a fixed and generally-agreed 
framework for European standardization results In a loss 
of efficiency In the service offered by standardization 
to Industry, governments, and other Interested parties. 
The organization of more standardization work on a 
sectoral basis could be a positive development, allowing 
for more direct participation by Industry and perhaps 
more commitment to the work. Because of growing pressure 
for common European standards In the coming years, there 
may be more demand for such sector a I Iy-based 
standardization. Unless such standardization is 
coordinated, however, and made subject to certain ground-
rules, the risk of duplication or contradiction between 
different European standardization activities will 
Increase. The United States of America, with nearly 400 
active standardization bodies, shows the risks of 
fragmentation In standards-making ; Europe, which is now 
trying to move beyond Its heritage of nationally-based 
technologies, needs to ensure that scarce human and 
capital resources are not wasted In duplication of work. 
45. For this reason the Commission considers that the 
customers for European standards, as well as the 
Institutions which currently supply them, should now 
consider whether the time has not come to establish a 
European Standardization system, In which the role of all 
participants at national and European level would be 
clearly defined in terms of agreed objectives, the most 
Important of which would be the accelerated integration 
of European technology through agreement on common 
standards. 
Such a system could 
allow for diversity of organization and autonomy of 
management within sectoraI Iy-based standardization 
bodies at the European level, and 
assure the coordination, transparency and the 
legitimacy of European standardization by applying 
common rules to all standardization bodies within the 
System, these rules to be developed and maintained by 
a new central body, the European Standardization 
CouncI I. 
The clearer the common rules governing the European 
standardization, the more freedom can be given to sectors 
to organize themselves in the most appropriate way. 
- 29 -
46. The concept of a "European Standardization System" 
Implies a coherent whole made up of a number of component 
parts. The system could consist of several European 
standardization bodies, provided that they were subject 
to common rules as far as the formal process of turning 
documents Into European standards Is concerned. The 
decision to establish new European-levé I bodies would 
depend on the quality of the service obtained from the 
existing organizations. If CEN, for example, as a multi-
sectoral European standardization organization, can 
respond promptly and efficiently to the demands of 
European Industry, it is unlikely that many, if any, 
sectors will wish to take the trouble to establish a new 
standardization body. Where a sector can demonstrate, 
however, that Its needs can only be met through a 
separate European standardization body, It should be free 
to set one up, subject to compliance with the rules of 
the European Standardization System. 
47. The Commission has recently discussed these ideas with 
the European standardization organizations, and a degree 
of consensus appears to be emerging on the need for a new 
structure for European standardization which can respond 
to the concerns already expressed. The Commission 
therefore puts forward the following outline of a new 
structure for the future coordination of European 
standardization (a fuller description of which is given 
i n Annex 2): 
the European Standardization Council would be a new 
body responsible for the overall policy of European 
standardization ; it would comprise persons reflecting 
the views of European industry and social partners, 
representatives of the EEC Commission and EFTA 
Secretariat and the European standardization bodies; 
a European Standardization Board would act as the 
executive body of the Council, responsible for the 
management and coordination of European 
standardization; Its membership would comprise of the 
officers of the European standardization bodies (for 
the time being, CEN, CENELEC and ETSI) and the 
Secretary of the Standardization Council; 
the European standardization bodies would be those 
bodies organized at European level and recognized by 
the Council as responsible for standardization in 
their particular field ; they would enjoy full 
autonomy in the programming, financing, preparation 
and adoption of European standards, subject to 
compliance with the rules of the European 
Standardization System and to formal agreements with 
the national standardization bodies; 
- 30 -
the national standardization bodies would carry out 
particular tasks on behalf of the European 
standardization bodies at national level (public 
enquiry, expression of national vote), provide regular 
Information concerning their national activity and 
comply with "standstill" rules during the development 
of European standards. 
48. The main benefits of this approach, In the Commission's 
vIew, wouId be that : 
strategic direction of European standardization would 
be assured by representatives of the main economic and 
political Interests It Is Intended to serve; 
existing sectoral standardization bodies (CENELEC, 
ETSI) could maintain their autonomy and dynamism, and 
the possibility of admitting further sectoral 
organizations into the system would not be excluded; 
a set of common rules for the creation of European 
standards would apply to existing and future European 
standardization bodies (acceptance of the rules would 
be a condition for recognition under the system); 
- the day-to-day operation of CEN, CENELEC and ETSI 
would remain essentially unchanged; 
the European Standardization Council would require 
limited resources, thereby avoiding unnecessary 
bureaucracy and expense; 
the role of national standardization bodies in 
European standardization would be recognized in every 
sector. 
49. Further detailed discussion will be necessary to 
elaborate on these ideas, In particular to define more 
exactly the role and organizational shape of the European 
Standardization Council. With the cooperation of all 
concerned, the Commission believes it is now possible to 
foresee the establishment of this new framework during 
the course of 1991. 
- 31 -
(III)Membershlp and International cooperation 
50. The development of European standardization must take 
account of the external as well as Internal environment. 
The rapid political changes taking place In Central and 
Eastern Europe will, over time, lead to a larger, more 
close Iy-Integrated European market economy than exists, 
today, and common technical standards are one of the 
means of assuring an orderly transition to that state-of-
affalrs. This raises Important and pressing questions 
concerning the relationship between the present members 
of the European Standardization System and other European 
countries. Closer cooperation with these countries is 
desirable, and their inclusion within the System has to 
be considered. 
Technical assistance to Central and Eastern Europe in the 
standardization field will also be a high priority in the 
years ahead: Community financial and technical assistance 
under the PHARE operation has already been requested by 
both the Polish and Hungarian governments for the 
Improvement of standards and measures, particularly with 
a view to satisfying Community product requirements. 
There is growing Interest In technical assistance from 
non-European countries, too. 
Finally, the cooperative relationship between European 
and international standardization bodies will have to be 
further developed to ensure an effective two-way flow of 
Information and, where possible, agreement on the best 
allocation of standardization work in order to avoid 
duplication of effort. 
Membership of European standardization bodies 
51. Membership of the three European standardization bodies 
is mainly confined to the member countries of the EEC and 
EFTA; CEN and CENELEC membership is limited to these 
countries, while ETSI also has Cyprus, Malta and Turkey 
as members. A number of Central and Eastern European 
countries have, however, recently expressed an Interest 
in becoming members of all three European standardization 
organizations, and Turkey has been a candidate for 
CEN/CENELEC membership for some time. CEN and CENELEC 
have repeatedly stated that membership of their 
organizations is related to that of membership of the EEC 
and EFTA. 
- 32 -
52. It Is In the Interests of all countries, European or non-
European, that the present pace of development of 
European standards is sustained and, If possible, 
increased. The harmonization of conflicting national 
standards within Europe, based upon international 
standards as far as possible, Is a formidable 
contribution to promoting International trade and global 
economic growth. The Commission considers that extension 
of the full membership of the European standardization 
bodies in the short term would compromise that objective, 
Insofar as it would increase the difficulties facing the 
present membership of coming to agreement on complex 
technical issues. Although desirable in the longer term, 
wider membership should not be a Immediate priority. 
53. Nevertheless, those European countries which are not 
members of the European standardization system but wish 
to take over European standards should be closely 
associated with the work of European standardization 
bodies, In order to allow them to adapt to new European 
Standards quickly and to obtain the economic benefits of 
using them. The widespread adoption and use of European 
Standards outside the member countries of the EEC and 
EFTA is in Western Europe's economic interest. It should 
also be recalled that the Community has concluded 
Association Agreements with some European countries, and 
may conclude similar Agreements with others. For these 
reasons, it would be desirable for the European 
standardization bodies to offer European countries the 
possibility of participation in their work with a status 
that would be less than full membership. 
The Commission believes that "associate member" status, 
which would imply a right to participate in the work of 
European standardization without the right to vote, would 
reflect the interest of the Community and the countries 
In question in moving towards a closer economic 
relationship, while making allowances for the 
uncertainties surrounding those countries' structural and 
economic development. Depending on general economic and 
political developments, a transition to full membership 
could take place after some years, when the countries 
concerned will have demonstrated their willingness and 
ability to apply European standards. 
54. As far as non-European countries are concerned, the 
Commission believes that it is primarily up to the 
European standardization bodies to decide whether it is 
in their interest to offer a limited degree of input into 
their work to the standardization bodies of these 
countries. One European body, ETSI, already admits 
observer representatives from non-European countries to 
some of Its meetings, on the basis of reciprocity. Such 
an approach has potential costs as well as benefits. 
- 33 -
Against the undoubted advantages of Improved transparency 
and the opportunity for state-of-the-art Input from non-
European sources must be weighed the possible risk of 
delay In arriving at consensus and concern that 
discussions proper to the International standardization 
bodies might take place Instead at the European level. 
In a more decentralized, sectors I Iy-based standardization 
structure within Europe, however, it seems approprI ate 
for each European standardization body to take Its own 
decision on this matter, provided that reciprocity Is 
assured. Meanwhile the admission of observers from the 
international standardization bodies to the technical 
work of CEN and CENELEC, as proposed below, would in 
Itself allow other countries to be kept informed of the 
progress of European work. 
Technical Cooperation 
55. The standardization organizations of Western Europe are 
being called upon to offer technical assistance to other 
countries on an Increasing scale as the positive 
implications for international trade of the Community's 
1992 programme becomes better understood. The demand from 
Central and East European Countries is already great , 
but similar interest has been expressed in other regions 
(In the Mediterranean, and South America) and the 
Commission already manages cooperation programmes in the 
standardization field with India, the ASEAN countries and 
the Andean Pact. The main focus of this interest is on 
information on current and planned European standards and 
the training of Industry and standardization experts in 
their app I I cat ion. 
56. The Community is, in principle, prepared to Include 
technical assistance In this field within its cooperation 
programmes with third countries, although It must be 
remembered that the technical resources for this task are 
limited. The Commission has to rely upon the expertise 
available in the private sector (and in standardization 
bodies in particular) for the execution of such 
cooperation ; CEN and CENELEC and their members have 
already assisted the Commission in the past. 
57. in view of the European dimension to this activity the 
Commission believes that the European standardization 
bodies should assume responsibility for the coordination 
and management of such technical assistance, even if the 
experts concerned are largely supplied by national 
standardization bodies. The Commission intends to support 
financially the development of an appropriate 
infrastructure within the European bodies to service 
requests for information and assistance, which although 
an additional burden for the bodies concerned constitutes 
an important instrument of the Community's external 
economic relations. It hopes that national 
standardization bodies and the Member States will 
cooperate by contributing to collective action and 
avoiding uncoordinated national Initiatives. 
- 34 -
Relations with International standardization bodies 
58. The links between the European standardization bodies and 
their International counterparts are Indirect, since only 
national standardization bodies participate In the 
International Standards Organization (ISO) and the 
International E lectrotechnIcaI Commission (IEC) and 
national authorities in the International Telegraph and 
Telephone Consultative Committee (CCITT). Nevertheless, 
cooperation between the International and European bodies 
has increased as the volume and scope of European 
standardization have expanded. In the last two years, in 
particular, arrangements have been concluded between ISO 
and CEN and IEC and CENELEC which provide for regular 
discussions In order to compare work programmes and to 
coordinate them where possible. This Indicates the 
willingness of both sides to establish a cooperative 
dialogue with a view to avoiding duplication and the 
waste of scarce expertise. 
59. Other steps may need to be taken by the European 
Standardization System, however, to reassure the 
International standardization community that European-
level work is a substitute for national, not global, 
standard IzatIon. 
A first step would be keep the international standards 
organizations fully Informed of the progress of European 
work, by inviting observers from the relevant ISO or IEC 
Technical Committees to European working groups or 
Technical Committees whenever there is a common interest. 
Another positive step would be to continue to ask the 
international standards bodies to take on some of the 
work which is now being proposed at European level, 
particularly in standardization activity that is not 
related to EEC product legislation. if the international 
standardization bodies can respond by accelerating work 
on projects which are of high priority for Europe, with a 
view to delivering results within the timetable set by 
European requirements, European-1 eve I standardization can 
be avoided. 
60. If Europe is to promote further international 
standardization, however, others must do the same. The 
Community expects that its leading economic partners, and 
particularly the United States and Japan, will be 
prepared to commit more resources to international 
standardization In the coming years, and, equally 
Important, to Implement International standards at the 
national level. Unless all the parties concerned act 
with the same commitment to international standardization 
as Europe has done in the past, this important mechanism 
cannot be properly exploited as a means of promoting 
international trade and economic growth. 
- 35 -
Other Important Issues 
The following Issues, while Important for the future 
development of European standardization, are perhaps less 
urgent than those presented in the previous section. It 
may be possible to adopt a less pressing timetable for 
their resolution, although lack of progress on any of 
them would seriously Inhibit the growth of 
standardization as a force In the European economy. 
(Iv): AccountabI I Ity 
61 
62 Standardization is a service to industry, and, more 
widely, to society. The demand for standards may have 
traditionally arisen from manufacturing Interests, but 
now includes a much wider range of "customers", such as 
public authorities, workers, users of equipment, private 
consumers, or researchers. All of these customers for 
standards want this service to reflect their needs and to 
be delivered efficiently. 
These various Interests are usually represented in the 
governing bodies of the national standards bodies, either 
directly or through a representative of government. At 
the technical level, too, participation in national 
standardization work is generally open to all interested 
parties. At the European level, however, direct 
representation of different interests in standardization 
is much weaker. The situation in the three European 
standardization bodies can be summarized as follows: 
CEN Part i c i pat ion In 
Technical Committees/ 
Working groups 
- Delegations from 
national standards 
bod les Représentât Ion 
in 
Governing body 
Représentât Ives 
of nat iona I 
standards bodies 
- Observers from 
recognised European 
manufacturers or 
users associations 
CENELEC De I egatIons from 
natIonaI eIectro-
technical committees Représentât Ives 
of natIonaI 
e I ect rotechnIcaI 
comm11 tees 
ETSI - Members Members 
- Observers from 
recognized interested 
par ties within and 
outside Europe (EEC Commission 
and EFTA as 
CounseIlors) 
-se­
es. The proposals already made for representation on the 
European standardization Council represent a first step 
towards greater accountability of European 
Standardization, but there Is a need for European 
standardization to be opened up to Its "customer base" at 
all levels. In view of the Importance of European 
standardization for Community product safety legislation, 
for Instance, all parties concerned with safety Issues, 
Including worker or consumer representatives, for 
Instance, should be given the opportunity to participate 
In the technical work going on at European level through 
their European-levé I organizations. Its does not seem 
appropriate that some Interests (manufacturers, 
Industrial users) should be permitted to observe this 
work through their European organizations while others 
(trades unions, consumer organizations) are not. Greater 
openness In the process of European standardization is 
necessary in order to enhance wider public Interest and 
confidence in European Standards. 
64. The same point can be made with respect to governing 
bodies. If standardization Is a service, then the 
customers for European standards should have a voice in 
the setting of priorities and the allocation of resources 
for standardization work. With the exception of ETSI, the 
European standardization bodies are managed exclusively 
by representatives of the national standardization bodies 
(CEN) or of the Industrial sector concerned (CENELEC). In 
order better to reflect the growing public importance of 
European standardization, provision should also be made 
for the direct representation within European 
standardization bodies of major interest groups and 
public authorities (which are, after ail, important 
financial contributors to the work). The method of such 
representation can be negotiated later-, the principle, 
however, must be firmly established now. 
65. It Is important that national standardization bodies, 
too, which form an integral part of the European 
Standard I zation System, should maintain the principle of 
openness towards other parts of the system. Participation 
in national standardization work going on within an 
integrated Community market should not be restricted on 
the basis of the nationality or the place of 
establishment of the Interested party. Any party from 
within the Community wishing to participate in national 
standardization which can demonstrate an Interest in the . 
work and is willing to comply with the normal rules for 
participation should be allowed to do so. This principle 
was already provided for under Directive 83/189/EEC; it 
is now time to apply it. 
- 37 -
(v): F Inanc ing 
66. Standardization Is not cheap. The expansion of European 
Standardization must be based on a clear commitment from 
all concerned to support It financially. Considering the 
present scale of European standardization and Its 
foreseeable growth, the current method of funding it 
appears relatively unstable, particularly In the case of 
CEN and CENELEC activities. 
At present, only the national member bodies of 
CEN/CENELEC receive revenue directly from the private 
sector (from membership fees and sales of standards) and 
they fund CEN and CENELEC through annual membership 
contributions. Such Indirect and short-term funding may 
no longer be appropriate for the scale of European 
standardization work that is foreseeable in the 1990's. 
On the other hand, the volume of standardization work 
mandated by the EEC and EFTA means that a large part of 
the expenses of CEN and CENELEC (70 per cent of CEN's 
annual budget and 55 per cent of CENELEC's), as well as 
some costs for national members taking on technical 
secretariats, are met by revenue from the Commission and 
the EFTA countries . Although the budget of the European 
standardization bodies is only a small part of the total 
cost of European standardization (much heavier costs are 
incurred at national level In the coordination of 
national positions and in participation In European 
discussions), the dependence of these bodies on public 
money Is a matter of growing concern to the 
CommIsslon(1). 
67. This last tendency is particularly disturbing as it is 
becoming clear that the scale of financing required for 
European standardization may soon exceed available 
resources within the EEC budget. (The Community Is 
expected to commit at least 20 million ECU to European 
standardization work in 1990, and significantly more in 
1991). A more effective channelling of private money 
into European Standardization has to be found. The 
Commission considers that this object Ive must be 
promoted by: 
a commitment to long-term financial planning by 
members of the European standardization bodies; 
changing the present attribution of revenue from the 
sales of European standards, to allow a part of this 
revenue to be channelled directly to European 
standardization bodies; 
instituting membership fees for industry participants 
in European standardization (as is already the case 
for ETSI). 
(1) ETSI, although directly financed in part by Its 
membership, Is also heavily dependent upon extraordinary 
contributions from national administrations. 
- 38 -
In parallel with such developments, the Council of 
Ministers should be prepared to offer a clear (but 
limited) commitment of public financial support over 
several years (see Section C, "The role of public 
authorities", below). 
68. The members of CEN and CENELEC, whose activity and 
development Is Increasingly linked to that of the 
European standardization bodies to which they belong, 
will undoubtedly have to commit more resources to 
European work in the coming years. Rather than taking 
budgetary decisslons on an a_d hoc annual basis as they do 
now , it might be more appropriate to develop a long-term 
financial plan based on existing and anticipated work 
programmes, on the basis of which the likely contribution 
of each national member over a number of years could be 
estimated. This would assist financial planning at the 
national level, and would also provide a tangible target 
for campaigns to obtain funds from industry at the 
national level. (The Commission understands that longer-
term financial planning Is now under study within CEN). 
69. Funding by annual membership contributions is not, 
however, the only way to provide money for European 
standardization. National standardization bodies obtain 
most of their revenue from the sale of their products, 
that Is, standards and Information about standards. 
Direct funding of the European standardization bodies by 
annual member contributions could be to some extent 
offset by providing for some of the revenue from sales of 
European standards to accrue directly (at least in part) 
to the European bodies that are responsible for their 
production . This would not, of course, affect the amount 
transferred from national to European bodies, but It 
could facilitate the transfer , by making It automatic 
with every sale of a European standard. 
70. This would not mean that national standards bodies would 
no longer receive Income from sales of European 
standards. National bodies play an indispensable role in 
the preparation of such standards, acting as a bridge 
between national interests and the negotiating process at 
European level. They are also indispensable for the 
marketing of standards, whether national, European or 
International. It would be appropriate to allocate sales 
revenue between the European-1 eve I bodies and the 
national bodies In a way which recognized the essential 
contribution of the latter, for instance by sharing 
revenue between the European standardization body 
responsible for the standard, the organization (European 
or national) that makes the sale and all national 
standardization bodies. 
- 39 -
71. Such a system would have several advantages: 
It would to a limited (but growing) extent 
provide the European standardization bodies with 
regular independent income-, 
it would maintain a financial Incentive for 
standards bodies to pursue a dynamic sales 
policy for European Standards; 
It would give all national standards bodies a 
share in the Income deriving from sale of a 
European standard, whatever the point-of-sale -, 
it would remove the current anomaly whereby 
public funds for European standardization 
generate income for national standards bodies, 
particularly those which publish their standards 
in the working languages of CEN. 
It would, In other words, reflect the Interdependence of 
the European Standardization System in financial terms. 
72. A condition for success in following this approach would 
be the introduction of more competition between sellers 
of European standards, which would reduce the cost to 
European industry of purchasing standards and probably 
increase the total market. Further market growth would be 
stimulated by direct sales by European standards bodies 
of their own standards, where this was Judged by their 
membership to be appropriate, which Is not permitted 
under the present rules of CEN and CENELEC (although the 
Commission understands that this policy is under review). 
73. Add 11IonaI financing from industrial membership fees 
would be a natural consequence of greater use of 
Associated Standards Bodies, which provide for direct 
participation of individual members other than through 
national delegations. This already happens, for example, 
in the case of the European Telecommunications Standards 
Institute (ETSI) and the European Workshop for Open 
Systems (EWOS). The right to participate directly in 
standardization work should bring with it increased 
financial responsibility for standardization. If industry 
and other interested parties believe that their economic 
interests are served by European standardization, they 
will be prepared to contribute directly to the costs of 
the European standardization organizations. 
- 40 -
(vl): Informat Ion 
74. Standardization, by defining state-of-the-art technology, 
serves to make the economy more transparent. But 
standards can only fulfil this function If information 
about them Is accessible, clear, and complete. The 
present structure of standardization in Europe, based on 
national standardization bodies, has led to information 
being focussed upon each country's national activity, and 
clear and complete Information concerning common European 
standards or the national standards of other European 
countries is not easy to obtain. If the Community is 
committed to the creation of a single European market, 
and, In the longer term, of an Integrated European 
economy, It Is essential that the technological 
information contained in standards be managed from the 
European perspective and provide a complete picture of 
activity at all levels, national or European. 
75. As far as Information about national standardization 
activity Is concerned, Council Directive 83/189/EEC 
required national standard bodies to supply the European 
standardization bodies with information about their 
activity, with a view to promoting closer cooperation 
between them and the transfer of activity of common 
interest from national to European level. This procedure 
has not, however, fulfilled expectations. Input Into the 
CEN/CENELEC database from the national standards bodies 
has often been Incomplete, tardy and unclear. A report 
made in January 1990 by the CEN/CENELEC secretariat (five 
years after the procedure began) pointed out widespread 
cases of non-notification, late notification, and 
erroneous classification . Poor input into the system 
has led to poor output; far from being a "map" of current 
European activity, the bulky registers compiled from the 
Information procedure contain Information which is 
unintelligible to a non-specialist and often out-of-date. 
Recommendations have been made recently within CEN and 
CENELEC decided to Improve the database, but it remains 
to be seen how soon decisions will be taken and 
imp Iemented. 
76. It should be noted, however, that CENELEC has since 1988 
adopted a parallel information procedure for the 
eIectrotechnIcaI field which Imposes more constraints 
than the 83/189 information procedure, such as a three-
month "standstill" on national work once another member 
has expressed interest and the automatic conversion into 
European projects of work involving more than one member 
country. The Commission would welcome the extension of 
the same disciplines to other sectors where national 
standardization activity is still significant. 
- 41 -
77. The distribution of Information about European 
standardization has been regarded by the members of 
CEN/CENELEC as a national rather than a collective 
responsibility. For Instance: 
the European standardardIzatIon bodies may not sell 
copies of European standards, but must refer those 
seeking them to the national member bodies ; 
European Standards are not always clearly Identified 
in national catalogues, in spite of a CEN/CENELEC 
decision of 1987 that they should be ; 
Information obtained under the "information procedure" 
Directive is distributed to the public by the national 
members, not by the CEN/CENELEC secretariat. 
In the past year some initial steps have been taken by 
CEN/CENELEC to Improve the visibility of their activity, 
such as the issuing of a monthly newsletter ("Review of 
Current Activities") which lists new work items, new 
draft European Standards in public enquiry and newly-
adopted European Standards. It is still, however, 
difficult to obtain from the European standardization 
bodies a regular and complete overview of their activity. 
78. The Commission considers that in information policy, as 
in other aspects of European standardization, 
responsibility should be shared more evenly between 
European and national bodies. Better-quality Information 
about standardization In Europe, which includes not only 
information about European-1 eve I activity but also about 
the disparity between national standards, will increase 
the demand for European standardization. Such information 
should be collected and made available at both the 
European and national level. 
79. The Commission therefore suggests that information on 
standardization activity be gathered and distributed 
along the following lines: 
The information procedure initiated under Directive 
83/189/EEC should be properly implemented and 
reinforced, to provide for a minimum 3-month "stand­
still" period during which other national standards 
bodies could comment on proposed new national 
standardization activity. The Commission would welcome 
any Initiatives taken by the standardization bodies in 
this direction; In their absence, it may decide to 
propose amendments to Directive 83/189/EEC. 
- 42 -
A single European Standardization Database (ESD), 
containing bibliographic data on national and European 
standards and summaries of current standardization 
activity, should be compiled under supervision of the 
European Standardization Council. This Information 
would be available to all Interested parties In a form 
and on terms to be decided Jointly by the standards 
bod les. 
Arrangements for the marketing of ESD Information 
would depend on whether the standard or activity 
concerned were European or national. In both cases, 
however, responsibility for the supply of information 
to the market about standards and standardization 
should be shared between the European and national 
bod i es 
Such an approach would not stand in the way of European 
or national standardization bodies pursuing their own 
information policies. 
(vI I) : Status of the European Standard 
80. Most people are surprised to learn that, in 1990, the 
European Standard does not yet exist In its own right. 
European-levé I standardization work aims at the 
harmonization of separate natIonaI standards. The 
standards agreed within CEN, CENELEC and ETSI have no 
formal status until the national standardization bodies 
transpose their content as one or more national standards 
and withdraw any conflicting provisions. 
81. This "two-stage" standardization in Europe has 
disadvantages. The first Is delay; at least six months, 
and sometimes longer, is allowed under CEN/CENELEC rules 
for national transposition, and the rules are not always 
observed. Transposition can also lead to lack of clarity 
about which standards are harmonized at the European 
level and which are not, although CEN and CENELEC have 
laid down rules on the matter. Some national standards 
bodies do not fully apply the rules for identification of 
harmonized European Standards. If European Industry 
cannot know at the end of the European standardization 
process which standards are Identical across Europe, then 
an essential point has been lost. 
82. More fundamentally, one may question whether national 
transposition is in the interests of the customers for 
European standards in every respect. By pursuing 
harmonization through the alignment of national standards 
national standardization bodies maintain copyright of the 
harmonized standards (and thereby exclusive rights to 
sales revenue) and reinforce the image of the national 
mark of conformity in the market place. The situation can 
therefore arise that the manufacturer of a product 
- 43 -
conforming to a European standard sold In all parts of 
the Community may have to obtain several different 
national marks of conformity In order to show the 
customer what he Is buying-, this Is not what the 1992 
programme Is about. 
83. The Commission considers that all future European 
standards should exist In their own right and should not 
have to be transposed at national level before they can 
be used. Copyright of European standards should be vested 
In the European standardization body responsible for them 
(as Is the case for ETSI) rather than In each of Its 
national members (as Is the case with CEN/CENELEC). Such 
standards could be published at the European level 
Immediately after their adoption in the working 
language(s) of the European standardization body 
concerned. Although national transposition may still be 
necessary in order, for example, to make the European 
Standard available In the national language and to ensure 
that the national standards body withdraws national 
standards which conflict with the European Standard, the 
European standard should be transposed as such with its 
European-levé I Identifying reference unaccompanied by any 
national reference. European Standards would then stand 
out as separate entitles In national standards 
catalogues, quite distinct from national standards. 
84. This approach would lead to the development of a stock of 
truly European standards universally recognizeabIe as a 
measure of European technological integration. Purely 
national standards would remain equally visible as 
Indicators that such integration had not yet been 
achieved or was not necessary. By following such a 
course the Community, and Europe as a whole, would be 
able to assess both Its achievements and its remaining 
objectives in the field of standardization. 
85 A logical consequence of self-standing European standards 
should be the development of a common mark of conformity 
to such standards. The Commission has already urged CEN 
and CENELEC to follow this path, as part of the 
Community's global approach to conformity assessment 
which was approved by the Council in December 1989. A 
single conformity mark to a European standard would 
contribute to a clearer public perception of European 
standardization, Just as national marks have done for 
national standardization, it would save manufacturers the 
time and money spent in obtaining several national marks 
of conformity to the same standard. And it would probably 
Increase demand for third-party certification of 
conformity to standards, as the common mark of conformrty 
to a European standard became recognized as a symbol of 
customer acceptability for the entire European market. 
- 44 -
86. A final comment under this heading concerns the 
Importance of having a single set of European standards. 
The European Standardization System Is Intended to be a 
homogeneous, all-embracing one. It should provide the 
market with a single product - the European standard -
which Is universally recognIzeable, whatever the subject. 
It follows that there should be a single designation of 
that standard, without variation. This would mean that 
the recent distinction between European Standards 
("EN's") produced by CEN/CENELEC and European 
Telecommunications Standards ("ETS's") produced by ETSI 
should disappear, both being subsumed Into a new single 
designation, the "European Standard" ("ES"?). 
(v l l I ) Testing and certification 
87. The statutes of CEN and CENELEC provide for those 
organizations to cover activities in all fields relating 
to the implementation of European standards, including 
testing and certification issues. This Is not the case 
for ETSI, as the CEPT has kept these questions within its 
area of direct responsibility. CEN and CENELEC have set 
up a number of mutual recognition arrangements and 
certification systems; the CENELEC Certification 
Agreement (CCA), the CENELEC HAR agreement for electrical 
cords and cables, the Cenelec Electronics Components 
Certification agreement and the CEN CCC agreements. Other 
agreements are in preparation. All these agreements 
include provisions on marks of conformity. Thus, for 
example, the HAR agreement is based on a common mark. 
(HAR) accompanied by national marking, the CCA Is based 
on the mutual recognition of test reports which leads to 
products carrying a series of national marks and the CEN 
CCC agreements are based on a single CEN mark denoting 
conformity to the appropriate CEN standards. Both 
organizations have also set up structures to cater for 
more general questions such as the Marks Committee 
(CENELEC) and the CENCER Committee (CEN). 
88. These agreements and structures have proved their 
usefulness within their limited ambit, but have not led 
to the development of a really European culture in 
matters relating to testing and certification. This is 
hardly surprising as CEN and CENELEC are made up of the 
national standardization bodies which represent the 
interests of manufacturers more than testing 
laboratories and certification bodies. It would be 
difficult for the standardization bodies to represent the 
latter, as some of their members are major testers and 
certifiers In their own right. CEN and CENELEC 
certification agreements have therefore tended to be 
restricted In practice, closer to the needs of self-
elected clubs than to those of a free European market. 
- 45 -
89. In December 1986 the Commission drew attention to this 
situation and suggested that a new European organization 
should be created In order to complement the European 
Standards Bodies by constituting a focal point for all 
those active in testing and certification. This led to 
the Commission Inviting CEN and CENELEC to draw up 
proposals for such an organization which they presented 
In outline to the Symposium on Testing and Certification 
organized In Brussels In June 1988. The conclusions of 
the Symposium were that one of the main conditions for 
credibility of this organization was that It be 
autonomous, although maintaining close links to 
standardization activities. On 24 July 1989, the 
Commission sent to the Council Its Communication (COM 
(89) 209) on the Global Approach to testing and 
certification in which It confirmed the need for the 
creation of an autonomous body. The Council agreed on 21 
December 1989 to the setting up of the European 
Organization for Testing and Certification (EOTC), which 
led to the formal signature of the Memorandum of 
Understanding between CEN, CENELEC, EFTA and the 
Commission on 25 April 1990. 
This new organization, which will operate alongside CEN 
and CENELEC, has now been set up by the four signatories 
for an experimental period which should end on 31 
December 1992 with the constitution of a legally 
autonomous organization. In the meantime CEN and CENELEC 
accept, on a contractual basis, to provide the necessary 
administrative support. 
90. The Commission considers that CEN and CENELEC should 
start, as of now, to examine their future relations with 
EOTC and In particular how they can receive and use its 
results and effectively contribute to its work. It would 
also be appropriate for CEN and CENELEC to bring their 
work In testing, certification and quality assurance into 
line with the principles of the Global Approach which the 
Council of Ministers approved In December 1989, and to 
examine how this cou Id be transferred to EOTC. It would 
be difficult for two structures dealing with these 
questions to coexist, quite apart from the problem of the 
cost to European Industry of financing two systems, 
directly or Indirectly. The transfer of CEN and 
CENELEC's agreements to EOTC would contribute 
considerably to the credibility of that organization. 
91. As mentioned in the previous section, further thought 
should be given by CEN and CENELEC to a common marking 
system for conformity to European standards. There is 
already a large degree of confusion on the question of 
marking, underlined by three different regimes existing 
within CEN/CENELEC circles. Moreover, it is difficult to 
imagine that European industry can continue to live with 
a system of national marks of conformity to a common 
European standard which do not all carry the same 
significance, especially within the context of Community 
legislation providing for the CE mark. 
- 46 -
(Ix) Intellectual property rights and patents 
92. The problem of Industrial and Intellectual property 
rights (IPR) as well as patents has become a serious 
issue within the context of standardization . Inclusion 
of such elements within a standard can lead to 
reinforcement of a dominant position within the market 
unless satisfactory conditions for use of such property 
have been agreed. In many cases, the lack of adequate 
procedures to resolve such problems has slowed down work 
and hampered the convergence toward harmonized solutions. 
The European Standardization System should take due 
account of IPR and patent problems and develop practical 
rules to cope with a situation which is already of 
importance for the new technologies but also extending 
rapidly to traditional areas. The reference to European 
and International standards In Community Directives 
increases the urgency of finding adequate solutions and 
practical means to resolve IPR and patent issues. 
The Commission outlines below an approach to the issue 
for further discussion: 
Technical specifications Included in standards should, 
as a matter of principle, be publicly available and 
allow all parties who wish to apply the standards to 
do so freely. Contributing technical specifications to 
a standardization body ensures a wide diffusion of the 
technical know-how which is generally very favourable 
to the promoter's idea. 
Whenever a contribution to a European standardization 
body Is covered by IPR or patents , sufficient 
information should be provided to allow the experts at 
the working group level to base their opinion as to 
whether to Include specifications covered by IPR or 
patent rights on the actual situation, Including, when 
appropriate, the applicable licensing conditions. 
Public Inquiry should be envisaged only if fair and 
reasonable conditions have been achieved and duly 
registered. (It should be noted that this solution is 
closely related to the ISO rules which should be 
rigourously applied in the European context, 
especially In the case of work covered by mandates.) 
In the exeptlonal cases where it proves difficult to 
reach agreement, pragmatic procedures should be at 
hand to find solutions which reconcile the need to 
adopt effective standards, the legitimate Interests of 
IPR as patent owners, and the need to maintain the 
transparency of procedures and compliance with 
competition policy. 
- 47 -
C. The role of public authorities 
93. European Governments have long recognized the Importance 
of standardization for the economy, and relations between 
EEC Member states and their national standards bodies are 
close. Some Member States have recognized their national 
standards bodies as having a particular Independent 
status (and, in one or two cases, a legal monopoly of 
standardization) while all of them give direct financial 
support to standards bodies. Standardization Is generally 
accepted as a useful mechanism for maximising economic 
efficiency and meeting other social goals. At the 
Community level, the Council of Ministers has given 
répons lb I I Ity to the European Standard IzatIon 
organizations for the drafting of technical 
specifications for EEC product safety legislation. 
94. As the transition from national to European-levé I 
standardization accelerates, however, It is likely that 
exceptional efforts will be needed from national and 
Commun!ty-levé I authorities to ensure that this change 
occurs smoothly and without disruption to existing 
structures. Governments have to encourage a greater 
awareness among the various interests concerned of the 
important changes now taking place, while at the same 
time reassuring their national standardization bodies 
that they continue to have an Important role and that 
their future Is secure. 
Action at Community level 
95. In order to give a clear political signal of support for 
standardization activity it would be appropriate for the 
Commun Ity,through an appropriate act of the Council of 
Ministers, to formalize its relationship with the 
European Standardization System. Such a political act 
could lay down the basic principles for cooperation 
between the standardization community and public 
authorities within the Community. By defining the roles 
and objectives of all parts of the system, it would open 
a new chapter in the development of European 
standardization, and focus the attention of interested 
parties on the opportunities which the European 
Standardization System presents. 
96. Community recognition should include an undertaking to 
give financial support to the European Standardization 
System for a determinate period, which the Commission 
suggests should be no less than five years. Such a clear 
indication of financial support would have a double 
advantage; it would confirm the Community's interest in 
the further development of standardization on the one 
hand, but would fix a celling on Community assistance, on 
the other hand, thereby providing some reassurance to the 
Community budgetary authorities, who, In the face of the 
rapidly-escalating cost of Community funding, must 
- 48 -
determine the level of the annual appropriations for this 
action within the ceilings set by the Community Financial 
Perspectives. The Commission considers that future 
financial support to European standardization should take 
the form of subsidy calculated on the basis of costs 
already Incurred by standardization bodies. This would 
be a stimulus to find additional private funding for 
European standardization bodies, would simplify the 
administrative burden of both the Commission and the 
standards bodies. 
Action at national level 
97. National standardization bodies will remain a crucial 
part of the European standardization system. They will 
not only process draft European standards through public 
enquiry and national voting, but will also coordinate 
national Input into the technical preparation of European 
standards where the direct participation of Interests at 
European level Is not considered necessary. It Is 
Indispensable that national organizations remain 
effective and that public authorities continue to offer 
them support. 
98. Revenue from the sales of national standards represents 
the most important source of income for most national 
bodies. If the recommendations made in this document for 
changes in the status of European Standards and In 
arrangements for their sale were followed, this would 
have an impact on national bodies' income over time as 
the number of European Standards increased (although this 
is impossible to estimate without knowing the proportion 
of sales revenue to be allocated to European and to 
national bodies respectively). Direct funding by European 
industry and other Interested parties of European 
standardization bodies would also tend to reduce national 
bodies' Income. National authorities may in future be 
called upon to compensate for such loss of Income, unless 
they take steps to encourage a more active commitment to 
standardization activity as a whole by the private 
sector. 
99. The promotion of a keen Interest In European 
standardization is clearly In the interest of all Member 
States. Those who are most aware of European activity, 
and most prepared to contribute to It, will be in the 
best position to defend their own (and their country's) 
economic interests at European level. National standards 
bodies will remain, for most, the preferred route by 
which to obtain Information about what is going on and to 
provide technical input Into the European standards-
making process. But Member States must contribute to 
public awareness of the critical phase in European 
standardization which Is now beginning, and encourage 
support of the national, as well as the European, parts 
of the European standardization system. 
- 49 -
IV. THE NEXT STEPS 
100. This Green Paper is Intended to provoke a wide-ranging 
discussion with a view to generating agreement on how to 
take the next steps in the development of European 
standardization. As these next steps will be the 
collective responsibility of all those concerned -
governments, standards bodies, manufacturers, users of 
standards, organized labour and the private citizen*- all 
are Invited to reflect on this Green Paper and to offer 
comments on It. 
101. The Commission will consult the main parties concerned 
directly over the coming months, with a view to 
Identifying the main points of consensus by the end of 
this year. It also Intends to ask the three European 
standardization bodies to propose basic rules for the 
European Standardization System and to come forward as 
soon as possible with proposals for changes in their own 
procedures and working methods. It may be appropriate to 
organize a major conference after the conclusion of the 
consultation process In order to allow Interested parties 
to react to concrete proposals for action. 
102. As has been indicated before, decisions on the 
organization of European standard IzatIon must be 
voluntary, and will depend on the views of all those who 
wish to use standards. The Community is, however, fully 
committed to the promotion of European standardization 
because of its economic importance. The next stage in 
Its development should, therefore, be accompanied a clear 
demonstration of Interest, cooperation and support at the 
poI 11 i ca I levé I . 
In the light of public debate on this Green Paper the 
Commission will consider making proposals for appropriate 
decisions to the Council of Ministers. Such decisions 
could, for example, take the form of 
(i) a Council Decision laying down the basic principles 
for cooperation between Community public 
authorities and the European Standardization 
System, and, in particular, defining the role of 
European standards within the legislative 
framework; and 
(li) a Council Decision committing the Community to a 
multiannual action in favour of European 
standardization, both at the national level and 
within a revised organizational framework at the 
European level. Such a decision would, in 
particuIar, commIt the Community to the principle 
of funding the European Standardization System for 
a fixed period. The actual level of funding would 
be determined annually by the Community Budgetary 
Authority In accordance with the ceilings of the 
current and any future Financial Perspectives 
agreed between the Community Institutions. 
- 50 -
V. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 
A. To European Industry and other Interested parties 
European Standardization should be given a much higher 
priority In company strategy for the single European 
market 
Greater Involvement Is needed In standardization In 
terms of 
direct funding of standardization bodies (national 
and European) 
proposing priorities for standardization work 
releasing experts for standardization work 
(especially project teams) 
B. To European and national standardization bodies 
(I) Efficiency 
Procedural changes are required urgently to speed up 
delivery of European standards, such as 
the use of "drafting secretariats" or "project 
teams" to accelerate drafting of common working 
documents 
active encouragement of more sectoral "Associated 
Standardization Bodies" by CEN/CENELEC 
use of new communications technology to accelerate 
discussion on working documents 
more systematic use of majority voting to agree 
draft European Standards, particularly for mandated 
work 
alignment of majority voting rules to those of the 
EEC Treaty 
shorter pub I Ic enquIry periods (2 months for 
consensus drafts, no more than 4 months for 
majority vote drafts) 
a maximum 2-month period for response to comments 
direct applicability of adopted European standards, 
without waiting for national transposition. 
In addition, priority must be given to work mandated by the 
EEC and EFTA, and to performance rather than descriptive 
standards. 
-51 -
(II) Coordination and structure 
Establishment by the end of 1991 of a European 
Standardization System, comprising Of 
A European Standardization Council, made up of 
persons reflecting the views of major economic 
Interest groups, the EEC Commission and EFTA 
Secretariat, and the Presidents of the European 
Standardization bodies, with responsibility for the 
strategic direction of European standardization; 
A European Standardization Board, made up of 
representatives of the European standardization 
bodies, responsible for management and coordination 
of the European Standardization System on behalf of 
the CouncI I ; 
European standardization bodies, recognized by the 
Council as exclusively competent In their area, 
which comply with the common rules of the European 
Standardization System; 
National standardization bodies, which have 
exclusive responsibility for carrying out certain 
tasks for the European standardization bodies at 
the national level (public enquiry, voting). 
(ill) Membership and International Cooperation 
Membersh I p 
No enlargement of full membership of European 
standardization bodies for the moment. 
Associate membership (participation without voting 
rights) for non-member European countries. 
Technical cooperation 
European standardization bodies to assume 
responsibility for the coordination of technical 
assistance programmes to non-member countries. 
International cooperation 
Observers from international standardization 
organizations (ISO and IEC) to participate In 
European working groups. 
Continue European requests to International 
standardization bodies to take on work required by 
Europe outside the legislative framework. 
- 52 -
( Iv) Accountab I I I ty 
Participation In the work and management of 
European level standards bodies to be opened up to 
Interested parties, i.e. 
direct participation of Individual membership In 
the work of Technical Bodies, where appropriate 
observership of all technical work for European-
level organizations such as trades unions, 
consumers 
representation of main economic Interests and 
public authorities in the management boards of 
European bodies (following practice at national 
level ) 
National standards bodies to be open to 
participation by Interested parties from other 
European Countries. 
( v) F InancIng 
A new approach to financing European standardization 
work is necessary to ensure long-term stability, in 
part IcuIar by : 
more long-term planning by the members of European 
standardization bodies 
providing for part of the revenue from sale of 
European standards to be directed to European 
standardization bodies 
Increasing competition in the sales of European 
standards 
wider use of direct financial contributions to 
European standardization work from European 
Industry (such as through more Associated 
Standardization Bodies) 
a long-term commitment to financial support of 
standardization by Community public authorities. 
(v i ) I nformatIon 
Information procedure for standardization activity 
under Directive 83/189/EEC to be reinforced, to 
provide for a 3-month standstill period following 
not IfI cat Ion 
a European Standardization Database, with 
bibliographic data on current national and European 
standards and summaries of current activity, to be 
developed under the aegis of the European 
Standardization Council 
- 53 -
information to be made available to all Interested 
parties 
( vIi) Status of the European standard 
European standards to exist In their own right 
(I.e. no requirement that they be transposed Into 
national standards before use) 
When transposed, European standards to be 
Identified In national catalogues only by their 
European reference number 
A common mark of conformity to European standards 
to replace national marks 
A single set of European standards ("ES"?) to be 
established, removing current distinction between 
"EN's" (CEN + CENELEC) and "ETS's" (ETSI). 
(v I I I) Testing and Certification 
European standardization bodies should define their 
relationship with the European Organization for 
Testing and Certification (EOTC) 
- Transfer of CEN/CENELEC certification agreements to 
EOTC 
( I x ) Intellectual property rights and patents 
The Inclusion of IPR and patents within standards 
should be subject to clear rules, which provide for 
the right of use of IPR and patents either free or 
on fair and reasonable terms. 
To Member State authorities 
The new European Standardization System should be 
formally recognized In Community law, and the terms of 
cooperation with public authorities laid down In a 
Counc iI Dec I s ion 
a second Council Decision on a multlannual action is 
necessary, which could commit the Community to the 
principle of funding the development of European 
standardization for a fixed period (1991-1995) within 
the limits set annually by the Community Budgetary 
Author Ity. 
Community funding of "mandated" European 
standardization to be changed to reimbursement of 
Incurred expenses. 
More active promotion of European standardization by 
Member States. 
Annex 1 
Standardization Order Vouchers given to CEN and CENELEC 
since 1986 
Standardization programmes on Iron and steel. 
Safety of toys : chemical and mechanical properties, 
fIammab I I I ty , migration of certains metals, chemical toys, 
electrIc toys. 
Cold water meters. 
Woven polypropylene sacks Intended for use In food aid. 
Tactile danger warnings on packaging, requirements. 
Simple pressure vessels 
Pressure vessels (reference standards). 
Self-propelled industrial trucks; rules for the 
construction and lay-out of pedals. 
Gas burning appliances for instantaneous production of hot 
water . 
Heat exchangers. 
Standardization programme in the field of motor vehicle 
fueI s. 
Standardization programme in the field of construction 
products ; timber, concrete, masonry, pitched roofing 
products, cement and building limes. 
Evaluation criteria for testing laboratories and 
certification bodies. 
Standardization tasks In the aeronautic field. 
Personnel protective equipment. 
- Machines. 
Public procurement : standardization programmes In the 
field of drinking water supply, energy and transport, water 
supply and drainage/sewerage. 
Electrical equipment (low-voltage). 
Storage heater safety standards. 
Safety standards for earth-leakage circuit-breakers. 
- 2 -
Airborne noise emitted by household appliances. 
Safety for fans. 
Electromagnetic compatibility. 
Low voltage air-break disconnectors. 
Standardization programme in the field of advanced 
ceram i cs. 
Medical devices: horizontal standards, standards for 
active implantable devices 
Advanced technical ceramics 
Non-automatic weighing instruments 
Eurocodes 
Information Technology 
* Application Functions 
* Combined Functions 
* Application Extension Functions 
* Relay Funct ions 
* Character and Control Repertoire Specification 
* Telecommunication Functions 
* Programming Languages 
* Information Processing Systems -Computer Graphic 
* Magnetic support media 
* Identification and Banking cards 
* Trade data interchange 
* Ergonomics of visual display units (VDU) 
* OS I reference model 
* CD-ROM 
* ISDN Connector 
- 3 -
* Small computer systems interface 
* Safety of T equipment 
* ISDN -PABX (Private Automatic Branch Exchange) 
* ISDN - ISPBX 
* Audlovldeo - computer (A.V.C.) 
* Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) 
* Technical specification for Electronic components 
* Bar Codes 
Annex 2 
PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR THE EUROPEAN 
STANDARDIZATION SYSTEM (*) 
The European Standardization System should be composed of 
the European Standardization Council 
the European Standardization Board 
European Standardization Bodies 
National Standardization Bodies 
European Standardization Council 
The European Standardization Council will be responsible for 
the strategic direction of the European Standardization 
System. 
... V » • . w .a W • «••ri»IW%IWII III >* U <0 W 0 W I U I 9f/U IC9 W W fc ¥T W 
and decide on the admission of further European 
Standardization Bodies into the European Standar dIzatI on 
System. 
The Council will request the European Standardization Board to 
take action In order to achieve the broad strategic objectives 
11 I ays down. 
The Council will be made up of persons reflecting the views of 
the main economic Interests In European standardization 
(Industry, consumers, users, trades unions), representatives 
of the Commission of the European Communities and the 
Secretariat of European Free Trade Association, and the 
Presidents of the European Standardization Bodies. Its 
President will be a European Industrialist. (The proposed 
membership of the Council is outlined In the Annex). 
See also table I attached 
- 2 -
European Standardization Board 
The European Standardization Board will be the executive body 
of the Counc il. 
It will be responsible for coordinating the work of the 
European Standardization Bodies and for carrying out the 
policy of the Council, In particular in respect of: 
the development of more detailed rules for European 
standard IzatIon ; 
monitoring compliance with those rules ; 
developing a common European Standardization Database ; 
promoting awareness and knowledge of European 
standard IzatIon. 
The Board will be made up of representatives of the European 
Standardization Bodies and the Secretary of the Council. 
European Standardization Bodies 
European Standardization Bodies are those bodies organized to 
carry out standardization work at the European level and 
recognized by the European Standardization Council as 
conforming to the common rules of the European Standardization 
System. 
The European Standardization Bodies shall have exclusive 
competence within their area of responsibility. They will be 
free to determine their membership and working methods, 
subject to compliance with the common rules of the System. 
They shall, however, ensure that all Interested parties are 
adequately represented in their work. They shall have formal 
links with the National Standardization Bodies, and shall be 
represented in the European Standardization Council and 
European Standardization Board. They shall also ensure 
effective cooperation with International standardization 
bod les.. 
They shall be responsible for: 
programming, financing and organizing standardization 
work within their area of competence, 
delivering draft European Standards to the National 
Standardization Bodies for public enquiry and final vote, 
In accordance with the common rules of the System, 
ensuring publication of adopted European Standards, in 
cooperation with the National Standardization Bodies, and 
managing the copyright of those standards, 
promoting European standardization In their area of 
competence. 
- 3 -
National Standardization Bodies 
National Standardization Bodies are those organizations 
recognized as exclusively competent to promulgate standards at 
natIona I I eve I . 
They shall carry out certain tasks at national level within 
the European Standardization System, such as: 
public enquiry and the expression of the national vote on 
draft European Standards 
publication at national level of adopted European 
Standards, in agreement with the European Standardization 
Bod i es. 
They shall comply with common rules for the provision of 
Information on their standardization activity to the European 
Standardization Database and with the standstill obligations 
of the European Standardization Bodies. 
Where provided in the rules of a European Standardization 
Body, they also assume the secretariat of European-1 eve I 
Technical Committees, Sub-committees and Working Groups. 
Table I 
Proposed European Standardization System. 
Industry. 
Consumers. 
Users. 
Trades Unions. 
EC Commi s s i on. 
EFTA Secretariat. ( European Standardization 
Bodies ) 
European Standardization 
Counc i1 
European Standardization 
Board CEN 
CENELEC 
ETSI 
Others Nat ional 
Standardization 
Bodi es 
Bodies recognized by the European Standardization Council 
ANNEX 
Proposed composition of the European Standardization Council 
7 representatives of European Industry (one of whom 
represents small and medium-sized companies) 
2 representatives of Industrial users of goods and 
serv i ces 
2 representatives of consumers 
2 representatives of trades unions 
1 representative of the Commission of the European 
Commun It i es 
1 representative of the EFTA Secretariat 
1 representative of each European Standardization Body 
(plus a Secretary of the Council) 
The President of the Council shall be a representative of 
European industry. 
Proposed composition of the European Standardization Board 
An equal number of representatives of each of the 
European Standardization Bodies 
The Secretary of the Council 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM (90) 456 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 01 13 16 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-90-498-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-64689-6 
PRICE 1 • 30 pages: 3.50 ECU per additional 10 pages: 1-25 ECU 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg