COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
C0M(91) 521 final 
Brussels, 16 December 1991 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
Standardization in the European Economy 
(Follouj-up to the Commission Green Paper of October 1990) 
- "U 
COMMUNICATION FROM THF COMMISSION 
Standardization in the European Economy 
(Fol lotu-up to the Commission Green Paper of October 1990) 
Table of Contents 
I. Introduction 
I I . The Response to the Commission Green Paper 
III. Comm I ss l on recommendat i ons for f o I I ouu-up act i on 
IV. Future Directions for European Standardization 
(i) Priority-setting and programming; 
(ii) Efficiency and openness; 
(iii) Effective participation by interested parties; 
(iv) Structures for coordination and consultation; 
(v) Stronger links with international 
standardization; 
(vi) Implementation and visibility of European 
standards ; 
(vii) Information about European standardization; 
(v iii) Access to European standards 
( ix) External cooperation in Standardization; 
(x) Partnership uiith public authorities, 
(xi) Other issues 
V. Standardization and Community legislation. 
- 2 -
STANDARDIZATION IN THE EUROPEAN ECONOMY 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
I. Introduct ion 
1. On 28 January 1991 the Commission published in the 
Official Journal a Green Paper on the development of 
European Standardization*1), a consultation paper open 
for comment by all interested parties. The comment 
period ended on 28 April 1991. 
2. The Green Paper was intended to be the most wide-
ranging review to date of European standardization. 
Although its publication was mainly stimulated by 
concern that the European standards needed for 
Community product legislation would not be produced in 
time, it addressed wider issues, in particular the 
place of standardization in the European economy and 
the responsiveness of European standardization to new 
demands from legislators and the market. While 
recognising the private and voluntary character of 
standardization, the Commission made over forty 
detailed recommendations aimed at promoting more 
efficient and market-responsive European 
standardization as a means of achieving the full 
benefits of a single European market. The Commission 
invited all those concerned to express their views on 
the Green Paper. 
3. . This second Communication summarizes the response to 
the Green Paper, makes recommendations for the 
development of European standardization in the 1990's 
and proposes greater use of European standardization in 
Commun i ty poIi cy. 
The Council is asked in particular to confirm its 
agreement with the content of this Communication by 
means of a Resolution outlined later in the text. 
(1) Ref: OJ N* 120, 28.01.1991, p.1 
- 3 
I I . The Response to the Commission Green Paper on the 
Development of European Standardization 
4. The Green Paper has been widely recognized as 
addressing an important issue for the success of the 
Community's internal market. A debate has been 
organized in all Community Member States, within the 
Community institutions, and within European 
standardization bodies and European-level industrial 
and professional organizations. The Commission has 
received more than 250 comments from interested 
parties, a good number of which reflect extensive 
consultation at national or European level; a number 
of comments were also received from third countries. 
In terms of focussing public attention on 
standardization, the Green Paper has been an 
unqualified success. 
5. The Commission has received overwhelming support for 
its objective - the establishment of a more efficient 
and market-responsive machinery for European 
standardization, which is recognized as a fundamental 
instrument for achieving the full economic benefit of a 
s i nôle market. 
6. On the issues identified by the Commission as 
priorities - greater efficiency and flexibility in the 
standardization process, wider representation of 
economic interests and greater openness to 
international standardization - there is a wide measure 
of agreement on the need for change and the methods 
proposed. On other points, such as new organizational 
structures and a distinct status for European 
standards, there are reservations as to whether such 
radical change is necessary or useful. Even on these 
points, however, there is a willingness on the side of 
the standards organizations to go some of the way and 
respond to the underlying concerns of the Commission. 
Comments on the main points of the Green Paper 
A summary of the comments received is provided below. 
A more detailed review, giving the reactions to each of 
the Commission's recommendations, will be sent to those 
who commented on the Green Paper and is also available 
on request from the CommIssion*2). 
(i) The role of industry: 
7. The importance of standardization for European industry 
was universally accepted. Most commentators, however 
(2) Copies may be obtained from : Directorate General for 
Internal Market and Industrial Affairs. Unit III.B.2, 
Rue de la Loi, 200, B-1049 Brussels. 
- 4 -
felt that it was unreasonable to ask for a greater 
financial contribution from industry, as opposed to 
government. Industry also expressed a strong wish for 
clearer priorities to be set for European 
standardization work and better management of the 
process. 
(II) Standards Organizations 
Eff ic iency 
Comments have confirmed the need, particularly in CEN, 
to improve efficiency. The standardization bodies have 
committed themselves to better programming of 
standardization, the establishment of clearer 
priorities, and more effective monitoring of the 
progress of work. (The Commission and Council are also 
urged to assist the standardization bodies by giving 
clearer guidance for their work). 
Particular recommendations that have received support 
are more flexible working methods (including the use of 
project teams, feeder organizations or Associated 
Standardization Bodies), the use of new technology, and 
clear rules on the use of majority voting. Other 
practical suggestions include the use of a single 
working language in European standardization, and 
accelerated translations for adopted texts; it has 
also been proposed that the an external management 
audit of European standards bodies should be carried 
out. 
A general cautionary note has been expressed: quality 
is as important as speed in standardization, and undue 
acceleration of the standardization process could 
reduce the opportunity for all interested parties to be 
i nvoIved. 
Coordination and structures 
The suggestion that there could be more European 
standardization organizations in addition to CEN, 
CENELEC and ETSI has been strongly rejected. 
Similarly, there has been considerable opposition to 
the creation of new bureaucratic layers to supervise or 
direct the activity of existing bodies (such as the 
European Standardization Council). 
Nevertheless, the three European Standardization 
Organizations have accepted that there are political 
arguments in favour of establishing a common 
consultative body (to be called the European 
Standardization Forum) in which economic interests 
could be directly represented, and to reinforce their 
cooperation within the CEN/CENELEC/ETSi Joint 
Presidents Group. The precise character, tasks and 
composition of the Forum is still open for discussion. 
- 5 -
Membership and International cooperation 
10. The recommendation that the standardization bodies of 
all European countries be eligible for "affiliate" 
(observer) status in CEN, CENELEC and ETSI has been 
accepted. Most of the bodies concerned have now 
applied and been accepted. 
Cooperation with the international standardization 
bodies has been recently Improved by CEN and CENELEC 
and this process is expected to continue further. Most 
commentators on the Green Paper have confirmed that 
international rather than European standards must 
remain the main objective of standardization activity 
and would be concerned if more effective 
standardization within Europe seriously undermined the 
longstanding commitment of Europe to international 
standards. 
Accountab i I i ty 
11. CEN and CENELEC have recently announced measures which 
are intended to increase the representation of 
European-level organizations in their work alongside 
national delegations; however, implementation of these 
measures may still take some time and will have to be 
closely monitored. 
F inane i ng 
12. Most of the Commission's proposals, and in particular 
the scheme for direct funding of European 
standardization through sales of European standards, 
have been rejected by the standards bodies and have not 
received strong support from other quarters. 
There has, however, been general agreement on the need 
to assure longer-term planning in the financing of 
European standardization, and all organizations are 
work i ng on this. 
Informat ion 
13. The Commission's criticism of the poor quality of 
information concerning European standardization was 
very widely supported. All of the European 
standardization bodies, and CEN in particular, have 
accepted that measures must be taken quickly to give a 
higher profile to their activity. 
Status of European Standard 
14. The Commission's proposal that European standards 
should exist in their own right was among the most 
controversial. It was strongly supported by a number 
of industrial sectors (particularly for new 
- 6 -
technologies) and even by some of the smaller national 
standards organizations. The majority view, however, 
appears to be that presentation of European standards 
at national level is a key factor in their market 
acceptance, at least for the next few years. 
CEN and CENELEC have accepted the need for greater 
visibility for the European standard at the national 
level and much faster transposition: discussions on 
the details are still going on. 
Testing and Certification 
15. The Commission proposal for a single mark of conformity 
to European standards was strongly supported by some 
parts of industry, but dismissed as unrealistic in the 
short term by others. CEN has now initiated 
discussions on the possibility of a single mark of 
conformity to European standards, to be accompanied by 
the relevant national mark or mark of the body that 
carried out the certification. 
(iii) The role of governments 
16. There was general support for a renewed Council 
commitment to European standardization which might 
include a provision for pluriannual funding. Most 
commentators expressed the view that governments should 
do more, not less, to fund standardization, in view of 
its general economic benefits. 
Some commentators have also questioned whether 
Community financial support can be limited to payment 
for services (through "mandates"); they believe that 
an element of permanent but limited subsidy will be 
necessary at the European level (as Is already 
recognized at national level). 
- 7 -
III. Commission Recommendations For Fol low-up Action 
17. In the light of the comments received the Commission 
has consulted each of the European standardization 
bodies and the CEN/CENELEC/ETSI Joint Presidents Group 
on the Green Paper. These discussions produced a 
reasonable degree of consensus on most points, although 
important differences remain on some issues. On this 
basis the Commission is now in a position to put 
forward to the Council and to the main parties 
concerned strategic guidelines for future European 
standardization policy, based on closer cooperation and 
partnership between all the interested parties. 
18. The Commission wishes to underline, as it previously 
did in the Green Paper, that the main responsibility 
for the management of standardization remains with the 
standardization organizations and the interested 
parties themselves. It is they, rather than public 
authorities, who will decide the pace and the direction 
of change. This second Commission Communication is, 
however, intended to assist and promote democratic 
self-management of standardization by indicating the 
changing political context in which European 
standardization takes place, the fundamental principles 
on which standardization should be based and the 
organizational changes which may be needed to ensure 
that those principles are fully observed. 
19. The Commission's main recommendations can be summarized 
as fo ilows : 
European standardization organizations 
Rapid implementation of measures designed to improve 
day-to-day management and efficiency; 
Implementation of their commitment to provide for 
observer (non-voting) participation by relevant 
European interest groups at every level of their 
work ; 
- Publication of the statutes of the CEN/CENELEC/ETSI 
Joint Presidents Group and its rules of procedure; 
Establishment of a European Standardization Forum in 
the light of the Luxembourg Conference of December 
1991; 
Amendment of internal rules to provide for 
transposition by endorsement of adopted European 
standards and other measures to improve their 
visibility and availability at national level; 
- 8 -
Development with EOTC and the other parties involved 
of a single mark designating conformity to a 
European standard; 
Increased coordination of technical assistance to 
third countries, especially in central and eastern 
Europe. 
The Commission 
Conclusion of new guidelines for cooperation and a 
new framework agreement with CEN/CENELEC/ETSI ; 
Follow-up reports on: 
(I) the effect of measures taken by the European 
standardization organizations to improve on 
efficiency; and 
(ii) new possibilities for reference to standards 
in other areas of Community policy. 
Introduction of programming mandates for major new 
areas of standardization; 
Direct reference in future proposals for Community 
legislation to European standards rather than to 
national standards transposing them; 
Presentation of a proposal in early 1992 to amend 
the notification procedure for national standards In 
Directive 83/189/EEC. 
Development and implementation of its current 
programme of technical assistance to Central and 
Eastern Europe and other third countries. 
The Council of Ministers 
Adoption of a Council Resolution confirming agreement 
with the broad policy guidelines of this Communication 
and drawing particular attention to: 
the commitment of the Community to international 
standard i zat ion ; 
the political importance of a European 
standardization system based on transparency, 
openness to all interested parties, independence of 
vested interests, efficiency and decision-taking in 
accordance with the basic principles which govern 
decisionmaking at the political level; 
support for the proposed European Standardization 
Forum, which will increase the cohesion and 
- 9 -
responsiveness to market needs of European 
standard i zat ion ; 
the willingness of the Council to pursue a policy of 
reference to standards in Community legislation in 
appropriate areas, subject to respect of the basic 
principles indicated above; 
the intention of the Council to continue, subject to 
overall budgetary constraints, to give adequate 
financial support to European standardization bodies 
(at current levels over the period 1992-1994), in 
order to permit the delivery of standards needed for 
Community legislation and of other standards 
required in order to complete the internal market, 
particularly in areas which affect a wide range of 
sectors, such as energy. 
The Budgetary Authority (Council of Ministers and 
European Parliament) 
Support for maintenance of current levels of 
Community financial support to standardization for 
the period 1992-1994. 
European Economic and Social Interests 
More effective coordination in order to ensure input 
into the standardization process. 
The Member States 
Appropriate measures at national level to ensure 
compliance of national standardization bodies with 
common rules relating to notification of national 
activities and the transposition of adopted European 
standards. 
Maintenance and, where necessary, increase of 
financial support to national standardization 
bod ies. 
Consideration of support to non-manufacturing 
interests to facilitate their participation in 
standardization, having regard, inter alia, to the 
Council Resolution of 4 November 1988 on the 
improvement of consumer involvement in 
standard i zat ion. 
- 10 -
The following sections of this Communication explain these 
recommendations in more detail: 
Section IV (Future Directions for European 
standardization) outlines policy guidelines for 
European standardization in the 1990's; 
Section V (Standardization and Community legislation) 
proposes that European standardization should be used 
more within the framework of other Community policies 
-11-
IV. Future Directions for European Standardization 
20. This chapter addresses the main themes which have 
emerged from the Green Paper debate rather than 
individual recommendations in that document. Its 
objective is to identify the direction of future 
standardization policy in the context of a single 
European market. 
The themes to be addressed are: 
(i) Priority-setting and programming; 
(ii) Efficiency and openness; 
(iii) Effective participation by interested parties; 
(iv) Structures for coordination and consultation; 
(v) Stronger links with international 
standard i zat ion ; 
(vi) Implementation and visibility of European 
standards; 
(vii) Information about European standardization; 
(viii) Access to European standards; 
(ix) External cooperation in standardization; 
(x) Partnership with public authorities. 
(x i) Other i ssues 
( i ) Priority-setting and programming 
21. A major concern of those commenting on the Green Paper, 
in particular from the point-of-view of industry, has 
been the absence of clear priorities for European 
standardization work. A common reaction to the large 
number of standards now under preparation within the 
three European Standardization bodies, CEN, CENELEC and 
ETSI, has been to question whether all of those 
standards are really necessary for the operation of the 
single Community market. Industry is worried that 
scarce technical expertise is being dissipated in over-
ambitious standardization programmes, rather than being 
concentrated on what is essential in the short term. 
22. Criticism for failing to set priorities has been 
directed at the Community institutions, especially the 
Commission, and at the standardization bodies. The 
Commission, it is alleged, has not set sufficiently 
clear priorities in its standardization mandates and 
has left the detailed programming to the European 
standardization bodies. The latter, it is suggested, 
have not been able to establish priorities either and 
have tended to include within the European 
standardization programme all or most of the proposals 
put forward by the nationally-organized membership 
without any serious process of selection. Thus 
although the total programme of CEN, for example, has 
expanded rapidly to about 4000 work items, it does not 
yet cover all the priority subjects linked to 
achievement of the Community 's Internal Market 
legislation and would have to expand still further in 
- 12 -
order to do so. The effectiveness of European 
standardization will depend on the careful 
identification of priorities and self-discipline in 
taking on more work. 
23. The Commission and the European standardization bodies 
have recently discussed ways of improving priority-
setting, especially (but not exclusively) in respect of 
those European standards to be referred to in Community 
product legislation. It has been agreed that in future 
the planning and programming of European 
standardization should be separated as far as possible 
from the drafting of the standards. The Commission 
will give "programming mandates" to the European 
standardization bodies in areas where a significant 
number of European standards are required for EEC 
legislation, under which a full programme of 
standardization work for the sector concerned will be 
drawn up after consultation with all parties. On the 
basis of this proposed programme the Commission will, 
after consulting the Standing Committee for Technical 
Regulations and Standards, determine what work will be 
covered by a standardization mandate. 
24. This two-step mandating procedure would have a number 
of advantages: 
the programme developed under a programming mandate 
would in principle cover all aspects of 
standardization in the sector concerned, not Just 
those relevant to EEC legislation, and would thus 
provide an opportunity for interested parties to set 
priorities for other, market-led standardization; 
consultation on the work programme would give 
European industry and other parties an opportunity 
to express their views before standardization work 
is under way; 
programming would allow the standards bodies to 
identify alternative sources of technical input into 
the work and new working methods (such as use of 
project teams, "feeder organizations" or Associated 
Standardizing Bodies); 
the Commission and Member States could better verify 
that proposed standardization work was matched to 
the essential requirements and the needs of the 
conformity assessment procedures of Community 
legislation, as this would be indicated in the 
proposed programme; 
the programming mandate would provide an opportunity 
for the standardization bodies to draw attention to 
difficulties arising from insufficiently precise 
essential requirements in proposed legislation; 
- 13 
the programming would allow to better delineate the 
scope for standardization with respect to related 
areas or areas which the legislator wants to 
reguI ate. 
25. A first set of programming mandates will be given in 
sectors where Community legislation is either in place 
or to be proposed (machinery, medical devices, pressure 
systems). A seperate priority-setting exercise for the 
construction products Directive is being managed by 
Commission with the assistance of the Standing 
Committee of that Directive. In parallel, the 
Commission is re-examining with the European 
standardization bodies standardization work already 
under way for existing mandates (e.g. for machines or 
construction products) in order to ensure that 
priorities are properly followed. 
A second potential area for standardization programming 
concerns the development of trans-European networks, 
where, as the Commission has already stated In its 
Communication to the Council of 10 December 1990, a 
significant effort of coordination of standardization 
will be needed in order to establish clear priorities 
for the creation of such networks. 
(il) Efficiency and openness 
26. The comments on the Green Paper have shown that there 
is general agreement on the need to make European 
standardization more efficient. This has already led 
the European standardization bodies to consider how 
better management control, new working methods and 
quicker procedures may be applied to make agreement on 
standards as rapid as possible, while keeping in mind 
the need to maintain a high level of quality in 
European standards. Examples of successful new working 
methods are the CENELEC "Vilamoura" procedure for 
information and cooperation on national standardization 
projects and the programming of standardization work 
in ETSI and EWOS. 
27. A recurring theme in discussions on efficiency in 
standardization, however, is that no single formula can 
meet all situations. On the contrary, efficiency is 
dependent upon flexibility, that is, an ability to 
match the standardization method to the particular 
circumstances, as the following examples may show: 
small, full-time project teams may be useful where 
original working documents are needed to advance 
discussion, but less so in areas where a large 
number of national standards already exist; 
more sectoraI Iy-based industrial organizations could 
be encouraged to contribute to the standardization 
- 14 -
process, perhaps through the creation of Associated 
Standardization Bodies, but the sector concerned 
must be relatively autonomous so as to limit the 
need for managing the interface with other 
standardization work; 
public enquiry periods can be shortened in cases 
where European standardization is limited to taking 
over international standards, but this is more 
difficult for innovative European work and where due 
account must be given to the needs of small, medium 
and craft enterprises. 
28. The rules of the European standardization bodies 
already provide for some flexibility of approach, but 
too little use has been made of these possibilities so 
far. It is now accepted that the options available 
should be better publicized and more frequently used, 
and that new working methods may still be necessary in 
order to widen the base of European standardization. 
The Commission notes that CEN, for example, has 
announced its intention of making known among 
industrial circles its various working methods and is 
prepared to explore the possibility of working with 
more Associated Standardization Bodies. CENELEC, too, 
is discussing how it can cooperate with so-called 
"feeder organizations" which can submit their own 
technical documents for acceptance as European 
standards. Such changes in procedures will require an 
educational process amongst the national membership, 
who are mainly responsible for the work of the European 
organ i zat ions. 
29. In parallel with the introduction of more flexible 
working methods there is a concern within the European 
bodies, and particularly CEN (which is responsible for 
most European standardization work), to develop more 
effective management control over a highly-
decentralised system for technical work in which 
individual Technical Committees organized by a national 
member body have enjoyed considerable autonomy. The 
contractual commitments made by CEN, for example, to 
deliver a large (and still growing) number of European 
standards to the Commission within a given time is 
forcing that organization to demand more accountability 
from the Technical Committees which actually carry out 
the work. The progress of work against agreed 
timetables is being more carefully monitored and the 
possibility of changing the allocation of secretariats 
between member bodies in the event of poor performance 
is now being considered. The Commission, and, more 
important, European industry, would welcome a more 
businesslike approach to the delivery of European 
standards. 
30. It is not yet possible to assess how much the 
efficiency of European standardization will be improved 
- 15 -
by the changes now under discussion in the European 
standardization bodies. Even if all the proposed 
changes are agreed, their implementation will take some 
time. The Commission Intends, however, to monitor the 
implementation of these measures and will produce a 
further progress report in due course. 
31. In any event, the Commission concludes from the Green 
Paper comments that there is a link between the 
efficiency of standardization and public awareness of 
what is going on. The demand for information about 
European standardization is practically unlimited, from 
both within and outside Europe. It comes from 
potential users of European standards and potential 
contributors to the standardization process. If the 
European standards organizations can better publicize 
their current and planned activity (and the programming 
mechanism discussed in the previous section would 
provide an additional opportunity) they will increase 
the range of expertise available for their work as well 
as the market for their end-product. Industrial and 
other interested partners may provide additional 
resources, by making experts available or by putting 
forward technical documents as a basis for European 
standardization. Hence the importance of an effective 
information policy (see section VII below). 
(iii) Effective participation by interested parties 
32. The Green Paper debate has shown that national 
representation in standardization discussions and 
national decision-making on proposed European standards 
are regarded as fundamental to the European 
standardization process. Most interest groups, and 
some in particular, such as craft, small and medium-
sized companies, look to their national standards body 
as the natural means for advancing their poInt-of-vlew 
at the European level, and consider the development of 
a national position which takes account of all 
interests as the most practical way to negotiate 
European standards. 
33. The primacy of the national route to European 
standards-making should not, however, be a monopoly. 
The responses to the Green Paper also indicate that in 
the fast-changing Europe of today many economic and 
industrial interests are organizing themselves at 
European level and expect direct input into European-
level standardization; examples are the railways, 
banking, electrical power, gas and medical device 
industries (besides telecommunications and 
e lectrotechnology which already have sectoral 
standardization bodies at the European level). 
European-levé I input into the standardization process 
may be particularly important for industries which are 
coming to standardization for the first time, such as 
- 16 -
those operating public transport and utility networks. 
In other sectors too, European industrial trade union, 
consumer, craft and SME federations can help to 
identify common interests or priorities as a complement 
to the nationally-based consensus-building process. 
For some sectors, it may even be possible to organize 
standards-related work at the European level under the 
aegis of an industry-led association, which will then 
pass on the results of such work to the European 
standardization bodies for consideration as European 
standards. 
34. For these reasons the European standardization bodies 
must allow the direct participation of representative 
European-levé I organizations in their work. Such 
participation, even in the form of non-voting 
observership, must be possible at every stage of the 
standardization process and at every level of the 
standardization body concerned, from Working Group to 
General Assembly. In the case of the social partners, 
the Commission considers, with the European Parliament 
and Economic and Social Committee, that such direct 
participation is a political pre-condition for the 
acceptability and further development of European 
standard i zat ion. 
35. CEN has, following an open session of the General 
Assembly in Milano on 23 October 1991, taken note of 
the intent of CEN's main national European economic and 
social partners to become more directly involved in the 
policy-making of CEN and has confirmed its intention to 
address the issue of involvement of CEN's social and 
economic partners within the constitution of CEN. 
CENELEC, following its General Assembly in Toulouse 
29-30 October 1991, has decided to submit for approval 
to its members draft decisions according to which 
representatives of European-levé I industry 
associations, trade unions and consumer groups should 
be invited to attend, as observers, future General 
Assembly sessions and, during discussion of relevant 
agenda items, Technical Board meetings. ETSI already 
provides for the possibility of interested parties to 
become members of the organization. 
The Commission welcomes the initiatives of CEN and 
CENELEC and will be interested to see how these policy 
decisions will in future allow for genuine direct 
participation. The Commission believes that the 
Council should unequivocally confirm the importance of 
the right to direct representation of European-levé I 
organizations in European standardization. 
36. For interested parties the possibility to participate 
constitutes an important responsibility and a 
challenge. Success of their involvement will depend in 
their ability to get properly organized at European 
level to develop a clear position and to feed 
17 -
substantial input into the standardization process. 
For some parties, however, the right to participate in 
standardization may be an empty letter without the 
means to do so. Comments on the Green Paper coming 
from user interests, ranging from consumers 
organizations and trades unions to professional 
groupings such as architects or the medical profession, 
have pointed out that without some public financial 
support for their participation in standardization the 
outcome is likely to be determined by manufacturer 
interests, which may not be appropriate in the case of 
standards linked to Community legislation whose purpose 
is to achieve high levels of safety. 
37. The Commission is sensitive to these difficulties. It 
has already provided financial support to the European 
trades unions to establish a Technical Bureau to 
coordinate views on standardization matters, as well as 
to European consumer organizations for their effective 
participation in standardization work, and it has 
assisted, because of the distances involved, the 
participation of experts from certain Member States 
(Portugal, Ireland and Greece) at some meetings related 
to mandated standardization work. These measures have 
not been a significant charge on the Community budget. 
Similar assistance is also being considered for small 
and medium-sized enterprises. Such aid will, however, 
have to remain modest if it is not to raise the cost to 
the Community budget of European standardization 
significantly. Supplementary efforts may therefore be 
needed at national level. 
( i v) Structures for Coordination and Consultation 
38. As a complement to the effective participation of all 
interested parties in each European standardization 
body there is a need to ensure that the work of all 
European standardization bodies, taken together, 
corresponds to the objectives of those operating in the 
market and to the principles of openness, independence 
and fairness which must govern European 
standardization. The view Is widely held that the 
links between the European standardization bodies 
should be strengthened and that the European 
standardization system as a whole should demonstrate 
support of the parties at European level. 
39. The Green Paper debate has shown that, although the 
detailed proposals on structure suggested in the Green 
Paper are not acceptable, further consolidation of the 
existing standardization organizations at European 
level would be welcome. The purpose of such 
consolidation would be two-fold: 
to ensure permanent coordination between CEN, 
CENELEC and ETSI by formalising, making public and 
- 18 -
strengthening the tasks of the Joint presidents 
Group as an alternative to the European 
Standardization Board; and, secondly 
to establish a permanent dialogue between the 
European standardization bodies, on the one hand, 
and the main economic and social partners engaged in 
standardization activity, on the other hand, by 
setting up a European Standardization Forum as an 
alternative to the European Standardization Council. 
Joint Presidents Group 
40. The Joint Presidents Group (JPG) of CEN/CENELEC/ETSI is 
intended to coordinate the work programmes of the 
three European standards bodies and, where possible, to 
develop a common approach to issues of common concern 
(such as, for example, the Commission Green Paper, 
information policy on European standardization or the 
relationship between intellectual property rights and 
standardization). It Is also beginning to address 
other tasks such as the development of common rules for 
European standardization or a common database for 
standardization projects. It represents, at the 
highest level, the management function of European 
standard i zat ion. 
The Commission accepts that through proper functioning 
of the JPG, coordination needs in European 
standardization can be met. At the request of the 
Commission the JPG is now preparing a consolidated 
version of its statutes, as well as those of its 
subsidiary committees, in order that its role and 
functioning can be more clearly perceived. 
The European Standardization Forum 
41. The idea of a European Standardization Forum (ESF) has 
been put forward in comments to the Green Paper and 
discussions with the European standardization 
organizations as an alternative to the European 
Standardization Council. The ESF would be a broadly-
based body, intended to be the focal point for debate 
on major standardization policy issues in Europe. It 
would bring together all the principal interested 
parties at European level in order to develop, where 
possible, consensus-based recommendations on future 
strategy in European standardization. It would also 
provide a regular and wide-ranging dialogue between the 
European standardization bodies and the "customer" 
interests they serve, both public and private. 
42. The Commission agrees that such a consultative body can 
play a useful role in European standardization and that 
therefore its setting up and operation should be given 
careful thought. As far as the Commission is 
concerned, the following elements should be examined: 
- 19 -
a) Tasks : 
The ESF would be able to address any issue which it 
considered relevant to the success of European 
standardization. Among these might be: 
The current activity of the European standards 
bodies (as presented in reports by the Joint 
Presidents Group); 
Application of the basic principles of 
standardization by European standardization bodies 
(such as openness, the right of participation for 
interested parties, independence of vested 
interests, etc.); 
The criteria for représentât Iv I ty of European 
organizations wishing to participate in 
standardization work; 
Relations between public authorities and the 
European standardization organizations; 
Information on and access to standardization work; 
Conditions of access to adopted standards (including 
sales and distribution systems, the price of 
standards and information on standards); 
New subjects for standardization; 
The interface between standardization and conformity 
assessment activities; 
Relations with international standardization; 
Technical assistance from standardization bodies to 
non-member countries and cooperation with affiliate 
members. 
b) Output : 
The conclusions of the ESF could take the form of 
Resolutions addressed to all or any of the parties 
concerned with European standardization, that is to 
say, standardization bodies, users of standards, 
manufacturing industry, the social partners, or public 
authorities. ESF Resolutions, although not binding, 
would be likely to carry considerable weight. 
•^ Compos i t ion 
The composition of the ESF should ensure the widest 
possible participation of interested parties and a 
- 20 -
reasonable balance between national and European-1 eve I 
interests. The Commission would therefore suggest the 
foIlowi ng: 
- One delegate from each Member State of the Community 
and each EFTA country, to be designated by national 
author i t ies; 
Five representatives of the Joint Presidents Group; 
Twelve representatives of European manufacturing and 
service Industries (including small and medium 
f i rms) ; 
Three representatives of consumers; 
Three representatives of trades unions; 
Three representatives of professional users of 
standards (such as architects, doctors, insurance 
companies, testing organizations); 
One representative of the European Organization for 
Testing and Certification; 
One representative of the Commission of the European 
Commun i t i es ; 
One representative of the EFTA Secretariat. 
As proposed in the Green Paper concerning the European 
Standardization Council, the President of the ESF could 
be a European industrialist. 
d) Act ivity : 
The ESF should decide its own rules of procedure and 
the frequency of its meetings; the Commission 
recommendation would be, however, that during its 
start-up phase it meet at least twice a year. Members 
of the Forum would bear their own costs; secretarial 
costs should be borne by the Joint Presidents Group. 
43. Following discussion with Commission Vice-President 
Bangemann in July the Joint Presidents Group announced 
that it intended to organize a two-day conference open 
to all the main interests on 3-4 December 1991 in order 
to discuss the recent development of European 
standardization and the role and tasks of the European 
Standardization Forum. Results of the conference would 
be coordinated with the Commission and EFTA. 
(v) Stronger links with International standardization 
44. The overwhelming majority of those responding to the 
Green Paper confirmed the Commission view that 
- 21 -
international standards should remain the main 
objective of standardization work. European standards, 
although more important for the European economy than 
purely national standards, will often be second-best. 
45. The European standardization bodies have already taken 
steps to improve coordination with their international 
counterparts. CEN and CENELEC have concluded 
agreements with the ISO and IEC respectively for 
regular discussion of their work programmes with a 
view to avoiding overlap and deciding where the work 
should take place. CENELEC and IEC have gone further, 
by providing for arrangements for "parallel voting" on 
each others' draft standards, which may lead to the 
simultaneous adoption of the same text as a European 
and international standard (at present, 54 IEC draft 
standards are being dealt with under this procedure). 
ETSI is also cooperating with its Japanese and United 
States counterparts to Improve coordination of 
standards-making in the telecommunications sector. 
46. The achievement of the internal market and the 
implementation of the Community's new approach to 
technical regulation must take account of this 
commitment to international standards. Where possible, 
the Community should have recourse to international 
standards rather than devise standards at the regional 
level. This idea could be extended to include use of 
current international standardization work in areas 
where new standards are requested of CEN or CENELEC for 
EEC product legislation, so long as the following 
conditions are met: 
the standards can still be delivered by the 
international standardization body within the 
timescale imposed by EEC legislation; 
the essential requirements laid down in EEC 
legislation are fully taken into account;. 
the European standardization bodies retain final 
contractual responsibility for delivery of the 
standards. 
This procedure of European standardization bodies 
referring some mandated standardization tasks to the 
international standardization bodies in appropriate 
circumstances would not affect the operation of the 
Framework Contract governing relations between the 
Commission and the European standardization 
organ i zat ions . 
47. The international standards bodies may find it 
difficult to meet these conditions. The average time 
accorded to CEN/CENELEC and ETSI under Community 
standardization mandates to deliver new standards is 
between two and three years; the time taken to deliver 
- 22 -
an ISO standard is usually double that. Other parties 
in international standardization may not wish to aim at 
the high level of performance required by the standards 
needed for Community product legislation, or may not be 
interested in the development of some standards because 
their national authorities directly regulate the sector 
in question. In spite of these uncertainties, the 
Commission has invited the international 
standardization organizations to take up the challenge 
implicit in the Community's commitment to give them an 
opportunity to meet European needs. A similar position 
has also been expressed by other international 
partners; following poI 111caI-levé I contacts between 
the Commission and the United States Government in June 
this year, the main European and US standards 
organizations have agreed Jointly to promote the faster 
development of international standards in the 
international standardization organizations and to 
identify priority areas in which international work 
could be intensified. 
48. The Commission must, however, repeat what it said in 
the Green Paper concerning the need for commitment to 
international standardization to be shown by all 
participants, particularly by taking over at the 
national level international standards that have been 
agreed with a large measure of consensus. It would be 
pointless and politically unacceptable for the 
Community to transfer work to the international 
standardization bodies if only standardization bodies 
in Europe were to take over the international results. 
( v I ) Implementation and visibility of European 
Standards 
49. The Commission Green Paper recommended that "European 
standards should exist in their own right and should 
not have to be transposed at national level before they 
can be used" (para. 83). Comments on this suggestion 
indicated that there are divergent views. European 
industry, through UNICE, has declared in favour of the 
recommendation. The same is true for the 
telecommunications sector. Similarly, European 
interest groups, such as consumers, have given 
support. Most Member States that have commented on 
this issue can agree with the principle of direct 
applicability, provided an appropriate solution can be 
found for practical problems, and only a few have 
rejected the idea. Within the European standardization 
bodies themselves, opinion is divided. 
50. One of the difficulties raised by direct applicability 
of European standards is the need to ensure that new 
standards are brought to the attention of those who use 
them. This is even more important when the standards 
are given particular status under Community 
legislation, either by conferring presumption of 
- 23 -
conformity to the requirements of a Directive or as an 
obligatory reference for purchasing entities falling 
under the public procurement Directives. 
51. National standardization bodies are the usual source of 
information on standards at national level and are 
therefore best suited to ensure the "visibility" of 
European standards in the market. The Commission is 
prepared to take this situation into account, but 
believes that, in order to meet the sense of comments 
received on the Green Paper: 
European standards should be visible as such, even 
If transposed into national standards (many 
commentators agree that further action is necessary 
to make European standards visible); 
transposition should be rapid and effective: 
national standardization organisations themselves do 
not always attach sufficient importance to 
transposition, which has been slow in many cases 
and non-existent in others. 
52. The Commission therefore proposes that additional 
measures be taken by the European and national 
standards bodies and national authorities to make 
transposition effective. These measures would be based 
on the principle that European standards exist and are 
made available for use immediately after their adoption 
at European levé I : 
(i) The internal rules of CEN, CENELEC and ETSI 
would provide for mandatory endorsement (i.e. 
publication of the common reference, title and 
number) of newly-adopted European standards by 
national standardization bodies within a short 
time of their adoption; 
(ii) National standardization bodies would commit 
themselves to completing within six months other 
action provided for in the internal rules, such 
as withdrawal of any conflicting national 
standards, as well as publication of the new 
standard in the national language where deemed 
appropriate by the national body, to be monitored 
under a centralised information system; 
(iii) The internal rules of the European 
standardization bodies would limit the right of 
those member bodies to sell European standards to 
those standards that have been endorsed in the 
country concerned; 
(iv) National standards bodies would apply a single 
numbering system for all European standards, in 
which only the designation of the national 
- 24 -
standards body would accompany the designation 
"EN" or "ETS" and the European number, with no 
additional national number; 
(v) National authorities would agree to take all 
appropriate measures to ensure that national 
standardization bodies fulfill their obligations 
under European standardization rules. 
53. Under Community law any national standard transposing 
harmonized European standard may be used for the 
purposes of compliance with EEC legislation, 
irrespective of the country of origin of the product or 
of the manufacturer. The Commission nevertheless 
considers that, in order to avoid any dependence on the 
national transposition of standards for the effective 
application of EEC legislation, it would be appropriate 
that such legislation refer In future to European 
standards rather than to the national standards which 
transpose them. Future proposals for Directives will 
contain such a formulation. 
54. A single mark of conformity to European standards would 
be a further contribution to visibility for such 
standards, as well as a tangible indicator of high 
quality common to the whole European market. The Green 
Paper proposal in this sense was strongly supported by 
some industrial sectors, although concern was expressed 
that the competence and reputation of individual 
testing and certification bodies should also be 
reflected in marking. The Commission notes with 
interest that CEN is now discussing the possibility of 
introducing a common mark of conformity to European 
standards, to be accompanied by the relevant national 
mark or the mark of the body that actually carried out 
the certification of conformity. This could represent 
a significant step forward in achieving market 
visibility for European standardization if done with 
the firm support and participation of CENELEC, ETSI and 
the European Organization for Testing and Certification 
(EOTC). 
(vil) Information about European Standardization 
55. Most commentators on the Green Paper strongly supported 
the Commission's recommendations for better-quality 
information about European standardization. There 
.- .&ppelars to be an urgent need for up-to-date information 
on the work-programme of each of the European 
standardization bodies, an indication of which 
standards are linked to Community mandates and which 
are not, much wider availability of working documents 
so as to allow non-participating parties the 
opportunity to comment and, not least, more rapid 
availability of European standards once they have been 
- 25 -
adopted. Particular measures to improve access to 
information by craft, small and medium enterprises are 
also necessary. 
56. The European standardization bodies are aware of this 
demand for information and are taking some steps to 
meet it. The CEN/CENELEC/ETSI Joint Presidents Group 
has decided to produce a new brochure in order to 
promote European standardization and to familiarize 
potential participants with the various organizations 
involved, as weJI as a common bulletin of European 
standardization to be issued regularly. CEN has 
developed a comprehensive (500-page) introduction to 
its entire technical programme, which may be regularly 
updated in future for subscribers. CENELEC now 
produces an Annual Report in addition to its sixth-
monthly Report on Current Activities. ETSI, too, has 
produced its own publicity material. Publications of 
this kind, provided that they give complete and timely 
information, are certainly useful. The standardization 
bodies should, however, regularly consult interested 
parties in order to ensure that information about 
standardization is provided in the way they want. A 
closer partnership between standardization bodies and 
professional information service providers could also 
be helpful in accelerating the diffusion of this 
i nformat ion. 
57. Besides information about current activities there is a 
need for information about existing standards, either 
European or national. The Commission has in the past 
discussed with the standardization bodies the creation 
of a single European Standardization Database (ESD) 
which would provide up-to-date bibliographical 
information on current standards. In parallel, the 
three major national standardization bodies (BSI, DIN 
and AFNOR) have, with Commission financial assistance, 
launched a commercial product, PERINORM, which provides 
to subscribers bibliographic information on the 
standards of each participant. The PERINORM system was 
initially limited to the standards produced by the 
three original participating bodies. It is now open to 
other CEN members, and it is expected that over time 
this system will contain information on most, if not 
all, existing standards in Western Europe. If PERINORM 
were to provide a comprehensive information system the 
Commission considers that there would be no need to 
press ahead with a publicly-funded ESD. 
58. A final point concerns the need for better information 
on national standardization activity. The Commission 
proposed in the Green Paper that the standardization 
bodies should take the initiative to reinforce the 
procedure for mutual information on national 
standardization work laid down in Council Directive 
83/189/EEC, which has been the subject of criticism in 
two successive Commission reports on the operation of 
/ 
- 26;-
) 
the Directive(6>. in particular, the Commission would 
like to see the introduction of a "status quo" system 
for proposed new national activity, in order to allow 
time for comment from other national and European 
standards organizations, as already exists in the so-
called "Vilamoura Procedure" applied by CENELEC since 
1988. So far no action has been taken by CEN to 
reconsider the information procedure. 
In the absence of an effective information procedure 
applied on a voluntary basis (which it would much 
prefer) the Commission has decided to include in its 
forthcoming proposal for amendments to Directive 
83/189/EEC a revised information procedure for 
standards to ensure effective transparency of national 
standardization work. 
(vI Ii) Access to European standards 
59. The comments made in the Green Paper concerning the 
conditions of distribution and sale of European 
standards were regarded by the standardization bodies 
is interference in a purely internal matter. The 
Commission disagrees. It considers that access to 
adopted European standards is an important element in 
the efficiency of the single European market. The cost 
of obtaining standards is a matter of public concern 
(as recent questions in the European Parliament have 
confirmed), and the conditions of sale of standards, 
including the degree of competition permitted, are 
critical in determining the final cost. While 
standards should not be made freely available (unless 
standardization costs are to be borne entirely by 
public funds) they should be marketted at a price that 
promotes their wide distribution, that is to say, the 
price set by the most efficient producer or distributor 
within the relevant market. 
60. CEN has informed the Commission that previous 
restrictions on competition between its members in the 
sale of European standards have been lifted. The 
Commission does not have sufficient information 
concerning these new arrangements to know whether all 
its concerns have been met. Discussions on this 
subject should be pursued, not merely between the 
Commission and the standardization bodies but between 
all parties concerned and represented in the European 
Standardization Forum. 
61. The effects on some national standardization bodies of 
more competition in sales of standards need, however, 
to be understood. The revenue from sales of standards 
of some national organizations, which can be an 
important part of their total income, could be reduced 
(6) The most recent Commission report (for the years 1988-
1989) is document C0M(91)108 final, 5.4.1991 
- 27 -
by such competition, which may require that income be 
raised by other means, such as by payment for 
previously-free services or by increased financial 
support from the public authorities at national level. 
This Issue should also be addressed by the European 
Standardization Forum. 
External cooperation In standardization 
(a) EC Technical Assistance in Standardization 
Through the Commission's programme of external 
technical assistance, the Community is committed to 
assist the lesser developed economies of the world. 
Demand for assistance in standardization increases as 
the positive Implications of the Community's 1992 
programme is better understood. Helping the emerging 
market economies of Eastern Europe, South America, the 
Mediterranean, Asia, India and Africa to understand and 
apply European standards will greatly facilitate their 
future economic development. 
Many assistance programmes in standardization are 
already underway including projects in the ASEAN 
countries, India, Poland, Hungary, Yugoslavia as well 
as a regional quality assurance programme in Central 
and Eastern Europe. 
The Commission reaffirms its belief that European 
standardization bodies have an important role to play 
in these programmes. The first steps have been taken. 
CEN has established a third country unit to provide 
information on European standardization and to 
coordinate technical assistance projects for the 
European standardization organizations. The Commission 
has now concluded an agreement with CEN under which the 
third country unit provides services upon request to 
the Commission in administering technical assistance 
programmes to third countries. 
(b) Standardization in Central and Eastern Europe 
62. The major political changes that have taken place in 
central and eastern Europe have opened the way to the 
development of a truly continental-scale European 
market economy in which standards and standardization 
will play a critical role. Helping the emerging market 
economies of the East to understand and to apply the 
standards of the West will greatly facilitate their 
future economic development. A massive programme of 
information, training and technical assistance will be 
needed in order to effect such a difficult transition. 
The Commission reaffirms its belief that the European 
standardization bodies must assume responsibility for 
the coordination and management of such a programme. 
- 28 -
63. CEN and CENELEC have admitted a number of other 
European countries to participate in their work as 
"affiliates", which will assist those countries to 
familiarize themselves with European standards; ETSI 
has admitted some of them as full members. The 
establishment of the CEN Third Country Unit and the 
agreement concluded with the Commission should 
considerably assist the implementation of the PHARE 
regional programme for technical cooperation In 
standardization, certification and quality which is 
designed to address the needs of central and eastern 
European countries; exploratory missions have been 
made to each beneficiary country in order to assess 
priorities and discuss practical arrangements. Further 
steps, such as the organization of conferences and 
exchanges of experts could also take place in future. 
64. The likely needs of these countries in the field of 
technical cooperation pose an additional challenge to 
the European standardization system at a time when its 
work to meet the needs of Western Europe is already 
expanding quickly. Additional resources in terms of 
finance and expertise will have to be mobilised in 
order to ensure that the integration of these economies 
into the rest of European economy does not occur at the 
expense of the Community's internal priorities. The 
Commission intends to discuss further with the 
standardization bodies and other interested parties how 
to obtain these additional human resources. 
(x) Partnership with public authorities 
65. European standardization is, and must remain, a 
voluntary activity managed by private organizations. 
Today's discussion within the institutions of the 
European Communities about its future development is 
not intended to change that fundamental principle. The 
Community authorities recognize the strengths of 
voluntary standardization and its importance for the 
promotion of efficiency in the European economy. Their 
main concern is to ensure that this private activity 
effectively serves the public interest, in terms of its 
openness to all parties and its efficiency. This 
interest is particularly acute when standardization is 
used to complement technical regulation, since in this 
case standardization bodies are often assuming 
responsibilities previously held by the public 
authorities themselves. Provided that this basic 
concern is met, public authorities should leave the 
parties concerned to manage the standardization system. 
66. Most commentators on this issue in the Green Paper 
consider that the public benefit derived from 
standardization as an economic instrument and a means 
of managing the interface between regulation and 
technology must be matched by support for 
- 29 -
standardization from the public authorities at European 
and national level. In return for the services 
rendered to the economy or to the legislator, public 
authorities must ensure that the European 
standardization system remains strong enough to respond 
to new demands. But the relationship between public 
authorities and standardization bodies is one of 
partnership and mutual dependence, not of authority and 
subservience. 
67. As far as Community support for European 
standardization is concerned, the Commission considers 
that its relationship with the European standardization 
bodies should be that of a customer with a service-
provider. In other words, the Commission should pay 
for the services provided by the European 
standardization bodies under contract within the 
context of "mandated" standardization work. In line 
with what has been said in section (i) above, the scope 
of mandated work and the terms and conditions for 
carrying it out should be agreed beforehand between the 
two sides. The Commission is now close to reaching 
agreement with the European standardization bodies on a 
new Framework Contract, which will introduce greater 
clarity into the estimation of the costs of future 
standardization work and give those organizations the 
assurance that their actual costs will be reimbursed, 
subject to compliance with the other terms of the 
contract, such as delivery times. 
68. Some commentators, particularly from within European 
industry, have suggested that Community financial 
support of European standardization should go beyond 
payment for contracted services to include an element 
of general subsidy for the overall costs of 
standardization organizations. Such subsidies are a 
general practice at national level. The Commission 
accepts that standardization is unlikely to be 
economically self-sustaining in all its activities and 
that its "public interest" character Justifies some 
degree of financial assistance from public authorities. 
In the case of European standardization, however, the 
Commission believes that any general subsidy at 
European level could lead to a risk of duplication with 
nationaI-levé I subsidies to standardization 
organizations and should therefore be avoided. 
69. The Community may, nevertheless, wish from time to time 
to encourage certain activities within European 
standardization other than the delivery of particular 
standards. These could include, for example, the 
promotion of European standardization, the improvement 
of information systems, the reinforcement of management 
or accounting infrastructure, or technical assistance 
to third countries. In the absence of appropriate 
funding by the standards bodies themselves, such 
occasional public intervention should not be excluded. 
- 30 -
70. The long-term budgetary implications for the Community 
of this policy are difficult to quantify but it is 
clear that substantial provision in the EEC budget for 
the financing of European standardization work will be 
necessary for the foreseeable future. 
For at least the next three years (1992-1994) the 
annual cost of new standardization work contracted by 
the Community will remain at, or close to, its current 
level in real terms (about 33 million Ecus), as 
important pieces of Community product legislation, such 
as the Directives on machinery, construction products, 
medical devices, measuring instruments, and so on are 
put into place and as standardization is stimulated in 
areas of industrial economic policy (such as in 
information technology, télécoms and energy supply or 
in sectors dominated by public procurement). (An 
indication of how current Community spending on 
European standardization is allocated is annexed). 
From 1995 onwards the amount of mandated work is likely 
to decline from its present high level, although demand 
from the Community authorities for European standards 
will continue from requests for the up-dating or 
improvement of existing harmonized standards or from 
the use of standardization in new areas related to 
legislation, or major industrial projects such as the 
trans-European networks. Incidental support for the 
infrastructure of European standardization would have 
to be added, as would payments for the translation of 
European standards into all official Community 
languages (which already costs 3 million Ecu per year). 
The long-term cost to the Community budget of 
maintenance of the European standardization system is 
estimated to be no less than 15 million Ecus per year 
at current prices. Any major policy initiatives 
requiring additional standardization effort, or any 
extension of financial support to interested parties to 
allow them to participate in European standardization 
would increase that figure. 
( x i ) Other issues 
71. In the Green Paper the Commission discussed the 
relationship between intellectual property rights (IPR) 
and standardization and called for the development by 
standards bodies of clear conditions for the inclusion 
of IPR in standards, based on practice in the 
international standardization organizations. In view 
of the importance and complexity of the issue for IPR, 
standardization, competition and trade policies, the 
Commission intends to produce a seperate Communication 
on this subject. Meanwhile work is going on in the 
European standardization bodies on a common approach to 
handling IPR in standardization and the results 
expected at the beginning of 1992 will be carefully 
exam i ned. 
- 31 -
v- Standardization and Community Legislation 
72. The Commission has diversified its links with 
standardization since the adoption of the new approach 
to technical harmonization in 1985. Mandates for the 
development of European standards now go beyond the 
area of product safety legislation. They include 
information technology standards, standards for motor 
fuels, advanced ceramic materials, and measurement 
methods for emissions from waste incineration plants; 
mandates are currently being considered for power 
generation equipment, methods of analysis for 
foodstuffs, biotechnology equipment and auditing 
methods for monitoring compliance with EEC public 
procurement directives. The versatility of standards 
is becoming more widely appreciated by those 
responsible for Community policy. 
73. If the European and national standardization bodies 
implement the measures aiming at efficiency and 
openness indicated in the preceding section of this 
Communication, Community regulations could and should 
make even greater use of standardization than they do 
today. The advantages of recourse to standardization 
as a method of determining technical requirements are 
worth repeat i ng: 
standardization is a highly-transparent process in 
which all interested parties may be involved; 
it combines the advantages of democracy with the 
ability to reflect the technological state-of-the-
art ; 
standards can be easily modified to reflect 
technological development; 
reference to standardization in legislation means 
that most of the costs of production of technical 
specifications are transferred from the public to 
the pr i vate sector ; 
to the extent that many sources of expertise are 
available for standardization work, and the final 
outcome must receive support from interested parties 
in order to be accepted, standardization may be more 
efficient than technical regulation, in so far as it 
will better reflect technical reality in the market. 
74 Some of the broad economic sectors where more voluntary 
standardization will clearly assist in the creation and 
consolidation of the Community's internal market have 
been mentioned: information technology, 
telecommunications, energy and transport. The 
Commission is ready to take further action in these 
areas. Others where initiatives to encourage 
standardization may be considered are standards related 
- 32 
to environmental protection and foodstuffs, although in 
these areas some specific regulations may still be 
necessary. 
75. Standardization, whether national, European or 
international, cannot substitute for, weaken or 
contradict legislation. Standardization organizations 
however, remain free to elaborate standards within the 
limits set by regulation. 
76. Where standardization is related to legislation, it 
will remain necessary for the public authorities to fix 
the parameters within which standardization may take 
place, and to monitor the standardization process, by 
direct participation If necessary, in order to ensure 
that these parameters are adhered to. The legislator 
must also be satisfied that interested parties are as 
directly involved in standardization as they would be 
in the regulatory process; hence the Commission's 
insistence, in the Green Paper and in this 
Communication, on the need for full transparency and 
the right to participate in European-levé I 
standard i zat ion. 
77. For its part, the Commission intends to undertake an 
internal review of the possibilities for greater use of 
standardization in future Community legislation, and 
will report to the Council on its outcome. 
78. This prospect of a developing partnership between 
regulators and standard Izers In the Community framework 
underlines the importance of the decisions now facing 
the European standardization system. For public 
authorities to have the confidence to make more use of 
voluntary standardization, standardization bodies must 
demonstrate that they are efficient, transparent and 
fair, and capable of producing high-quality output. 
The process of critical self-examination and reform now 
going on within the European standardization bodies is 
a promising sign, but there must be no doubt about the 
cost to the European economy of failure to carry this 
reform out. In the absence of an effectively-managed 
European standardization system the Community 
legislator will be forced to resort to technical 
regulation, with the inevitable risk of arbitrariness 
and loss of efficiency. 
The challenge to the European standardization system is 
to prove itself worthy of the responsibility now placed 
on it . 
_ 3"î>-
Annex 
Community financing of European standardization 
The standardization work currently attributed to CEN, 
CENELEC and ETSI relating to the Internal Market, 
information technology and telecommunications concerns the 
drafting of about 1,950 European standards, broken down as 
foI Iows: 
New Approach Directives Number of 
Standards Amount f i nanced 
(million Ecu) 
Pressure vessels 42 
Toys 7 
Construction products 484 
Mach i nes 184 
Personal protective equipment 102 
Med i ca I dev i ces 42 
Gas appIi ances 54 
Electromagnetic compatibility 23 1 
0 
13 
3 
3 
2 
2 
0 15 
37 
33 
79 
17 
06 
91 
42 
938 27.21 
Other work 
Information Technology 
Te Iecommuni cat i ons 
Public Procurement 
Eurocodes 
Steel 
Advanced ceramics 
Aerospace 257 
30 
216 
27 
129 
42 
300 13.37 
57 
91 
69 
80 
59 
29 
1 001 33,21 
TOTAL 1 ,939 60,42 
- 3M. 
During 1991, CEN, CENELEC and ETSI were asked to produce 828 
standards for a sum of about 28 million Ecu, broken down as 
foI Iows: 
New Approach Directives 
Toys 1 
Construction products 220 
Mach i nes 60 
Med i caI dev i ces 42 0.10 
6. 37 
1 .93 
2.06 
Others 323 10.46 
Information Technology 80 
Telecommunications 5 
Public procurement 216 
Eurocodes 27 
Steel 27 
Aerospace 150 7.00 
91 
69 
98 
80 
TOTAL 
Other annual expenses 
for support to standardization 
(translations, information 
procedure, etc.) 505 
828 17.38 
27.84 
3.70 
- 3J-
Commission Communication on Standardization 
in the European Economy 
Financial Statement 
This Communication has no direct financial implications for 
the Community budget. 
The Commission recommends that annual budgetary appropria­
tions for support of European standardization work should be 
maintained at their present level (about 33 MECU) for the 
period 1992-1994, but detailed proposals will be decided in 
the annual budgetary procedure 
* 
F i che F i nanc i ère 
La présente communication n'a pas d'implications financières 
directes pour le budget communautaire. 
La Commission recommande que les crédits budgétaires annuels 
attribués au soutien de la normalisation européenne soient 
maintenus à leur niveau actuel (à savoir, 33 MECU) mais les 
propositions détaillés à ce propos seront faites ultérieure­
ment dans le cadre de la procédure budgétaire annuelle. 
If-
ISSN 0254-1475 
C0M(91) 521 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 10 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-91-580-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-78764-3 
Office fhr Official Publications of the Buropean Coniniwiities 
Lr2985 Luxcmbowg