COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER IMPACT ASSESSMENT  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2011-06-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Cenelec, European Committee for Standardisation, ISO, marketing standard

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 1.6.2011 
SEC(2011) 671 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

on European Standardisation and amending Council Directives 89/686/EEC and 
93/15/EEC and Directives 94/9/EC, 94/25/EC, 95/16/EC, 97/23/EC, 98/34/EC, 
2004/22/EC, 2007/23/EC, 2009/105/EC and 2009/23/EC 

{COM(2011) 315 final} 
{SEC(2011) 672 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Disclaimer: 

This report only commits the Commission’s services involved in its preparation and does not 
prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

3. 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties .............................................. 4 

Identification ................................................................................................................ 4 

Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 4 

Consultation of the IAB ............................................................................................... 4 

Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 4 

Policy context and key concepts .................................................................................. 5 

Policy context............................................................................................................... 5 

Standardisation: key concepts ...................................................................................... 5 

The relevance of standards and European standardisation as policy tools .................. 6 

The cost of European standardisation .......................................................................... 8 

Problem definition and subsidiarity ............................................................................. 8 

3.1. 

Problems with respect to standardisation at European level........................................ 8 

3.1.1.  Problem 1: the process for adopting European standards requested by the 

Commission is not fast enough .................................................................................... 8 

3.1.2.  Problem 2: Underrepresentation of SMEs and societal stakeholders in the European 

standardisation process .............................................................................................. 14 

3.1.3.  Problem 3: “Fora and Consortia Standards” cannot currently be referenced in public 

procurement of ICT.................................................................................................... 17 

3.2. 

3.3. 

How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? ........................................... 19 

Simplification and update potential ........................................................................... 20 

3.3.1.  Procurement of existing standards ............................................................................. 20 

3.3.2.  Simplification of the financing of European standardisation..................................... 20 

3.3.3.  National standards for services .................................................................................. 21 

3.3.4.  European standards for services................................................................................. 22 

3.4. 

Subsidiarity ................................................................................................................ 23 

4. 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 24 

4.1. 

General policy objectives........................................................................................... 24 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
4.2. 

Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 24 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

Policy options............................................................................................................. 24 

Policy options for problem 1: the process for adopting European standards requested 
by the Commission is not fast enough ....................................................................... 24 

Policy options for problem 2: Under-representation of SMEs and societal 
stakeholders in the European standardisation process ............................................... 25 

Policy options for problem 3: “Fora and Consortia Standards” cannot currently be 
referenced in public procurement of ICT................................................................... 26 

5.4. 

Discarded options....................................................................................................... 27 

6. 

6.1. 

Analysis of impacts .................................................................................................... 27 

Problem 1: the process for adopting European standards requested by the 
Commission is not fast enough .................................................................................. 27 

6.1.1.  Policy Option 1.0: Base-line scenario........................................................................ 27 

6.1.2.  Policy Option 1.A: specify deadlines on the delivery of European standards. .......... 27 

6.1.3.  Policy Option 1.B: create a European Agency for Standards that would manage the 

standard-setting process. ............................................................................................ 30 

6.1.4.  Policy Option 1.C: transparent and simplified procedures for harmonised standards 

and other European standards requested by the Commission.................................... 32 

6.2. 

Problem 2: Involvement of SMEs and societal stakeholders in the European 
standardisation process .............................................................................................. 33 

6.2.1.  Policy Option 2.0: base-line scenario (i.e. the financial contribution to SME and 

societal stakeholder representation) ........................................................................... 33 

6.2.2.  Policy Option 2.A: Facilitate direct public representation of SMEs and societal 

stakeholders within the European standardisation organisations............................... 33 

6.2.3.  Policy Option 2.B: Grant voting rights to organisations representing SMEs and 

societal stakeholders within the European standardisation organisations.................. 35 

6.2.4.  Policy Option 2.C: Strengthen the position of organisations representing SMEs and 

societal stakeholders within the ESOs by providing for the possibility of an operating 
grant ........................................................................................................................... 36 

6.3. 

Problem 3: “Fora and Consortia Standards” cannot currently be referenced in public 
procurement of ICT.................................................................................................... 37 

6.3.1.  Policy option 3.0: base-line scenario ......................................................................... 37 

6.3.2.  Policy Option 3.A: Revive the implementation of the mechanisms of Council 

Decision 87/95/EEC concerning public procurement and the policy dialogue. ........ 37 

6.3.3.  Policy Option 3.B: Allow for the referencing of “Fora and Consortia Standards”.... 38 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
6.3.4.  Policy Option 3.C: Grant Selected Private fora and consortia the Status of 

Recognized Entities under Directive 98/34/EC. ........................................................ 41 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

7.3. 

7.4. 

7.5. 

8. 

9. 

9.1. 

9.2. 

9.3. 

9.4. 

9.5. 

9.6. 

9.7. 

9.8. 

9.9. 

Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 44 

Problem 1: the process for adopting European standards requested by the 
Commission is not fast enough .................................................................................. 44 

Problem 2: Underrepresentation of SMEs and societal stakeholders in the European 
standardisation process .............................................................................................. 45 

Problem 3: “Fora and Consortia Standards” cannot currently be referenced in public 
procurement of ICT.................................................................................................... 46 

Preferred options ........................................................................................................ 47 

Choice of legal instrument ......................................................................................... 48 

Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................................ 48 

ANNEXES ................................................................................................................. 50 

ANNEX 1 – CONSULTATION AND EXPERTISE ................................................ 50 

ANNEX 2 – ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF STANDARDS IN THE EU.................. 115 

ANNEX 3 – EUROPEAN STANDARDISATION ORGANISATIONS ............... 120 

ANNEX 4 – SECONDARY EU LAW USING EUROPEAN STANDARDS ....... 143 

ANNEX 5 – DISCARDED OPTIONS .................................................................... 161 

ANNEX 6 – EXISTING STUDIES ON PROBLEMS OF SMEs IN EUROPEAN 
STANDARDISATION ............................................................................................ 180 

ANNEX 7 – GLOBAL FORA AND CONSORTIA IN THE FIELD OF ICT ....... 185 

ANNEX 8 – SME TEST .......................................................................................... 191 

ANNEX 9 – CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 
EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF THE CONTRIBUTION OF EU FINANCING OF 
STANDARDISATION TO THE FULFILMENT OF POLICY OBJECTIVES OF 
THE COMMISSION ............................................................................................... 193 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1. 

Identification 

Lead DG: Enterprise and Industry – WP reference: 2010/ENTR/021. 

1.2. 

Organisation and timing  

The Impact Assessment Steering Group was set up on 17 December 2009 and met 5 
times between 7 January and 13 December 2010. It was chaired by DG ENTR and 
staff from Directorates-General ENTR, INFSO, COMP, SANCO, MARKT, DIGIT, 
RTD and SG participated and contributed to the discussions of the Group.  

1.3. 

Consultation of the IAB 

The  Impact  Assessment  Board  delivered  its  opinion  on  11  February  2011.  It 
recommended a number of clarifications with respect to the scope of the options and 
recommended  to  demonstrate  better  the  existence  of  the  identified  problems.  The 
opinion  requested  greater  clarity  on  option  3B  addressing  the  problem  of  fora  and 
consortia  standards.  The  Board  also  asked  to  better  assess  the  impacts  of  all  the 
policy options, including by examining possible synergies and trade-offs between the 
three  options.  Finally,  the  different  positions  of  the  stakeholders  should  be  better 
reflected in the main text of the IA report. 

The clarifications with respect to the scope of the options were added to problems 1 
and 2, and the existence of the identified problems was elaborated in greater detail, 
inter alia through the addition of a few examples and a new Annex 5 which outlines 
the  discarded  options.  A  more  detailed  governance  structure  was  added  to  the 
assessment of option 3B (fora and consortia standards). The impacts of all the policy 
options  was  reorganised  and  possible  synergies  and  trade-offs  between  the  three 
options  were  added  in  the  assessment  and  the  comparison  sections.  The  different 
positions of the stakeholders are now reflected in the assessment of the options and 
Annex 1, which sets out the results of the consultation process, was complemented 
by more precise information on the outcome of the consultation. 

1.4. 

Consultation and expertise 

This  impact  assessment  builds  on  the  external  expertise1  and  a  very  broad 
consultation of stakeholders, a detailed overview of which can be found in Annex 1. 
The Commission’s minimum standards have all been met. 

1 

The most important reports used for the purposes of this impact assessment are outlined in Annex 1 and 
consulted  on  http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/european-standards/standardisation-
can  be 
policy/policy-review/index_en.htm.  The  other  external  expertise  is  mentioned  in  the  footnotes  of  this 
document. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

POLICY CONTEXT AND KEY CONCEPTS 

2.1. 

Policy context 

In  its  EUROPE  2020  strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth2,  the 
Commission  highlights  the  necessity  to  improve  the  method  of  standard  setting 
and  the  use  of  standards  in  Europe  to  leverage  European  and  international 
standards  for  the  long-term  competitiveness  of  European  industry  and  for  the 
achievement of important policy goals in areas such as e-government, e-health or e-
accessibility. This initiative implements the Europe 2020 Flagship Initiatives on the 
Innovation  Union3,  Industrial  Policy4,  a  Digital  Agenda  for  Europe5,  a  Resource 
Efficient  Europe6  and  the  Single  Market  Act7,  as  well  as  the  Disability  Strategy 
2010-20208. It is part of a CWP 2011 Strategic initiative. 

On 21 October 2010, the European Parliament adopted a report on the future of 
European  standardisation9  according 
the  review  of  European 
standardisation should preserve its many successful elements, remedy its deficiencies 
and  strike  the  right  balance  between  the  European,  national  and  international 
dimensions.  Furthermore,  it  recognises  that  interoperability  is  a  key  to  innovation 
and competitiveness, especially in the ICT sector.  

to  which 

2.2. 

Standardisation: key concepts  

Standardisation within the EU relies on voluntary cooperation amongst businesses, 
users,  public  authorities  and  other  interested  parties  (consumers,  NGOs  and  other 
stakeholders).  In  Europe,  this  voluntary  cooperation  is  managed  by  independent 
organisations which are subject to WTO-criteria10 and ideally leads to agreement 
between  the  participants  on  the  adoption  of  a  standard.  Standardisation  agreements 
have  as  their  primary  objective  the  definition  of  technical  or  quality  requirements 
with  which  current  or  future  products,  production  processes,  services  or  methods 
may  comply11.  Certain  parts  of  the  economy  have  their  own  standards,  e.g. 
accounting  and  transport  services12,  which  fall  outside  the  scope  of  this  impact 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 

12 

COM(2010)2020. 
COM(2010)546. 
COM(2010)614. 
COM(2010)245. 
COM(2011)21. 
COM(2011)206. 
COM(2010)636. 
A7-0276/2010. 
See Annex 3. 
See point 257 of the Guidelines on the applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of 
the European Union to horizontal co-operation agreements [C(2010) 9274/2], OJ C ….  
For  example,  the  International  Accounting  Standards  (IAS)  and  International  Financial  Reporting 
Standards  (IFRS)  and  related  interpretations  (SIC/IFRIC)  issued  by  the  International  Financial 
Reporting Interpretations Committee have a worldwide impact. Standards are issued by an international 
private organisation called the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and must go through 
due process of endorsement before becoming part of EU law in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 
1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the application of international accounting 
standards. In the transport sector, the Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed in Chicago on 
7  December  1944  (the  Chicago  Convention),  to  which  all  Member  States  are  parties,  provides  for 
minimum standards to ensure the safety of civil aviation and environmental protection relating thereto. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
assessment.  Standards  are  not  regulations.  Standards  are  voluntary13  while 
regulations are obligatory and have the force of law. 

This document only concerns the European standardisation system in which the three 
European standardisation organisations CEN, CENELEC and ETSI play a key role, 
and the standards for interoperability in the field of ICT. The definitions used for the 
purpose of this impact assessment are also set out in Annex 3. 

2.3. 

The relevance of standards and European standardisation as policy tools 

Standards  and  standardisation  are  very  effective  policy  tools  for  the  EU. 
Although standards and standardisation have much wider benefits for the European 
economy14, they are used as policy instruments to ensure, inter alia, the functioning 
of the single market, the interoperability of networks and systems, in particular in the 
field  of  ICT,  a  high  level  of  consumer  and  environmental  protection,  and  more 
innovation and social inclusion. 

Standards are indispensable in the digital society to ensure the interoperability 
of  networks  and  systems,  especially  in  the  field  of  ICT.  In  a  digitally  driven 
society, ICT solutions are used in any economic sector as well as in our daily lives. 
ICT  solutions,  applications  and  services  have  to  be  able  to  communicate  with  each 
other; they should be interoperable. Interoperability requires standards.  

European standards play a very important part in the functioning of the internal 
market  for  industrial  products.  European  standards  replace  national  and  often 
conflicting standards which, as such, may create technical impediments to a national 
market.  European  standards  can,  for  the  purpose  of  this  impact  assessment,  be 
divided into 2 categories: 

•  European standards developed at the request of the Commission, on the basis of a 
so-called  “mandate”  in  which  the  ESOs  are  requested  to  draw  up  technical 
specifications  of  a  normative  nature  that  meet  the  requirements  set  out  in  the 
mandate. These standards can be subdivided into 2 subcategories: 

– 

Harmonised  standards  which  ensure  that  products  meet  the  essential 
requirements  set  out  in  EU  legislation.  Compliance  with  a  European 
“harmonised”  standard  guarantees  the  required  level  of  safety  of 
products. However, use of harmonised standards is still voluntary and a 
manufacturer may use any other technical solution which demonstrates 
that  his  product  meets  the  essential  requirements.  The  percentage  of 
European standards that are harmonised standards has increased in the 
last two decades from 3.55% to 20% in 2009. This shows the increasing 

Technical standards developed by specialised organisations constitute the backbone of the railway and 
maritime sector.  
The TBT Agreement defines a standard as a document “approved by a recognized body, that provides, 
for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for products or related processes and 
production methods, with which compliance is not mandatory. It may also include or deal exclusively 
with  terminology,  symbols,  packaging,  marking  or  labelling  requirements  as  they  apply  to  a  product, 
process or production method.” A more detailed overview can be found in Annex 5. 
See Annex 2. 

13 

14 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
importance  of  standards  as  an 
legislation15. 

instrument 

to  accompany  EU 

– 

Other European standards to support European policies; 

•  The  remaining  European  standards  are  adopted  outside  EU  legislation  on  the 
initiative  of  undertakings,  NSBs  or  other  stakeholders,  or  at  the  request  of  the 
Commission.  

The  percentage  of  the  European  standards  portfolio  mandated  by  the  Commission 
has increased in the last two decades from 18% in 1999 to 34% in 2009. Despite this 
increase,  the  large  majority  of  European  standards  remains  industry–initiated, 
indicating that these instruments mainly respond to the needs of the industry and are 
mainly privately driven.  

Even  if  EU  legislation  did  not  refer  to  European  standards,  the  mere  existence  of 
standards  is  trade-enhancing  because  of  their  cost-decreasing  effect  and  the 
reduction  of  information  asymmetries  between  the  supply  and  the  demand  sides, 
especially in the case of cross-border transactions. Several econometric studies have 
established a clear connection at a macroeconomic level between standardisation 
in  the  economy,  productivity  growth,  trade  and  overall  economic  growth.  The 
economic  benefit  of  standardisation  can  vary  significantly  between  different  EU 
countries.  Studies  show  that  the  impact  of  standards  on  annual  GDP  growth  could 
rage from 0.3 to 1 percentage point16. For Germany this impact is estimated at 1% of 
the gross national product, for France at 0.8% and for United Kingdom only at 0.3%. 
There are no studies on aggregated impact on the EU level. 

The effectiveness of standards and standardisation as policy tools for the EU implies 
that European policymakers have a strong interest in an effective  and  efficient 
standardisation  system  which  provides  a  flexible  and  transparent  platform  for 
consensus  building  between  all  participants  and  which  is  financially  viable. 
Therefore, a specific legislative framework governing European standardisation 
has been developed over the years and currently consists of the following pieces of 
legislation:  

(1) 

Directive 98/34/EC17 sets up the cooperation between the three ESOs (CEN, 
CENELEC and ETSI), the NSBs and the Commission. It contains, inter alia, 
a  procedure  in  the  field  of  standards  designed  to  monitor  the  new 
standardisation activities introduced by the NSBs. Systems have been set up 
mainly to allow other bodies to comment, participate in the work or request 
that an initiative be taken at European level.  

15 

16 

17 

Detailed figures can be found in Annex 3 while Annex 4 contains an overview of EU legislation using 
European standards as a means to presume conformity with the essential requirements. 
Swann  G.M.P.,  “The  Economics  of  Standardization:  An  Update’,  Report  for  the  UK  Department  of 
Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), 2010. 
Directive  98/34/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22  June  1998,  laying  down  a 
procedure  for  the  provision  of  information  in  the  field  of  technical  standards  and  regulations  and  of 
rules on Information Society services (OJ L 204 of 21.07.1998), as amended by Directive 98/48/EC (OJ 
L 217 of 05.08.1998).  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(2) 

(3) 

Decision  No  1673/2006/EC18  establishes 
rules  concerning  EU 
contribution  to  the  financing  of  European  standardisation  to  support  the 
implementation of specific policies, measures, actions and EU legislation. It 
specifies  the  bodies  and  the  standardisation  activities  eligible  for  EU 
financing, as well as the financing arrangements.  

the 

In  the  case  of  IT  equipment,  and  in  support  of  interoperability,  specific 
provisions are included in Council Decision 87/95/EEC19 requiring Member 
States  to  ensure  that  in  public  procurement  orders  reference  is  made  to 
European or international standards.  

2.4. 

The cost of European standardisation20 

The  cost  of  the  creation  of  standards  within  the  ESOs  was  approximately  3,000 
million euro in 2009. The approximate cost of creating one standard is estimated at 
approximately  €1,000,000.  This  includes  the  co sts  of  experts,  the  organisation  of 
meetings, travel etc.  

The  ESOs  point  out  that  this  cost  is  financed  primarily  by  industry  (93-95%) 
the  European 
followed  by  national  governments 
Commission/EFTA contribution (around 2%).The fact that industry bears most of the 
cost of the system, together with the voluntary character of standards, reflects its high 
interest  in  standards  and  implies  that  the  benefits  outweigh  the  cost.  Therefore,  for 
society as a whole, the cost of creating standards is minimal compared to the benefit 
for the economy, even erring on the side of caution regarding the data. 

(around  3-5%) 

and 

3. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION AND SUBSIDIARITY 

3.1. 

Problems with respect to standardisation at European level 

The use of standards and European standardisation as policy tools is a success story. 
Their contribution to the achievement of the internal market and as instruments for 
interoperability  is  tremendous.  However,  public  consultations  and  the  report  of  the 
European Parliament indicated that certain problems need to be addressed. 

3.1.1.  Problem  1:  the  process  for  adopting  European  standards  requested  by  the 

Commission is not fast enough 

In a rapidly changing world and society, especially in sectors characterized by very 
short  product  lives  and  development  cycles,  standards  must  keep  pace  with  rapid 
technological  development.  Some  stakeholders  argue  that  the  entire  process  of 
creating European standards is too slow21, although complaints about slowness of 

18 

19 

20 
21 

Decision No 1673/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 on the 
financing of European standardisation, OJ L315, 15.11.2006. 
Council  Decision  87/95/EEC  of  22  December  1986  on  standardisation  in  the  field  of  information 
technology and telecommunications, OJ L36, 7.2.1987 
See Annex 3 for more details. 
See the report of the European Parliament on the Future of European Standardisation [A7-0276/2010].  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
standardisation  may  be  less  relevant  for  technologies  with  long  lead  times  for 
development and redeployment22.  

At  the  moment,  the  development  time  of  CEN  and  CENELEC  deliverables  is 
between  36  and  21.5  months,  depending  on  the  type  of  procedure23,  with  a 
complementary tolerance of 9 months for all these deliverables. Production of a CEN 
Workshop  Agreement  or  a  Technical  Specification  typically  takes  only  12  –  24 
months and can take as little as 5-6 months. As regards ETSI, the typical time frame 
is 24 to 36 months. Although the duration of the process could still shorten slightly 
within CEN/CENELEC so that they would be similar to those of ETSI, at a certain 
point  it  becomes  difficult  to  make  further  progress  without  jeopardising  some 
fundamental  principles  of  the  standard-setting  process,  especially  the  principle  of 
consensus.  However,  these  periods  do  not  take  into  account  the  time  between  the 
identification of the need for a non-mandated standard by interested parties and the 
date when the ESOs actually start working on the standard. It should be underlined 
that the Commission has little or no influence on the time needed for developing a 
European standard which was not mandated by it.  

Therefore, this impact assessment will only focus on the speed of the development of 
the  European  standards  mandated  by  the  Commission,  of  which  the  entire 
development process can be much longer than the periods set out above. It took more 
than 10 years, for example, to adopt a common test procedure for cement, and about 
15  years  for  the  harmonised  product  standard  and  the  standard  on  conformity 
evaluation of cement. 

For the European standards mandated by the Commission, there are four main stages 
in the development process:  

(1) 

The first stage, the preparation of the mandate and the positive opinion of the 
committee  set  up  under  Directive  98/34/EC,  usually  takes  between  6  to  12 
months. In addition, planning requests for European standards and EU policy 
objectives  are  not  always  communicated  sufficiently  clearly  to  the  ESOs. 
Until now, this has been done in a variety of ways and at a variety of different 
levels,  for  example  through  the  mandates  and  different  work  programmes 
addressed to the ESOs24.  

(2) 

The second stage, the acceptance of the mandate by the ESO and the start of 
work  on  the  standard,  is  fairly  variable.  Under  open  mandates25,  work  on  a 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Sherif  M.H.,  « When  is  Standardization  slow ? »,  in  The  International  Journal  of  IT  Standards  and 
Standardisation Research, 2003, vol. 1., issue 1, pp. 19-32. 
36 months for EN’s developed in accordance with the normal enquiry procedure and Formal Vote track, 
23.5  months  for  EN’s  developed  in  accordance  with  the  shorter  “Unique  Acceptance  Procedure”  and 
21.5 months for Technical Specifications and Technical Reports. 
The Commission developed a rolling “Action Plan for European standardisation” in conjunction with 
European  Free  Trade  Association  (EFTA),  the  ESOs,  the  NSBs  and  the  Member  States: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/european-standards/standardisation-policy/implementation-
action-plan/index_en.htm.  This  action  plan  is  complemented  by  an  “ICT  Standardisation  Work 
Programme: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/ict/standards/work-programme/index_en.htm.  
Open mandates mean that the ESOs may, during standardisation work, add or modify to a certain extent 
the  subjects  referred  to  in  the  programme  submitted,  after  having  informed  the  Commission  services 
and, in the event of a major amendment, the Standing Committee. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
new  standard  can  start  immediately  or,  in  some  cases,  a  few  years  after 
acceptance  of  the  mandate.  The  number  of  mandates  issued  and  average 
response  times  vary  between  ETSI  and  CEN/CLC  and  so  have  been  shown 
separately  in  the  two  tables  below.  ETSI  reported  a  total  of  17  mandates 
issued over the past three years (with between 0 and 9 per year). In the two 
years  where  mandates  were  issued,  the  average  time  for  ETSI  Board 
acceptance  was  3  months  (average  times  are  for  ETSI  board  acceptance). 
CEN/CLC  reported  a  total  of  64  mandates  issued  over  the  past  three  years, 
with  average  response  times  each  year  varying  between  10.4  and  13.6 
months. 

ETSI 

2007 
2008 
2009 

Mandates issued 

8 
0 
9 

CEN/CLC 

Mandates issued 

2007 
2008 
2009 

22 
21 
21 

Average response time 
(months) 
3 
n/a 
3 
Average response time 
(months) 
10.4 
13.6 
12.3 

The  current  procedures  employed  for  consulting  on  and  responding  to  EC
mandates and the average timeframes taken to implement each step are shown
in the tables below. 

Procedures - ETSI 

Average 
time 
(wks) 

Notes 

1. Comments on 
draft mandate via 
membership 

2. 98/34 adopted 
mandate for ETSI 
Board approval 

5 

6 

3. Response to EC 

3 

4. Phase 1: work 
programme 

30 

5. Phase 2: 
Development of 
standards 

Variable 

Varies between 4 and 6 weeks 

Maximum 

Varies between 2 and 4 weeks depending on 
the need for further consultation 

Varies between 24 and 36 weeks (minimum) 
depending on size and complexity of tasks or 
need for financial support and coordination 
with other ESOs/SDOs 

Very variable, depending on complexity and 
contractual issues (EC grant agreement when 
required). EN development requires at least 
1.5 years where the mandate task is relatively 
clear and there are no interdependencies with 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
work from elsewhere 

Procedures – CEN/CLC 

Average 
time 
(wks) 

Notes 

1. Analysis of the mandate in 
CCMC, consultation of the 
competent technical body (if 
any) and/or  
important stakeholders, 
elaboration of a proposal for 
Technical Board (BT) decision 

5.9 

2. Formal decision process by 
correspondence in BT 

6 

Average timeframe for 2009, 
excluding two exceptional cases 
(which would take the average 
timeframe to 9.7 weeks) 

(3) 

The third stage is the development of the standard itself as described above. 
For this stage, the average period in years between the date of acceptance of 
the work and the date of publication of the standard was as follows: 

Average duration (in years) for drafting mandated standards 

Publication 
year 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

CEN 

6.20 

5.46 

4.37 

2.92 

2.42 

CENE
LEC 

3.45 

3.23 

2.85 

3.84 

2.34 

ETSI 

1.08 

1.55 

1.83 

1.87 

1.79 

Two  factors  determine  the  length  of  this  stage.  On  one  hand,  the  above-
mentioned  principle  of  consensus  constitutes  a  crucial  factor.  Broad 
involvement  of  the  large  number  of  interested  parties  increases  the  risk  of 
deadlock and stalemate: while one participant rejects all or part of a proposed 
standard, it cannot be ratified. Participants may not manage to agree, given the 
range  of  vested  interests,  or  some  may  wish  to  delay  (or  even  prevent)  the 
appearance  of  a  standard  long  enough  to  prepare  for  it.  The  standard-setting 
approach aims at bringing together the different participants gradually. On the 
other hand, the availability of technical experts could in some cases be used as 
a  deliberate  strategy  to  block  or  delay  technical  work  in  a  committee. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
Relatively  long  timescales  are  therefore  inherent  in  this  stage  of  the 
standardisation process26. 

(4) 

The  duration  of  the  fourth  stage,  namely  the  publication  of  the  reference  of 
the  harmonised  standard  in  the  OJ  and  the  objection  procedure,  varies  very 
widely.  It  depends  primarily  on  the  diversity  of  procedures.  None  of  the 
directives  specifies  when  publication  should  take  place  and  there  are 
important  differences  between  objection  procedures27.  Thus,  the  entire 
process  for  mandated  standards  can  easily  take  3  years  and  often  much 
longer. 

The  internal  processes  within  CEN  were  revised,  especially  as  regards  the  time 
taken to develop European standards. Historically much of the standardisation work 
carried out under New Approach Directives took many years to complete, with some 
individual standards taking as long as a decade to reach the market. Through various 
communications  and  ongoing  dialogue  with  the  ESOs,  the  Commission  sought  to 
encourage revisions to processes that might shorten these development times. CEN 
implemented a range of changes to its processes to enable such improvement, with a 
very clear and marked effect, as demonstrated in the box below. This illustrates, for 
example,  that  the  248  harmonised  standards  published  by  CEN  in  2003  took  an 
average  of  almost  eight  years  to  produce  (from  acceptance  of  the  work  item  to 
publication  of  the  standard  in  the  Official  Journal)  while  the  329  harmonised 
standards published to 31 December 2008 took an average of less than three years.  

26 

27 

Borraz O., « Governing Standards : The Rise of Standardization Processes in France and in the EU », in 
Governance :  An  International  Journal  of  Policy,  Administration,  and  Institutions,  Vol.  20,  No.  1, 
January 2007, pp. 57-84. 
A detailed overview can be found in Annex 4. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
ETSI  and  CENELEC  also  improved  the  efficiency  of  their  core  activities  and 
operations  in  order  to  shorten  procedures.  Within  ETSI,  for  example,  new  IT 
applications were developed and staffing levels around key Technical Body support 
roles were increased. Many of the functions of the Central Secretariat of CENELEC 
are  directed  specifically  towards  areas  of  work  requested  by  the  Commission  or 
otherwise required by the Commission as a result of its administrative requirements 
(e.g.  handling  mandates  for  standardisation  work,  establishing  contracts  and 
preparing financial quotations, managing the New Approach consultants, etc). 

A comparative analysis of the more informal processes adopted in the ICT-sector by 
global  fora  and  consortia  such  as  OASIS,  OMG,  W3C,  ETSI,  and  ISO/IEC/JTC1 
reveals  that,  if  these  bodies  seek  consensus,  the  speed  of  their  processes  (from  the 
start  of  work  on  a  new  item  until  completion)  does  not  differ  much  (typically 
between 12 and 24 months, but in extreme cases as little as 6 months) and formal and 
informal procedures tend to converge over time, as the latter increasingly get market 
recognition  and  legitimacy28.  The  success  of  the  informal  standardisation  processes 
in the field of ICT owes much not only to its speed, but also to the search for extreme 
simplicity,  with  a  strong  preference  for  solutions  taken  from  concrete  industry 
practice,  in  order  to  ensure  high  levels  of  interoperability.  The  main  difference 
between ESOs and informal standardisation bodies in the ICT-sector is that the latter 
do not require a formal national ratification procedure and that draft specifications or 
standards are usually made available for comment over the internet at an early draft 
stage. However, formal voting remains restricted to Members.  

The main negative consequence of a slow standard-setting process for all European 
standards  is  that  conflicting  national  standards  continue  to  exist,  which  may  create 
technical  barriers  in  the  supply  chain  or  barriers  to  trade  if  the  national  standard  is 
used as a protectionist instrument. Another consequence is that, in the specific case 
of  harmonised  standards,  businesses  cannot  use  the  relevant  standard  to  confer  a 
presumption  of  conformity  and  must  demonstrate  compliance  with  the  essential 
requirements  in  accordance  with  the  conformity  assessment  module  set  out  in  the 
applicable EU legislation. In both cases, businesses are prevented from saving costs 
incurred  due  to  fragmentation  of  the  internal  market  or  conformity  assessment 
procedures.  Conflicting  national  standards  or  the  absence  of  harmonised  standards 
lead  to  higher  transaction  costs  and  higher  per-unit  costs  caused  by  the  need  to 
produce divergent batches. Industry reacts to this situation by establishing informal 
standardisation  channels  for  the  rapid  development  of  technical  specifications  to 
ensure interoperability which gain an international reach. In addition, the absence of 
a European standard could lead to safety risks. The development of a safety standard 
for portable ladders, for example, took an extremely long period of some 10 years. 
According  to  estimates  (IDB  database,  2009)  within  the  EU  the  yearly  accidents 
related  to  ladders  amount  to  413,000  and  25%  of  the  recorded  accidents  involved 
elderly people.  

28 

Simcoe  T.,  “Delay  and  de  jure  standardization:  exploring  the  slowdown  in  Internet  standards 
development” in Greenstein S. and Stango V., Standards and Public Policy, Cambridge, 2007. See also 
Annex 7 for a comparative table. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.1.2.  Problem 2: Underrepresentation of SMEs and societal stakeholders in the European 

standardisation process 

Several  studies  showed  that  SMEs  encounter  a  series  of  problems  with  respect  to 
standards and standardisation29. During the public consultation, 69% of respondents 
declared  that  the  participation  of  SMEs  in  European  standardisation  should  be 
reinforced. One of the most important problems, according to many stakeholders, is 
that  SMEs  are  in  general  under-represented  in  standardisation  activities,  in 
particular at European level.  

Indeed,  standard-setting  is  a  labour-intensive  and  time-consuming  activity  and,  for 
the  most  part,  only  large  businesses  and  government  agencies  specialising  in 
standards issues can afford to allow one individual to spend a significant amount of 
his/her  time  attending  standard-setting  meetings.  For  smaller  businesses,  where  job 
descriptions  are  broader,  the  fixed  cost  of  participation  may  simply  be  too  high. 
According  to  a  study  prepared  at  the  request  of  the  Commission30,  the  four  most 
important barriers to access by SMEs to the standardisation process are: (a) the 
amount  of  time  required;  (b)  the  travel  and  subsistence  costs;  (c)  the  cost  of 
participating in technical committees (fee) and (d) the cost of becoming a member of 
a  standardisation  body  (fee).  The  amount  of  time  is  considered  to  be  the  greatest 
barrier.  

While SMEs are generally quite well represented in the technical committees of the 
NSBs,  it  is  rare  for  SMEs  and  their  representatives  to  form  part  of  the  delegations 
that  participate  directly  in  the  Technical  Committees  and  Working  Groups  of  the 
ESOs.  In  theory,  participation  in  the  standardisation  activities  of  CEN  and 
CENELEC  is  open  to  all  interested  stakeholders  via  the  NSBs  but  meetings  at 
European  level  involve  a  considerable  burden  in  terms  of  time  and  travel  costs  for 
SMEs31.  

Standards have a broad impact on society. Often they relate to the safety and well-
being of citizens, the efficiency of networks, the environment and other public policy 
fields.  Many  standards  increase  safety  for  consumers  while  others  have  a  direct 
environmental  impact.  Minimum  safety  standards  are  used  to  solve  imperfect 
information  problems.  By  conveying  information  about  the  negative  effects  of 
products, they allow customers to avoid products that might harm them, the public, 
or  the  environment,  and  they  allow  regulators  to  exclude  unsafe  products  from  the 
market.  These  standards  allow  buyers  to  confirm  that  products  and  processes  have 
the characteristics they want without the additional transaction costs of independent 
testing.  Standards  are  gradually  playing  a  new  role  in  society.  Standardisation  is 
evolving  from  a  technical  discussion  on  facilitating  exchanges  and  adding  value  to 
the organizations, to the provision of a normative framework for economic operators 
in environmental, social or economic issues.  

29 
30 

31 

For further details, see Annex 6. 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/european-
standards/files/standards_policy/access_to_standardisation/doc/access_to_standardisation_study_eim_e
n.pdf.  
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/market-access/standardisation/index_en.htm#h2-5.  

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Although  standards  play  a  major  role  in  society,  the  opinion  of  relevant  societal 
stakeholders is not sufficiently integrated in the standardisation process32 in the 
EU.  Many  perceive  standards  as  a  technical  matter  of  relevance  to  the  internal 
workings of a product or service, but which do not concern them directly. Because of 
this  asymmetric  information,  these  societal  stakeholders  often  underestimate  the 
importance of standards to their interests and that leads some to avoid involvement in 
the process.  

In order to address the problem of insufficient representation of SMEs and societal 
stakeholders in standardisation activities, financial contributions are paid, inter alia, 
under the following programmes: 

–  The Entrepreneurship and Innovation programme33 supports SME involvement in 
the field of European standardisation. EU financial support for the representation 
of SMEs in standardisation at European level increased from an annual amount of 
om 2009. This money is used to 
€700,000 to €1 million in 2008 and €2.1 million fr
promote SMEs’ participation and defence of their interests in standardisation and 
to improve their information about, and use of, European standards. According to 
an external evaluation, the Commission’s intervention scheme for the period 2002 
to 2008 directly addressed this need by providing the resources and mechanisms 
for  direct  participation  of  SME  representatives  in  the  technical  bodies  of  the 
ESOs34. 

–  The programme of Community action in the field of consumer policy35 includes 
financial  contributions 
representing 
consumer  interests  in  the  development  of  standards  for  products  and  services  at 
EU level. In 2009, the grant amounted to about €1,460,000 and to €1,386,000 in 
2010. The programme covers the period from 31 December 2006 to 31 December 
2013. 

to  European  consumer  organisations 

–  Grants  are  paid  under  the  LIFE+-Programme36  to  strengthen  the  participation  of 
NGOs  in  the  European  standardisation  process  in  order  to  ensure  balanced 
stakeholder  representation  and  the  systematic  integration  of  environmental 
aspects. In 2009, the grant amounted to approximately €185,000.  

–  The participation of trade unions in the development of technical standards is also 
partly  financed  by  the  EU  budget  since  many  standards  have  an  impact  on  the 
health and safety of workers, for example through the design of work equipment. 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

See  also  the  report  of  the  European  Parliament  on  the  Future  of  European  Standardisation  [A7-
0276/2010].  
Decision  No  1639/2006/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  October  2006 
establishing  a  Competitiveness  and  Innovation  Framework  Programme  (2007  to  2013),  OJ  L310, 
9.11.2006. 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/files/craft/craft-
priorities/doc_stand/evaluation_mainreport_en.pdf.  
Decision  No  1926/2006/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  18  December  2006 
establishing a programme of Community action in the field of consumer policy (2007-2013), OJ L404, 
30.12.2006. 
Regulation  (EC)  No  614/2007  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  May  2007 
concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+), OJ L149, 9.6.2007. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The criteria for eligibility for these grants, the conditions for their use and the 
type of financial contributions available vary widely. Some organisations receive 
grants for actions while others also receive operating grants. The principle of gradual 
decrease for operating grants which are not flat-rate grants pursuant to Article 113 of 
the Financial Regulation, applies to some but not all beneficiaries. 

Organisations  representing  SMEs  and  societal  stakeholders  at  European  level 
can, under certain conditions, become associate members of CEN which allows them 
to participate, without voting rights, in the General Assembly, open sessions of the 
Administrative Board, Technical Board, Sector Activities and the CEN Certification 
Board.  As  a  member  of  the  Technical  Board,  an  Associate  Member  can  also  apply 
for  and  hold  the  secretariat  of  Technical  Committees  and  participate  in  Technical 
Committees  (TCs)  and  Subcommittees,  upon  request,  as  an  observer.  Associate 
Members  can  also  receive  documentation  for  all  meetings  for  which  requests  for 
participation have been granted. A similar system exists in CENELEC. However, the 
absence of voting rights in CEN and CENELEC prevents organisations representing 
SMEs and societal stakeholders having a more decisive influence on technical work. 
The  role  of  observer  diminishes  the  influence  of  the  participant  in  the  technical 
discussion  on  a  standard  and  in  the  final  decisions  that  will  be  taken  about  the 
standard.  The  lack  of  voting  rights  means  that  these  organisations  are  not  as 
influential  as  they  should  be  and  can  only  carry  arguments  if  they  have  strong 
evidence to back up their claims. 

Although  the  national  delegation  principle  within  the  ESOs  contains  a  number  of 
checks and balances designed to produce standards without anti-competitive effects, 
the most negative consequence of the problem of insufficient participation of SMEs 
and  societal  stakeholders  is  that  participants  in  standardisation  may  influence  the 
results of the process, get the know-how and technical understanding relating to these 
results and implement the standard before it is publicly available.37 As a result, the 
participating  undertakings  will  most  likely  have  a  head  start  and  therefore  a 
significant  competitive  advantage  in  the  relevant  downstream  markets38.  In  an 
industry  where  lead  time  is  a  crucial  factor,  active  participation  in  standardisation 
thus  confers  an  appreciable  competitive  advantage  vis-à-vis  non-participating 
competitors. If participation in the standard-setting process is not open in the sense 
that it does not allow all competitors (and/or stakeholders) in the market affected by 
the standard to take part in choosing and elaborating the standard, the risks of a likely 
restrictive effect on competition will exist by excluding certain companies from the 
ability to influence the choice and elaboration of the standard. The greater the likely 
market  impact  of  the  standard  and  the  wider  its  potential  fields  of  application,  the 

37 

38 

In the Commission decision No 87/69/EEC in Case IV/31.458, X/Open Group, OJ L35, 6.2.1987, p. 36-
43,  the  Commission  considered  that  even  if  the  standards  adopted  were  made  public,  the  restricted 
membership policy had the effect of preventing non-members from influencing the results of the work 
of  the  group  and  from  getting  the  know-how  and  technical  understanding  relating  to  the  standards 
which  the  members  were  likely  to  acquire.  In  addition,  non-members  could  not,  in  contrast  to  the 
members,  implement  the  standard  before  it  was  adopted  (see  paragraph  32).  The  agreement  was 
therefore in these circumstances seen to constitute a restriction under Article 101(1). 
Koenig C. and Trias A., “Some standards for standardisation: a basis for harmonisation and efficiency 
maximisation  of  EU  and  US  antitrust  control  of  the  standard-setting  process”,  European  Intellectual 
Property Review, 2010, v. 32, n. 7, pp. 320-331. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
more  important  it  is  to  allow  equal  access  to  the  standard-setting  process39.  These 
negative consequences hit SMEs especially when a harmonised standard would not 
take  into  account  the  needs  of  manufacturing  SMEs40.  In  that  case,  the 
competitiveness of the SME would be affected since it would either have to alter its 
production  processes,  or  use  the  conformity  assessment  module  laid  down  in  the 
relevant  directive  which  often  entails  the  intervention  of  a  conformity  assessment 
body. 

3.1.3.  Problem  3:  “Fora  and  Consortia  Standards”  cannot  currently  be  referenced  in 

public procurement of ICT.  

In the field of ICT, many standards ensuring interoperability were not developed by 
the  ESOs  but  by  global  fora  and  consortia.  This  applies  particularly  in  the  case  of 
Internet and World Wide Web related standards. A few, such as MPEG, issued 
by DVB, are subsequently published by formal standardisation organisations such as 
ISO  standards41.  Since  the  1980s,  global  fora  and  consortia,  such  as  IETF,  W3C 
and OASIS have emerged as world-leading ICT standards development organisations 
primarily covering the Internet and Web domains42. Mostly due to a lack of highly 
specialized  expertise,  the  traditional  standard-setting  organisations  do  not  cover  the 
ICT domain and so a major part of global ICT standardisation work is currently done 
outside the formal European or international standardisation system.  

The number of “Fora and Consortia Standards” used today on a global scale is 
impressive. They are used for browsing the World Wide Web for business or social 
purposes,  sending  e-mails  or  engaging  in  any  form  of  electronic  collaboration.  For 
wireless  communication,  the  IEEE  802.11  standard  on  WiFi  is  used;  the 
identification of internet resources is based on URI (Unified Resource Identifier) set 
by IETF; the transport layer of internet communication, TCP/IP is defined by IETF; 
HTML and XML are set by W3C; audio and video signals are compressed following 
the MPEG standards published by DVB and ISO; the Web Accessibility guidelines 
for  disabilities  are  set  by  W3C  and  OASIS  has  the  expertise  in  technical  standards 
for web services43.  

Referencing  of  standards  in  public  procurement  can  be  an  important  means  of 
fostering innovation while providing public authorities with the tools needed to fulfil 
their  tasks,  especially  in  lead  markets44  such  as  e-health.  Public  procurement  of  a 

39 

40 

41 

42 
43 

44 

See the Guidelines on the applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union to horizontal co-operation agreements, OJ C11 of 14.1.2011, p. 1. 
See,  for  example,  the  judgment  of  12 May  2010  in  Case  T-432/05,  EMC  Development  AB  v. 
Commission,  not  yet  reported,  where  the  applicant  basically  argued  that  this  had  been  the  case.  The 
applicant  submitted  that  European  standard  EN197-1  “was  designed,  thanks  to  the  close  cooperation 
between Cembureau and CEN/TC 51, to favour existing major cement producers in the market” (point 
68 of the judgement).  
Van  Eecke  P.,  Truyens  M.,  “Standardization  in  the  European  Information  and  Technology  Sector: 
Official  Procedures  on  the  Verge  of  Being  Overhauled”,  5  Shidler  J.  L.  Com.  &  Tech.  11  (2009), 
available at http://www.lctjournal.washington.edu/vol5/a11VanEecke.html.  
For a detailed description, see Annex 7. 
Jakobs  K.,  « ICT  Standardisation  –  Co-ordinating  the  Diversity »  in:  Innovations  in  NGN:  Future 
Network and Services, 2008. K-INGN 2008. First ITU-T Kaleidoscope Academic Conference, Geneva, 
2008. 
Communication: A lead market initiative for Europe - COM(2007) 860. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
certain  value  has  to  comply  with  Directive  2004/18/EC45  which  differentiates 
between formal standards and other technical specifications for which a description 
of  functional  requirements  is  additionally  requested.  At  the  moment,  referring  to 
“Fora  and  Consortia  Standards”  in  public  procurement  which  is  subject  to 
Directive 2004/18/CE is only possible in exceptional circumstances46. Since “Fora 
and Consortia Standards” do not, as such, fit into any of the categories of standards 
to  which  public  authorities  may  refer  in  their  calls  for  tenders,  cautious  public 
authorities will refrain from referring to these standards. The consequence is that the 
ITC  that  they  are  procuring  may  not  be  interoperable  with  ITC  purchased  by  other 
authorities. This difficulty often prevents public authorities from defining their ICT 
strategies  and  architectures, 
interoperability  between 
organisations47.  

including  cross-border 

Although  the  public  sector  is  by  far  the  largest  procurer  of  ICT  services  and 
applications, especially software48 Fora and Consortia Standards have not found 
their way into the available European ICT standardisation “catalogue” produced 
by the ESOs. For instance Internet or Web technologies cannot be referenced since 
those  technologies  and  the  related  applications  and  services  are  not  covered  by 
European  standards.  In  fact,  the  “business  models”  of  CEN  and  CENELEC  either 
envisage  revenues  from  sales  of  standards  or  the  full  reimbursement  of  standard 
development  costs.  Both  models  are  hardly  compatible  with  the  practices  of  some 
major  fora  and  consortia  which  typically  envisage  free  distribution  of  standards 

45 

46 

47 

48 

Directive  2004/18/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  31  March  2004  on  the 
coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public 
service contracts, OJ L134, 30/04/2004, p. 114 – 240. 
Article 23(3)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC specifies that technical specifications in public procurement to 
which the Directive applies, must be formulated either by reference to technical specifications defined 
in  Annex  VI  and,  in  order  of  preference,  to  national  standards  transposing  European  standards, 
European technical approvals, common technical specifications, international standards, other technical 
reference systems established by the European standardisation bodies or - when these do not exist - to 
national  standards,  national  technical  approvals  or  national  technical  specifications  relating  to  the 
design,  calculation  and  execution  of  the  works  and  use  of  the  products.  Each  reference  shall  be 
accompanied  by  the  words  "or  equivalent"”.  According  to  Annex  VI  a  "standard"  means  a  technical 
specification  approved  by  a  recognised  standardising  body  for  repeated  or  continuous  application, 
compliance  with  which  is  not  compulsory  and  which  is  an  international,  a  European  or  a  national 
standard. A "European technical approval" means a favourable technical assessment of the fitness for 
use  of  a  product  for  a  particular  purpose,  based  on  the  fulfilment  of  the  essential  requirements  for 
building works,  by  means  of  the  inherent  characteristics  of  the  product  and  the defined  conditions  of 
application and use. European technical approvals are issued by an approval body designated for this 
purpose by the Member State. A "Common technical specification" means a technical specification laid 
down in accordance with a procedure recognised by the Member States which has been published in the 
Official Journal of the European Union while a "technical reference" means any product produced by 
European standardisation bodies, other than official standards, according to procedures adopted for the 
development of market needs. 
Commission  White  Paper  “Modernising  ICT  Standardisation  in  the  EU  -  The  Way  Forward”, 
COM(2009)324. 
With market revenues of over €200 billion in Europe  and growth rates of between 6% and 8%, software 
is  the  largest  and  the  fastest-growing  segment  of  the  information  and  communication  technologies 
(ICT) market The European software industry is a significant contributor to the European economy and 
a key driver of innovation and change. Spending on software and related services is worth around €258 
billion to the European economy, or around 2.6% of GDP4. The software industry creates tax revenues, 
is  a  major  source  of  high-value  jobs,  and  has  downstream  multiplier  effects  throughout  the  economy 
(Source:  report  of  an  Industry  Expert Group  to  DG INFSO  “Towards  a  European  Software  Strategy” 
March 2009) 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
online  and  cover  costs  through  relatively  high  membership  fees.  In  addition,  ESOs 
may be unwilling to endorse or rubberstamp standards developed by third parties and 
be responsible for their maintenance while global fora and consortia may not see any 
added value in transposing their deliverables, already broadly implemented at global 
level, into a formal regional standard.  

This  situation  has  a  range  of  negative  impacts.  During  the  public  consultation, 
77%  of  respondents  recognised  this  as  a  problem49.  Indeed,  European  public 
authorities are not in a position to refer to and thus exploit the potential of innovative 
ICT technologies which slows down the implementation of public goals in areas such 
as  e-health,  e-accessibility,  e-government.  Moreover,  the  European  Digital  single 
market  cannot  be  realised  as  Member  States  will  select  their  own  solutions  (which 
may  not  be  interoperable  with  other  Member  States)  and  thus  block  the  digital 
market for instance for content related matters. In the field of eHealth services, for 
example,  a  study  carried  out  for  the  Commission  by  Empirica  GmbH  in  2008  on 
“ICT standards in the health sector: current situation and prospects” painted a bleak 
picture,  finding  a  lack  of  well-developed  e-health  standards  for  particular 
applications  and  concrete  use  cases,  and  conflicting  standards,  versions  and 
implementations,  i.e.  a  lack  of  standards  that  are  widely  used,  implying  that 
standards  often  conflict  and  interoperability  problems  often  occur.  Many  of  the 
conflicting  standards  are  proprietary.  There  may  also  be  different  or  flawed 
implementations of the same standard that are not interoperable. In some cases even 
different  versions  of  the  same  standard  may  conflict.  For  health  service  providers, 
this situation may imply that computerised systems remain stand-alone and unable to 
exchange  data  with  each  other  in-house  or  externally.  The  lack  of  ICT  systems 
interoperability  and  of  widely  accepted  standards  directly  implies  compromised 
quality  of  healthcare  and  unnecessarily  high  costs  for  the  health  systems.  To  the 
extent that EU Member States seek cross-border health services and, in the long run, 
an  internal  market  for  health  services,  such  interoperability  problems  need  to  be 
solved at the EU or international level. The work to harmonise eHealth standards is 
further  complicated  by  the  number  of  standards  developing  organisations  active  in 
the area, not only the ESOs and ISO, but also Fora and Consortia such as IHTSDO 
for  terminology,  HL7  for  electronic  messaging,  DICOM  for  digital  healthcare 
imaging, openEHR for eHealth records and IHE for interoperable systems. 

3.2. 

How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? 

As  regards  the  speed  of  the  European  standard-setting  process,  the  figures  set  out 
above  show  that  the  duration  of  the  process  could  still  shorten  slightly  within 
CEN/CENELEC  to  equate  to  those  of  ETSI.  However,  it  is  likely  to  become 
increasingly  difficult 
jeopardising  some 
fundamental  principles  of  the  standard-setting  process,  especially  the  principle  of 
consensus.  

to  make  further  progress  without 

Little or no evolution can be expected in relation to the other problems. 

49 

See Annex 1 and the report of the European Parliament on the Future of European Standardisation [A7-
0276/2010]. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.3. 

Simplification and update potential 

At  the  moment,  the  co-existence  of  three  different  legal  instruments  on  European 
standardisation  (Decisions  87/95/EEC  and  1673/2006/EC  and  Directive  98/34/EC) 
creates  a  number  of  ambiguities.  These  issues  are  listed  below  and  could  be  easily 
rectified if the legal framework is revised. 

3.3.1.  Procurement of existing standards 

At  the  moment,  Decision  No  1673/2006/EC  specifies  that  EU  financing  will  be 
provided: 

–  in  the  form  of  grants  without  a  call  for  proposals,  to  European  standardisation 
bodies to carry out the production and revision of European standards or any other 
standardisation product which is necessary and suitable for the implementation of 
Community  policies  and  legislation  and  complementary  activities  set  out  in 
Article 3 of the Decision; or  

–  in  the  form  of  grants  after  a  call  for  proposals,  or  by  public  procurement 
procedures,  to  other  bodies  to  carry  out,  in  collaboration  with  the  European 
standardisation  bodies,  the  performance  of  preliminary  or  ancillary  work  in 
connection  with  European  standardisation,  such  as  studies,  programmes, 
evaluations,  comparative  analyses,  research  work,  laboratory  work,  inter-
laboratory tests and conformity evaluation work. 

The  procurement  of  existing  standards  by  the  Commission  is  not  expressly 
mentioned in the Decision. Yet, procuring standards is possible under Chapter V of 
the  Financial  Regulation50.  Resolving  this  legal  ambiguity  would  not  have  any 
budgetary impact. 

3.3.2. 

Simplification of the financing of European standardisation 

The evaluation of the Community financing of standardisation51 suggests that a shift 
to a radically simpler, faster and more stable arrangement is necessary to increase the 
efficiency  of  financial  support  and  ensure  that  it  is  fully  utilised  -  and  indeed 
extended  -  in  future.  It  recommends  that  the  Commission  seek  to  identify  a 
significantly simpler and less bureaucratic set of arrangements in the medium term, 
and  that  in  the  interim  the  administrative  requirements  and  financial  controls  be 
defined  as  clearly  as  possible  and  then  applied  fairly,  proportionately  and 
consistently across the various contracts. 

In  its  proposal  for  the  recast  of  the  Financial  Regulation  applicable  to  the  general 
budget  of  the  European  Union52,  the  Commission  pointed  out  that  the  currently 
applicable  rules  on  grants  have  proved  insufficient  to  alleviate  the  administrative 

50 

51 

52 

EN 

Council  Regulation  (EC,  Euratom)  No  1605/2002  of  25  June  2002  on  the  Financial  Regulation 
applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L248, 16.9.2002. 
Evaluation of the Contribution of Community Financing of Standardisation to the Fulfilment of Policy 
Objectives  of 
June  2009. 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/dg/files/evaluation/2009-06-30__final_report_and_appendices_en.pdf.  Its 
main conclusions can be found in Annex 9. 
COM(2010)260 of 28.5.2010. 

submitted  by  GHK/Technopolis  on  30 

the  Commission, 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
burden  imposed  on  operational  services  and  beneficiaries.  According  to  the  proposal, 
this  administrative  burden  prevents  services  from  using  their  resources  on  policy 
objectives and on timely delivery, while it creates excessive red tape for beneficiaries. It 
has 
two  direct  causes:  excessive  similarity  between  procurement  and  grant 
rules/procedures, although the objectives are different (acquisition vs. support); and the 
fact  that  controls  for  grants  focus  on  real  costs  (real-cost  based  grant)  rather  than  on 
expected results (deliverables) of projects. 

This  proposal  for  the  recast  of  the  Financial  Regulation  intends  to  shift  the  Union 
scheme  towards  a  performance-based  system,  based  on  the  definition  of  agreed 
indicators  and  objectives  (outputs  and  outcomes),  and  to  proceed  to  a  robust 
simplification of lump sums (lump sums, standard scales of unit costs and flat rates), 
clearly disconnected from any verification of actual costs of implementation. Under 
this  new  system,  the  Commission  would  be  able  to  establish  lump  sums,  scales  of 
unit  costs  and  flat  rates  on  the  basis  of  a  provisional  budget  submitted  by  the 
applicant  taking  into  account  its  internal  accounting  practices,  including  only 
acceptable cost categories, which are consistently applied to similar operations by the 
applicant. In parallel, the proposal indicates that the real-cost regime, maintained as 
the default regime, should be reviewed (clarification of various types of costs, costs 
actually incurred, in kind contributions, profit).  

The rules on the financing of European standardisation could be aligned with these 
simplifications in the recast of the Financial Regulation. 

3.3.3.  National standards for services 

to  4  of  Directive  98/34/EC  establish  cooperation  between 

Articles  2 
the 
standardisation  bodies  and  the  Commission  for  standards  on  products53.  This 
cooperation  includes  the  exchange  of  information  on  national  standardisation 
initiatives  so  that  NSBs  are  encouraged  to  bring  their  initiatives  to  European  level, 
thus promoting the internal market and European harmonisation. Formally speaking, 
this cooperation does not apply to standards on services which are not included in the 
scope of the Directive.  

Importance  of  services  for  the  economy  has  steadily  increased  over  time  in  most 
OECD  countries.  This  process  known  as  "tertiarization"  does  not  only  mean  that 
services  occupy  increasing  shares  of  GDP  but  also  that  they  play  an  increasingly 
important role in intermediate inputs for manufacturing, and high-tech manufacturing 
in  particular.  The  tendency  of  knowledge  intensive  business  services  firms  to 
develop  new  services  as  part  of  a  product  package  that  includes  physical,  tangible 

53 

According to Article 1(6) of the Directive, a standard is a technical specification approved by approved 
by a recognised standardisation body for repeated or continuous application, with which compliance is 
not compulsory and which is an international, European or national standard. A technical specification 
is defined as a “specification contained in a document which lays down the characteristics required of 
a  product  such  as  levels  of  quality,  performance,  safety  or  dimensions,  including  the  requirements 
applicable to the product as regards the name under which the product is sold, terminology, symbols, 
testing  and  test  methods, packaging,  marking or  labelling  and  conformity  assessment  procedures” as 
well  as  “production  methods  and  processes  used  in  respect  of  agricultural  products  as  referred  to 
Article  38(1)  of  the  Treaty,  products  intended  for  human  and  animal  consumption,  and  medicinal 
products as defined in Article 1 of Directive 65/65/EEC, as well as production methods and processes 
relating to other products, where these have an effect on their characteristics.” 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
goods is a prominent feature of what has been coined a "convergence process". This 
process encompasses manufacturing firms which have also begun to offer services as 
part  of  package  including  both  the  physical  product  as  well  as  services.  High-tech 
products are, for example, often sold in combination with maintenance services. 

The  output  of  manufacturing  still  consists  to  the  largest  extent  of  manufactured 
products. Service output of manufacturing, however, grows quite fast and displayed 
annual  growth  rates  of  5  to  10  %  for  the  period  1995-2005.  Service  output  of 
manufacturing  was  growing  in  all  Member  States  but  the  Czech  Republic  between 
2000 and 2005 which is the latest available year of data. Taking into account that the 
latest  recession  hit  manufacturing  industries  relatively  harder  than  services,  the 
shares of service output of manufacturing is likely to have increased further. 

In general, the delineation between services and goods is becoming less relevant in 
the  reality  of  the  internal  market.  In  practice,  it  is  not  always  possible  to  clearly 
distinguish  standards  on  products  from  standards  on  services.  Many  product 
standards  have  a  service  component  while  standards  on  services  often  also  partly 
relate  to  products.  Therefore,  most  NSBs  notify  their  intentions  about  all  new  or 
amended standards in accordance with the internal rules of the ESOs, irrespective of 
their  scope  and  despite  the  current  absence  of  an  obligation  to  notify  envisaged 
service and process standards54. However, this de-facto situation is not foolproof: if, 
for  example,  a  NSB  deliberately  chooses  not  to  notify  its  plans  for  a  new  national 
service or process standard to protect their national market, the other NSBs and the 
ESOs will remain unaware of these plans so that the matter cannot be discussed in 
view of a possible initiative for a European standard.  

The  public  consultation  shows  that  most  respondents  were  in  favour  of  including 
service standards in the scope of Directive 98/34/EC55 or its possible successors. Just 
over half (58%) of the NSBs stated that there would be no additional administrative 
workload or cost associated with the notification of service standards, and a further 
quarter (25%) stated that the costs would be negligible or insignificant. The lack of 
additional  administrative  costs  are  explained  by  the  fact  that  notification  is  current 
practice for most NSBs and many are not developing significant numbers of national 
service standards anyway.  

3.3.4.  European standards for services 

European standards on services are already covered  by Decision No  1673/2006/EC 
on  the  financing  of  European  standardisation.  The  older  Directive  98/34/EC, 
however,  only  applies  to  standards  on  products  and  the  consultative  committee  of 
representatives of Member States set up by Article 6 of the Directive cannot formally 
propose  that  the  Commission  ask  the  ESOs  to  draw  up  a  European  standard  on 

54 

55 

and 

SEC(2007)350, 

See  reports  on  the  implementation  of  Directive  98/34/EC :  COM(2009)690  and  SEC(2009)1704, 
also 
COM(2007)125 
http://www.cen.eu/boss/Support/Support%20processes%20-%20Index/notifproc/Pages/default.aspx. 
and http://portal.etsi.org/nso/handbook.asp.  
It should be noted, however, that articles 8 to 10 of Directive 98/34/EC, i.e. the provisions concerning 
the  notification  of  draft  technical  regulations,  have  no  bearing  to  standardisation.  Therefore,  these 
articles  as  well  as  other  articles  of  the  Directive  concerning  the  notification  of  draft  technical 
regulations fall outside the scope of this impact assessment. 

COM(2003)200. 

and 

See 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
services  (Article  6(3)).  In  theory,  the  Committee  should  not  even  be  consulted  for 
such requests (Article 6(4)). 

Correspondingly,  the  Commission  addressed  Programming  Mandate  M/340  in  the 
field  of  services  to  CEN,  CENELEC  and  ETSI  in  2003,  in  which  it  requested  the 
delivery  of  a  programme  of  standardisation  work  in  support  to  the  Internal  Market 
for services, giving priority to areas where intra-community trade already existed or 
was  desirable.  In  July  2005,  the  Commission  addressed  the  Second  Programming 
Mandate  M/371,  in  the  field  of  services  to  CEN  which  resulted  in  11  feasibility 
projects. Other mandates, for example, relate to postal services (mandates M/312 and 
M/428),  cinematographic  works  (mandate  M/365),  business-support  services  to 
SMEs  (mandate  M/370),  customer-contact  services  (mandate  M/378)  and  supply 
chain security (mandate M/419).  

However, Article 26(5) of the “Services Directive”56 obliges the Member States, in 
cooperation  with  the  Commission,  to  encourage  the  development  of  voluntary 
European  standards  with  the  aim  of  facilitating  compatibility  between  services 
supplied  by  providers  in  different  Member  States,  information  to  the  recipient  and 
the quality of service provision.  

Consequently,  there  is  a  case  for  aligning  and  simplifying  the  procedures  for  all 
mandates to ESOs, regardless of their subject-matter, by including the possibility to 
ask  ESOs  to  draft  European  standards  on  services  into  the  legal  text.  There  was 
general support for this possibility in the general consultation.  

3.4. 

Subsidiarity 

European standardisation supports European legislation establishing the Single 
Market (see Annex 4) and contributes to increasing the competitiveness of European 
industry.  The  harmonisation  of  standards  at  European  level  overcomes  technical 
barriers to trade which could be caused by conflicting national standards. Therefore, 
this  impact  assessment  only  examines  problems  and  policy  options  that  relate  to 
standardisation  at  European 
improve 
standardisation at national level are not considered.  

level.  Correspondingly,  measures 

to 

All  problems  outlined  above  concern  primarily  the  functioning  of  the  internal 
market.  Consequently,  any 
to  European 
standardisation would have to be based on Article 114 TFEU, which is the legal basis 
of  all  directives  referred  to  in  Annex  4.  The  proportionality  of  the  options  will  be 
assessed later in this report. 

legislative  proposal  with  respect 

56 

Directive  2006/123/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  12  December  2006  on 
services in the internal market, OJ L376, 27.12.2006. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4. 

OBJECTIVES 

4.1. 

General policy objectives 

This  initiative  aims  at  increasing  the  contribution  of  standards  and  European 
standardisation  to  a  better  functioning  internal  market,  stimulating  growth  and 
innovation and fostering the competitiveness of EU enterprises, especially SMEs.  

4.2. 

Specific objectives 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

Reduce the time taken by the standardisation process for standards developed 
at the request of the Commission; 

Ensure that SMEs and societal stakeholders are adequately represented in the 
standardisation  process,  especially  for  standards  developed  at  the  request  of 
the Commission; 

Broaden the use of ICT standards and thus enhance interoperability through a 
more  integrated  European  public  procurement  market  for  ICT  products  and 
services,  especially  in  connection  with  the  establishment  of  an  “e-Internal 
Market”; 

(4) 

Remove ambiguities in the existing legal framework. 

5. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

Each policy option listed below (with the exception of the baseline options) would be 
accompanied by the simplification measures analysed above.  

5.1. 

Policy  options  for  problem  1:  the  process  for  adopting  European  standards 
requested by the Commission is not fast enough 

•  Option  1.0  is  the  baseline  option  against  which  the  remaining  options  are 

assessed, namely the current situation as described above.  

•  Policy Option  1.A: specify deadlines  for  the delivery  of European standards, 

for example in the grant agreements and in the mandates.  

•  Policy Option 1.B: create a European Agency for Standards that would manage 
the  standard-setting  process.  The  agency  would  merge  and  replace  the  existing 
ESOs. The agency would act as a secretariat for European standardisation while 
the  national  delegation  principle  would  be  upheld.  It  would  be  responsible  for 
developing European standards, in close cooperation with NSBs.  

•  Policy  Option  1.C:  transparent  and  simplified  procedures  for  harmonised 
standards and other European standards requested by the Commission. The 
first  element  would  consist  of  a  more  organised  regular  annual  programming 
cycle  which  might  help  ESOs  to  better  respond  to  new  and  ongoing  priorities. 
Secondly,  mandates  would  not  require  the  individual  favourable  opinion  of  the 
committee  but  comments  of  the  representatives  of  the  Member  States  on  the 
subject  of  the  individual  mandates  would  be  sought  when  the  work  programme 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
was  discussed.  Thirdly,  ESOs  would  be  obliged  to  answer  any  standardisation 
request  from  the  Commission  (i.e.  a  mandate)  within  two  calendar  months. 
Finally,  the  procedure  for  objecting  to  harmonised  standards  would  also  be 
shortened. 

5.2. 

Policy  options  for  problem  2:  Under-representation  of  SMEs  and  societal 
stakeholders in the European standardisation process  

•  Option  2.0  is  the  baseline  option  against  which  the  remaining  options  are 
assessed. It does not propose any new measures compared to the current situation. 
It is described above. 

•  Policy  Option  2.A:  Facilitate  direct  representation  of  SMEs  and  societal 
stakeholders within the ESOs. This would include the amendment of the voting 
arrangements and an extension of the number and the formal rights of “Associated 
Members”  in  CEN57  and  “Cooperating  Partners”  in  CENELEC58.  Since 
administrations,  administrative  bodies,  NSBs,  network  operators,  manufacturers 
and users can already be members of ETSI59, in the case of ETSI only amendment 
of the voting arrangements would be necessary.  

•  Option  2.B:  Grant  voting  rights  to  organisations  representing  SMEs  and 
societal  stakeholders  within  the  European  standardisation  organisations.  This 
would include the amendment of the voting arrangements and an extension of the 
number  and  the  formal  rights  of  “Associated  Members”  in  CEN60  and  the 
“Cooperating  Partners”  in  CENELEC61.  Since  administrations,  administrative 
bodies,  National  Standards  Organizations,  network  operators,  manufacturers  and 
users can already be members of ETSI62, in the case of ETSI only an amendment 
of  the  voting  arrangements  would  be  necessary  whereby  these  organisations 
would play a more prominent role in the technical work. 

•  Option 2.C: Strengthen the position of organisations representing SMEs and 
societal  stakeholders  within  the  ESOs  by  providing  for  the  possibility  of  an 
operating  grant.  A  more  active  role  for  organisations  representing  SMEs  and 
societal stakeholders in the technical work of the standardisation process could be 
ensured  if  separate  organisations  representing  SMEs,  the  interests  of  consumers 

57 

58 

59 
60 

61 

62 

Associate Members of CEN are organizations representative, at European level, of social and economic 
interests, the statutes of which are governed by European legislation, or by the national legislation of 
one of the CEN national Members' countries, and which comply with other conditions mentioned in the 
Statutes of CEN (Article 6.3).  
Cooperating  Partners  of  CENELEC  are  independent  European  or  international  organizations 
representing,  with  a  sufficient  degree  of  representativity  within  their  defined  area  of  competence,  a 
sector or subsector of the electrotechnical field.  
Article 6.1 of the Statutes of ETSI. 
Associate Members of CEN are organizations representative, at European level, of social and economic 
interests, the statutes of which are governed by European legislation, or by the national legislation of 
one of the CEN national Members' countries, and which comply with other conditions mentioned in the 
Statutes of CEN (Article 6.3).  
Cooperating  Partners  of  CENELEC  are  independent  European  or  international  organizations 
representing,  with  a  sufficient  degree  of  representativity  within  their  defined  area  of  competence,  a 
sector or subsector of the electrotechnical field.  
Article 6.1 of the Statutes of ETSI. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
and  environmental  considerations  and  another  defending  social  interests  could 
benefit  from an operating  grant. This possibility would have to be introduced in 
the legislation concerning the financing of European standardisation which would 
provide for a more transparent and financially sound system of  supporting these 
organisations,  by  clearly  setting  out  the  criteria  for  the  financial  support  by  the 
EU.  

5.3. 

Policy options for problem 3: “Fora and Consortia Standards” cannot currently 
be referenced in public procurement of ICT.  

•  Option  3.0  is  the  baseline  option  against  which  the  remaining  options  are 
assessed. It does not propose any new measures compared to the current situation. 
It is described above. 

•  Policy  Option 3.A: Revive the implementation of the mechanisms of Council 
Decision  87/95/EEC  concerning  public  procurement  and  the  policy  dialogue. 
Public  authorities  could  be  reminded  about  the  existing  legislation  and  its 
implications for the use of standards in public tenders, including the need to notify 
exceptions when referring to non-European technical specifications. This could be 
done through a communication from the Commission to the Member States.  

•  Policy  Option  3.B:  Allow  for  the  referencing  of  “Fora  and  Consortia 
Standards” in public procurement of ICT. The objective is to expressly allow 
referencing  of  “Fora  and  Consortia  Standards”  in  public  procurement  for 
interoperability purposes in those areas where no appropriate European standards 
are available, e.g. in the Internet domain, or in domains where a fora and consortia 
specification has much broader market acceptance than an ESO standard e.g IEEE 
WiFi  specifications  compared  to  the  ETSI  Hyperlan  standard.  To  help  public 
authorities  use  the  best  available  standards,  it  would  be  necessary  to  identify 
certain  requirements  or  attributes  to  which  the  standardisation  process  and  the 
transparency,  balance, 
standard  comply.  These  attributes  e.g.  openness, 
stakeholder  involvement,  IPR  policies,  would  ensure  that  the  standards  respect 
public  policy  objectives  and  societal  needs.  Compliance  with  these  attributes 
would  be  assessed  with  the  help  of  a  “consultative  platform”  that  would  be 
composed  of,  inter  alia,  representatives  from  Member  States,  ESOs,  ISOs,  the 
most  relevant  private  fora  and  consortia,  SMEs,  industry,  and  consumer 
organizations.  

•  Policy  Option  3.C:  Grant  selected  private  fora  and  consortia  the  Status  of 
Recognized  Entities  under  Directive  98/34/EC.  Directive  98/34/EC  puts  in 
place  an 
information  and  co-ordination  mechanism  between  national 
standardisation  bodies  and  ‘recognised’  European  standardisation  entities  to 
harmonise the production of standards at the European level. ‘Recognised’ bodies 
have a right of information and consultation on national standardisation activities 
to  prevent  the  development  of  national  standards  already  available  in  the 
they  are  specifically  mandated  by  national 
European  catalogue,  unless 
governments.  

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
5.4. 

Discarded options 

During the public consultation, stakeholders raised several other issues, which were 
not  retained  for  further  analysis  in  this  impact  assessment  report.  These  issues  are 
listed in Annex 5. As a consequence of the consultation, some options were refined.  

6. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

None of the options has impacts on fundamental rights, the number and the quality of 
jobs,  technological  developments,  developing  countries,  public  health  or  public 
authorities. 

6.1. 

Problem  1:  the  process  for  adopting  European  standards  requested  by  the 
Commission is not fast enough 

6.1.1.  Policy Option 1.0: Base-line scenario 

As  described  above.  It  serves  as  a  reference  against  which  the  other  options  are 
assessed. 

6.1.2.  Policy Option 1.A: specify deadlines on the delivery of European standards.  

The advantage of this option is that European standards would be available after a 
fairly short period. The assumption is that ESOs would accept shorter deadlines and 
that they could persuade technical experts willing to spend more time on developing 
a  standard.  The  positive  economic  benefits  of  the  earlier  availability  of  a  standard 
can  be  deducted  from  the  relation  between  standards  portfolio  and  growth. 
According to the AFNOR study63 "the positive variation in the stock of standards of 
1%  induces  an  increase  of  0.12%  in  the  growth  of  the  TFP  (Total  Factor 
Productivity). Thus the conclusion that earlier availability of standards would lead to 
more  standards  on  the  market  and  result  in  more  growth.  Faster  standard 
development may have a positive impact on competitiveness as businesses could in 
addition save costs thanks to the "defragmentation" of the internal market and to the 
simplification  of  conformity  assessment  procedures.  Shorter  standard  development 
may also encourage innovation and new technologies. 

Financial incentives to encourage ESOs to speed up the process are a necessary part 
of  this  option,  as  well  as  financial  sanctions  in  case  of  late  delivery.  The  financial 
incentive is a valuable element of this option, especially in the light of the financial 
simplification  referred  to  above.  Indeed,  if  one  would  shift  the  financing  scheme 
towards a more performance-based system, based on the definition of agreed indicators 
and objectives (outputs and outcomes) and a simplification of lump sums, the speed of 
the standard-setting process for standards elaborated at the request of the Commission 
should be taken into consideration. 

However, there are some disadvantages linked to this option. Firstly, the obligatory 
deadlines and corresponding financial consequences for failure to deliver can only be 

63 

The economic impact of standardisation. Technological change, standards growth in France, AFNOR, 
June 2009. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
                                                 
applied to standards mandated by the Commission, which are a small percentage of 
the total (34%). A drawback of this option is that ESOs may decline requests for 
new  items  for  standardisation,  in  particular  for  technically  complex  or  contentious 
issues.  Facing  deadlines  may  encourage  some  NSOs  to  avoid  standardisation  at 
European level so that there would be fewer European standards and more, probably 
conflicting, national standards on the same subject.  

Secondly,  deadlines  for  European  standards  could  have  a  negative  impact  on  the 
quality  of  the  standard.  Time  can  only  be  gained  by  reducing  consensus  and 
correspondingly curtailing (or avoiding) one of the intermediate consultation stages. 
The  objective  of  the  need  for  a  consensus  and  a  broad  consultation  is  mainly  to 
protect the standardisation process from being influenced by the private commercial 
interests  of  vendors  or  users,  thus  ensuring  that  it  leads  to  standards  that  serve  the 
public  interest.  A  standard  founded  on  a  broad  consensus  following  a  sufficient 
consultation had a number of positive effects on the market for which the standards 
are  destined,  for  example  it  means  that  asymmetries  in  the  cost  of  access  to 
information are reduced, entry barriers are lowered, price-performance calculation is 
simpler, and the ability of suppliers to impose switching costs is also reduced64.  

Thirdly, deadlines for all European standards and the production of at least the same 
number  of  standards  in  less  time  could  lead  to  increased  costs  (more  frequent 
meetings for example).  

Estimated  annual  costs  of  working  groups  of  creation  of  new 
standards (euros) 

Experts  costs  (1  meeting  /6  days/month*10 
experts*600 euro) 

Laboratory costs 

Travel costs 

Total  

Number of working groups (CEN/CENELEC) 

Estimated  active  working  groups  (35%of  total 
existing wg) 

3 year process 

432,000 

400,000 

86,400 

918,400 

1,704 

596 

Cost 35% working groups CEN/CENELEC 

547,733,760 

Cost ETSI (estimated of the basis of number of 
deliverables) 

2,306,247,411 

64 

David, P.A., and Shurmer, M. "Formal standards-setting for global telecommunications and information 
services.  Towards  an  institutional  regime  transformation?"  Telecommunications  Policy  (20:10)  1996, 
pp 789-815. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Number 
(CEN/CENELEC/ETSI) 

of 

annual 

deliverables 

3,069 

Total costs 

Cost per deliverable 

2,853,981,171 

929,938 

On the one hand, this option would result in an estimated additional annual cost per 
standard of around €150,000 to €200 ,000 if standards were to be finalised in 2 years. 
According to the current share of standard creation costs, this would translate into an 
additional  cost  per  standard  for  the  Commission  of  €3,000  to  €  4,000,  for  national 
governments  of  €4,500  to  €6,000  and  for  i ndustry  of  €142,000  to  190,000.  On  the 
other hand, if one assumes that the relevant working group meets on a more or less 
permanent  basis  and  starts  new  work  when  a  consensus  is  reached  on  the  previous 
topic,  this  option  would  necessarily  result  in  the  development  of  more  standards 
which has positive economic effects. The increase in speed would only be possible 
if  industry  and  other  stakeholders  agree  to  share  the  additional  cost  or  if  the 
Commission finances it.  

Unless  specific  measures  are  taken,  deadlines  for  European  standards  would 
necessarily  have  a  negative  impact  on  the  involvement  of  SMEs  and  societal 
stakeholders. In other words, this option would worsen  the  problem  of the lack of 
involvement of SMEs and societal stakeholders. The willingness of businesses, and 
especially  SMEs,  to  take  part  in  standardisation  activities  would  be  reduced  since 
they  would  have  to  use  their  scarce  standardisation  resources  in  a  shorter  and 
therefore more labour-intensive period.  

During  the  consultation  process,  ETSI  highlighted  that  standardisation  is  a 
voluntary  activity  and  it  is  not  realistic  for  the  EC  to  expect  that  financial  support 
will  immediately  bring  all  the  necessary  stakeholders  to  the  table.  86%  of 
respondents  in  the  public  consultation  do  not  wish  to  have  the  EU’s  financing  of 
standardisation subject to conditions of speed of delivery. This is true for each one of 
our  six  categories  of  stakeholders  (80%  of  citizens;  92%  of  companies;  84%  of 
industry  associations;  65%  of  public  authorities;  90%  of  European  and  national 
standards bodies and 92%  of  public interest organisations)  and for the 19 SMEs as 
well (in this case, the percentage of replies indicating an opposition is even equal to 
100%).  Respondents  perceived  the  time  needed  for  the  standard-setting  and 
definition process as reasonable in most cases. Increasing speed is often perceived as 
having a negative impact on the quality of the outcome of the process. If, however, a 
need  emerges  to  further  speed  up  the  process,  respondents  say  that  possible  speed-
related  conditions  in  EU  financing  would  not  improve  the  situation.  As  an 
alternative, they suggest increasing the use of IT solutions in working methods, tools 
and processes of National and European Standards Bodies. Some replies also suggest 
concentrating  resources  and  efforts  only  on  the  development  of  those  standards 
which are relevant for market players. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
6.1.3.  Policy Option 1.B: create a European Agency for Standards that would manage the 

standard-setting process.  

Work  in  European  standardisation  is  already  done  at  European  level  by  the  ESOs, 
CEN,  CENELEC  and  ETSI.  This  option  would  merge  the  three  ESOs  into  one 
agency that would develop European standards. 

The  advantage  of  this  option  is  that  the  agency  would  be  supervised  by  the 
European legislator and that it would become more difficult to decline mandates for 
European standards. The creation of a new European standardisation agency would 
probably mean that requests for harmonised standards would be handled as a priority. 
Furthermore, it would seem a priori logical to suppose that the smaller the number of 
European  organisations  dealing  with  standardisation,  the  lower  the  level  of 
duplication  of  administrative  resources  and  expenses  would  be,  and  the  greater  the 
cost-efficiency. If one prefers more integrated standards covering different sectors, it 
would also seem logical to replace the current sectoral approach with an integrated 
approach whereby all European standards would be drafted under the auspices of one 
single  body  which  would  pool  all  the  available  expertise.  In  addition,  the 
participation  of  SMEs  in  the  standardisation  process  could  be  improved.  A  single 
European standardisation agency could also lead to faster standard development. In 
this case, the positive effects would be similar as described above for option 1. A. 

However, this option has a number of considerable drawbacks. It requires, above all, 
close  cooperation  with  the  NSBs  to  make  it  viable.  An  agency  on  European 
standardisation could not operate without their support. An agency could not provide 
the  level  of  expertise  necessary  to  perform  effectively  the  tasks  of  a  technical 
committee. It is commonly held that experts from industry and other stakeholders are 
better placed to provide the right level of technical knowledge. An agency that would 
replace and merge the existing ESOs would be likely to face the same challenges as 
nowadays,  namely  that  the  actual  work  in  the  technical  committees  is  done  by 
experts  delegated  by  the  NSOs  which  would  have  corresponding  voting  rights. 
Therefore,  consensus  between  the  experts  would  still  be  necessary,  regardless 
whether the work was done under the auspices of an ESO or an agency. Moreover, a 
speedily  elaborated  specification  could  still  face  a  negative  vote  by  members  who 
considered that the proposed standard did not fulfil the necessary requirements.  

This option would certainly lead to substantial additional costs for the EU-budget. 
The Commission currently contributes around 47% of the total income of the three 
ESOs  (€44,000,000),  which  covers  part  of  the  ESOs’s  secretariat  staff  costs,  some 
consultancy  costs  as  well  as  activities  such  as  translation  of  standards,  visibility 
actions to promote EU standards and preliminary or feasibility studies for standards. 
This  contribution  amounted  to  21.2  million  euro  in  2009.  The  rest  of  the  ESOs 
income  is  mainly  financed  by  members´  fees  and  contributions.  ESOs  currently 
employ  208  permanent  staff.  The  costs  of  the  current  system  are  shown  in  the 
following table: 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
It  has  to  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  number  of  standards  mandated  by  the 
Commission is a fairly small proportion of the total deliverables issued by ESOs. 
The  Commission  issues  around  20  mandates  per  year.  For  each  mandate  we  can 
count from 1 up to more than 100 standards produced. However, the great majority 
of  European  standards  remain  industry–initiated  and  financed.  The  total  number  of 
deliverables issued by ESOs in 2009 was around 3,000.  

The assumption is that standardisation work would continue to be carried out as it is 
under  the  current  system,  where  most  of  the  costs  of  the  experts  developing  the 
standards  would  be  financed  by  the  private  sector.  If  the  ESOs  were  merged  and 
transformed  into  an  EU  executive  agency,  it  is  likely  that  the  EU  budget  would 
have  to  generate  the  total  income  of  the  agency,  including  the  part  currently 
financed by other parties mainly through fees. The assumption is that there would not 
be payment of fees by stakeholders in order to facilitate participation by SMEs and 
societal  stakeholders.  If  the  agency  was  of  a  size  comparable  to  the  EACI  or  the 
ERCEA65, this would lead to an additional annual cost for the EU budget of at least 
€20,000,000.  

There would be a negative impact in terms of costs, while positive impacts in terms 
of improvement of the quality of the standardisation process are not clear. It is also 
questionable  whether  standardisation  activities,  in  which  the  main  players  are 
private, should be performed by  a  public EU  agency, particularly  while the current 
structure seems to be responding to industry needs.  

During the consultation, all three ESOs said that they expect that the creation of a 
new agency will make the ESS more complex. They reported that a new organisation 
would result in more meetings, additional costs, a lack of clarity over the boundaries 

65 

Executive Agency  for  Competitiveness  and  Innovation  (EACI): EU  contribution: €15,000,000  -  staff: 
152; Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA): EU contribution: €46,000,000 - 
staff:  412;  European  Research  Council  Executive  Agency  (ERCEA):  EU  contribution:  €32,000,000- 
staff:  330;  Trans-European  Transport  Network  Executive  Agency  (TEN-T  EA):  EU  contribution: 
€9,000,000 - staff: 99. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
between  the  EC  and  the  new  agency  and  more  difficult  coordination  amongst 
stakeholders  at  different  levels.  ETSI  reported  that  it  could  see  no  benefits  to  the 
proposed approach. 

6.1.4.  Policy Option 1.C: transparent and simplified procedures for harmonised standards 

and other European standards requested by the Commission.  

A more organised regular annual programming process would increase the workload 
of  the  services  of  the  Commission  but  would  have  a  general  positive  impact.  It 
would  enable  ESOs  to  anticipate  upcoming  requests  and  shorten  the  acceptance 
process. The second part of this option, i.e. the replacement of the favourable opinion 
on  individual  mandates  by  a  general  discussion  on  the  overall  EU  standardisation 
work  programme  would  offer  an  equivalent  level  of  transparency  vis-à-vis 
representatives of Member States. The main difference is that the consultation would 
be  part  of  a  more  general  consultation  on  overall  standardisation  planning  and  the 
choice  of  priorities.  The  third  part  of  this  option  would  oblige  the  ESOs  to  answer 
any  standardisation  request  from  the  Commission  (i.e.  a  mandate)  within  two 
calendar months. The last part of this option consists of shortening and streamlining 
the  various  procedures  for  objections66  which  would  offer  the  advantage  that 
harmonised  standards  would  be  more  rapidly  available  on  the  market  for  use  by 
businesses.  

This  option  would  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  internal  market  and  the 
competitiveness  of  businesses  (including  SMEs)  by  reducing  the  overall  period  of 
standardisation by up to 1 year, while having no negative impacts or supplementary 
costs. This acceleration in the standardisation process would come from  shortening 
the  period  for  issuing  mandates  by  approximately  6  months  (by  removing  the 
separate consultation of the committee) while another 6 months could be cut at the 
end  of 
through  efficiency  gains  when  objections  are  raised. 
Competitiveness advantage for businesses would come from benefiting earlier from 
the presumption of conformity granted to those using such harmonised standards. It 
is  however  impossible  to  quantify  this  positive  impact  as  it  can  only  be  estimated 
once  the  subject  of  the  standard,  the  turnover  of  the  businesses  concerned  and  the 
cost  of  conformity  assessment  of  their  products  in  the  absence  of  a  standard  are 
known. 

the  process 

Although this option has an overall positive impact without any negative impacts, the 
main  disadvantage  is  that  it  would  only  apply  to  harmonised  standards  and 
standards developed at the request of the Commission, so it would have no impact on 
the  speed  of  other  European  standardisation  work.  In  addition,  it  would  lead  to  an 
additional  workload  of  the  Commission  and  corresponding  administrative  costs  of 
about €250,000 per year. 

During the consultation of January-February 2010, CEN/CLC reported that a two-
month  timeframe  for  responding  is  achievable  and  at  no  additional  cost.  ETSI 
reported that a two-month time frame for responding was not achievable. Instead, 3 
months  is  the  minimum  possible  timeframe  due  to  the  need  to  coordinate  with  the 
other  ESOs  and  other  involved  SDOs  and  to  consult  with  the  ETSI  Board  before 

66 

A detailed overview can be found in Annex 4. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
                                                 
acceptance  (although  this  would  be  dependent  on  the  reaction  of  the  technical 
organisation  and  board  of  ETSI  to  a  specific  request).  Achieving  this  timeframe 
would  probably  not  incur  any  additional  financial  costs.  ETSI  reported  that  the 
following  changes  would  be  necessary  for  the  ESOs  to  be  able  to  respond  to 
mandates within in a shorter timeframe: firstly, a stronger and earlier consultation on 
the mandate drafting process to ensure that the community has a better understanding 
of  what  is  needed,  which  can  accelerate  the  ESO  acceptance  process;  secondly, 
improvements to the presentation of content and clarity of purpose of draft mandates, 
and  thirdly,  a  simplification  of  the  contractual  process  for  grant  agreements  that 
presently  require  at  least  9  months.  ETSI  reported  that  there  would  be  no  cost 
implications  associated  with  these  changes,  nor  any  other  implications.  CEN/CLC 
reported that the BT formal approval could be further shortened in order to be able to 
respond  to  mandates  within  a  shorter  timeframe.  CEN/CLC  did  not  report  any 
associated cost implications to this change. CEN/CLC also highlighted that some of 
the delays are due to factors outside the control of the ESOs, but that instead reside 
with the Commission. 

6.2. 

Problem  2:  Involvement  of  SMEs  and  societal  stakeholders  in  the  European 
standardisation process 

6.2.1.  Policy  Option  2.0:  base-line  scenario  (i.e.  the  financial  contribution  to  SME  and 

societal stakeholder representation) 

As  described  above.  It  serves  as  a  reference  against  which  the  other  options  are 
assessed. 

6.2.2.  Policy  Option  2.A:  Facilitate  direct  representation  of  SMEs  and  societal 

stakeholders within the European standardisation organisations  

Long  term  direct  participation  of  technically  aware  staff  of  individual  SMEs  and 
societal stakeholders in the meetings and discussions of a technical committee allows 
this  staff  to  build  a  reputation  within  the  standardisation  organisations.  In  addition, 
staff can work directly to influence the process.  

in 

requires  a  strong 

the  standardisation  process 

technical 
Participation 
understanding of proposed standards and their context. In addition, participants 
need  to  be  prepared  to  commit  up  front  to  substantial  investments  of  the  time  and 
energy  necessary  to  follow  ongoing  internal  discussions  about  the  subject  of  the 
future  standard.  Many  questions  are  moving  targets  –  discussions  can  progress 
quickly and the challenges presented when a standard is proposed may evolve just as 
quickly.  Also,  the  relative  value  of  a  contribution  is  frequently  judged  by  the 
contributor’s  willingness  to  follow-up  and  finds  workable  answers  to  questions 
raised. Furthermore, long-term commitment to the standards development process is 
necessary. 

On-going  and  active  participation  in  a  technical  committee  or  working  group 
requires a very significant commitment of time. The generally accepted guideline 
is  that  meaningful  participation  in  any  technical  committee  or  working  group 
requires  a  baseline  of  approximately  20%  of  a  person’s  working  hours  (1  day  of 
work and meetings per week plus tri- or semi-annual conferences). The average costs 
of participation can hardly be calculated given the wide range of size, scope and level 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
of  technical  complexity  of  standards.  Even  generalizations  should  be  taken  with  a 
pinch of salt. The cost depends, of course, on a number of factors including the size 
and complexity of the work to be done, the availability of existing work upon which 
the  standard  can  be  based,  the  number  and  quality  of  resources  available  to 
contribute to developing the solution, etc. The individual components of cost that go 
into  developing  and  setting  or  approving  a  standard  include  membership  dues  or 
participation fees paid by participants to the standards organization, costs associated 
with  salaries  and  support  for  technical  resources  (people)  involved,  travel  costs  for 
committee  meetings  and  overhead  costs.  Membership  dues  are  a  relatively  minor 
cost  of  participating  in  standards  work,  compared  to  the  cost  of  participation.  A 
hypothetical technical committee consisting of 10 engineers working for three years 
to  develop  a  specification,  and  devoting  each  an  average  of  20%  of  their  working 
time  to  the  project  could  easily  come  to  a  total  €  1,000,000  given  the  cost  of  an 
engineer, including salary, benefits, office space and equipment, travel costs etc. (see 
details  under  option  1.A).  Furthermore,  this  covers  just  the  work  involved  in 
developing the standard.  

The second phase would include costs associated with the approval of the work, 
including  public  and  member  reviews  and  voting.  This  could  add  hundreds  or 
possibly  thousands  of  hours  of  additional  work  by  technical  people,  increasing  the 
costs  even  further.  There  are  no  precise  estimates  of  these  additional  costs  but, 
depending  on  the  complexity  of  the  reviewing  process,  they  could  amount  to  a 
significant  share  of  the  original  development  costs.  Finally  and  most  importantly 
there  are  the  ‘lost  opportunity’  costs  of  not  doing  something  else  that  can  be 
particularly relevant for SMEs. At company level, this could be as simple as having 
an  engineer  working  on  standardisation  rather  than  on  the  company’s  own  R&D 
project or other activities.  

Although such direct participation is clearly the most effective way for an individual 
SME  to  have  an  impact  on  a  particular  standard  proposal,  the  sheer  number  of 
technical committees and working groups impedes direct public representation to 
a large extent. For example, CEN had 1939 Technical Bodies in 2009, namely 292 
active  Technical  Committees,  33  active  CEN  Workshops,  62  Sub-committees  and 
1395  Working  Groups.  At  the  end  of  2008,  there  were  338  active  CENELEC 
Committees,  Sub-Committees,  Task  Forces  and  Working  Groups.  ETSI  had  27 
technical  committees/ETSI  Projects,  6  Industry  Specification  Groups  and  a  few 
Partnership Projects and Special Committees.  

At a more general level, one could expect that the individual participation of SMEs 
would  lead  to  an  ineffective  distribution  of  information  to  the  SMEs  that  are  not 
participating  in  the  standardisation  process.  Finally,  this  option  would  inflate  the 
number  of  participants  in  the  standardisation  process  so  that  it  would  be  likely  to 
have  a  negative  impact  on  the  speed  of  the  standard-setting  process.  This  would 
cause additional difficulties for problem 1 above.  

Although this option is not expected to have any consequences for the EU budget, it 
would  be  very  costly  for  the  participants,  inefficient  and  ineffective  for  all  parties 
concerned. 

During  the  consultation  process,  many  respondents  emphasized  the  importance  of 
the  principle  of  national  delegation.  In  this  respect,  CEN  and  CENELEC  said  that 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
moving  away  from  this  principle  would  require  modification  of  all  internal 
regulations  and  dramatically  change  the  way  the  ESO  works.  There  would  be 
fundamental  issues  to  be  solved  around  new  processes  and  procedures  and  such  a 
radical  change  would  incur  heavy  costs.  Concerns  were  also  expressed  about  the 
implications  for  balanced  representation  and  a  fragmentation  of  the  European 
standardisation system. 

6.2.3.  Policy  Option  2.B:  Grant  voting  rights  to  organisations  representing  SMEs  and 

societal stakeholders within the European standardisation organisations  

Organisations  representing  SMEs  and  societal  stakeholders  can,  under  certain 
conditions,  become  associate  members  of  CEN  which  allows  them  to  participate, 
without voting rights, in the General Assembly, open sessions of the Administrative 
Board,  Technical  Board,  Sector  Activities  and  the  CEN  Certification  Board.  As  a 
member of the Technical Board, an Associate Member can also apply for and hold 
the  secretariats  of  Technical  Committees  and  participate  in  Technical  Committees 
(TCs) and Subcommittees, upon request, as an observer. A similar system exists in 
CENELEC. In ETSI, representative organisations are ordinary members and they do 
have a vote, but given that there are 20,000 weighted votes in ETSI and each of the 
comparable activities gets one of these, the voting rights are somewhat symbolic.  

Granting  voting  rights  to  a  very  limited  number  of  representative  organisations  on 
technical work within CEN would have a very positive impact on the involvement 
of SME and societal stakeholders. Other delegations with voting rights would have to 
take  into  account  the  views  expressed  by  delegates  of  SMEs  and  societal 
stakeholders.  No  negative  impacts  could  be  identified.  This  option  seems  entirely 
compatible with the principle of national delegation, especially if voting rights were 
granted to a very limited number of European organisations representing SMEs and 
societal  stakeholders  on  the  technical  aspects  of  the  standard.  This  option  is  not 
expected to have any consequences for the EU budget. 

However,  granting  voting  rights  to  organisations  other  than  NSBs  needs  to  be 
negotiated  and  agreed  with  the  members  of  the  ESOs,  so  the  feasibility  of  this 
option is uncertain. Furthermore, it may entail the payment of a higher membership 
fee which would increase the cost of this option for organisations representing SMEs 
and  societal  stakeholders.  This  may  mean  a  slight  increase  in  the  financial 
contribution paid by the EU to the costs incurred by organisations representing SMEs 
and societal stakeholders at European level.  

During the public consultation, 69% of respondents declare that, even if the national 
delegation principle already guarantees a good level of involvement, the participation 
of  consumer  organisations,  environmental  NGOs,  trade  unions  and  social  partners, 
and SMEs within standardisation bodies and committees should be further promoted. 
This is true for 78% of citizens; 58% of companies and 65% of industry associations. 
The  majority  of  public  authorities  (97  %)  European  and  national  standards  bodies 
(90%) and in the case of NGOs/environment/consumer/public interest organisations 
(93%).  are  in  favour  of  further  participation.  Favourable  replies  are  in  the  majority 
(71%) also in  the case of  the  19  SMEs. Stakeholders also suggested modifying the 
voting  procedures  within  standardisation  bodies  in  order  to  further  stimulate  the 
setting-up of mixed groups. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
6.2.4.  Policy Option 2.C: Strengthen the position of organisations representing SMEs and 
societal stakeholders within the ESOs by providing for the possibility of an operating 
grant 

An  important  advantage  of  this  option  is  that  these  organisations  have  access  to  a 
larger  pool  of  expertise  and  knowledge  than  individual  SMEs  or  societal 
stakeholders. Moreover, these organisations are much more effective at exchanging 
information  to  their  members:  individual  SMEs  and  societal  stakeholders  would  be 
less  effective  in  exchange  information  with  other  interested  SMEs  and  societal 
stakeholders, in the absence of a specialised network and dedicated resources.  

The  assumption is  that the current level of  EU  financing  would  be  maintained.  EU 
financial support for the representation of SMEs in standardisation at European level 
amounts 
to 
organisations representing consumers and environmental concerns in standardisation 
varies respectively around €1,320,000 and €185,000 per year. 

€2,000,000  pe r  year.  The  financial  support 

to  approximately 

Unlike a grant for an action, which helps to co-finance a one-off action over a given 
period  (which  has  a  budget  specific  to  that  action  irrespective  of  the  body's  other 
activities)  an  operating  grant  is  broader  based:  its  purpose  is  to  provide  financial 
support for the existence and functioning of a body over a period that is equivalent to 
its accounting period to enable it to carry out a set of activities. Operating grants are 
intended  to  cover  the  normal  operating  expenses  which  enable  a  body  to  have  an 
independent existence and to implement a range of activities that correspond to the 
pursuit  of  its  statutory  objectives,  which  must  contribute  to  the  development  and 
implementation of an EU policy. In practice, the costs which are likely to be eligible 
are those relating to staff costs, general administrative expenditure necessary for the 
running  of  the  body  (or  overheads),  and  expenses  linked  to  its  normal  activities  as 
approved in the work programme drawn up for the purposes of the grant. In view of 
the  nature  of  the  grant,  the  body's  entire  budget  is  involved,  unless  the  body  has 
developed several areas of activity one or more of which are not connected with the 
activities for which the Commission wishes to provide financial support. 

The positive aspect of this option is that it provides for the possibility of continuous 
support  to  organisations  representing  SMEs  and  societal  stakeholders  so  that  they 
could consolidate their role in the standardisation process. The other positive aspect 
is  that  the  possibility  of  an  operating  grant  contains  a  strong  impetus  for  ESOs  to 
continue  considering  these  organisations  as  solid  partners  in  the  standardisation 
process so that the opinions of these organisations are adequately taken into account 
during  the  technical  work  on  European  standards.  By  strengthening  the  financial 
instrument  to  ensure  that  the  objective  of  correct  SME  and  societal  stakeholder 
representation  is  met,  the  financial  support  and  the  objectives  of  the  EU  would  be 
clearly linked so that financing would be deployed purposefully in pursuit of specific 
objectives (such as SME and societal stakeholders’ representation). 

In  principle,  if  operating  grants  are  renewed  they  should  be  gradually  reduced 
according to the principle of degressivity. The basic philosophy of operating grants 
is  that  they  should  provide  temporary  support  for  an  organisation  to  allow  it  to 
achieve financial independence in the longer term. However, this degressivity would 
contradict the EU policy under which the position of SMEs and societal stakeholders 
must  be  strengthened  in  order  to  ensure  the  inclusiveness  of  the  European 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
standardisation  system.  In  addition,  it  seems  likely  that  more  and  more  European 
standards  will  be  developed  in  the  future  so  that  the  workload  of  organisations 
representing SMEs and societal stakeholders in the European standardisation system 
will  increase.  These  organisations  have  a  permanent  role  which  is  essential  for  EU 
activities and policies because of the context in which they operate and their statutory 
objectives.  Therefore,  this  option  would  require  an  exception  to  the  degressivity 
principle in the basic act underlying the award of the grants. Furthermore, this option 
requires  that  the  budgetary  amounts  which  are  currently  scattered  over  several 
budgetary lines would be at least maintained by the budgetary authority. 

No negative aspects could be identified. This option is not expected to have any other 
consequences for the EU budget than those outlined above. 

As already set out above, 69% of respondents of the public consultation declare that 
the participation of consumer organisations, environmental NGOs, trade unions and 
social  partners,  and  SMEs  within  standardisation  bodies  and  committees  should  be 
further promoted. A minority of respondents (large companies, mainly) is against the 
option of financially supporting the less represented stakeholders, since they consider 
that this could be viewed as a discriminatory measure in relation to other actors. 

6.3. 

Problem 3: “Fora and Consortia Standards” cannot currently be referenced in 
public procurement of ICT. 

6.3.1.  Policy option 3.0: base-line scenario 

As  described  above.  It  serves  as  a  reference  against  which  the  other  options  are 
assessed. 

6.3.2.  Policy  Option  3.A:  Revive  the  implementation  of  the  mechanisms  of  Council 
Decision 87/95/EEC concerning public procurement and the policy dialogue.  

Under  this  option,  Fora  and  Consortia  Standards  could  be  considered  as  “common 
technical  specifications”  under  Article  1(2)  of  Council  Decision  87/95/EEC,  i.e.  a 
technical  specification  drawn  up  with  a  view  to  uniform  application  in  all  the 
Member States. There could be two situations: 

(1) 

(2) 

The  Fora  and  Consortia  Standard  is  not  similar  to  an  existing  standard  or 
functional  specification.  Strictly  speaking,  Fora  and  Consortia  Standards  do 
not  fall  within  the  scope  of  Decision  87/95/EEC,  as  set  out  in  Article  3. 
Therefore, these Fora and Consortia standards would have to be transformed 
into  a  European  standard,  following  the  procedures  of  the  Decision,  so  that 
they can be used in public procurement.  

The  Fora  and  Consortia  Standard  is  similar  to  an  existing  standard  or 
functional  specification.  In  that  case,  Article  5(3)  of  the  Decision  allows 
Member States to take account of special circumstances which may justify the 
use  of  standards  and  specifications  other  than  those  provided  for  in  the 
Decision  where  an  existing  standard  or  functional  specification  would  be 
technically  inadequate  for  its  purpose.  In  that  case,  contracting  authorities 
would  have  to  apply  the  formalities  set  out  in  Article  5(5).  Moreover,  the 
Commission could recognise Fora in accordance with point 3 of the Annex to 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
the  Decision,  which  provides  for  the  “determination  of  the  most  efficient 
methods  of  ensuring  the  rapid  application  of  […]  technical  specifications 
within the context of the present Decision” in the public procurement sector. 

Neither  situation  is  satisfactory.  The  former  leads  to  supplementary  charges, 
responsibilities  and  costs  for  ESOs  that  would  have  to  transform  the  Fora  and 
Consortia  Standard  into  a  European  standard.  A  substantial  part  of  the  costs  would 
have to be borne by the Commission. In addition, the ESOs would be responsible for 
the  regular  review  and  update  of  the  standard.  This  would  lead  to  an  extra 
administrative burden for ESOs and an additional cost for the EU-budget. 

The most important problem with the latter situation is the lack of legal certainty. 
Firstly, it is difficult to determine if Article 5 of the Decision would apply since the 
circumstances  referred  to  in  Article  5(3)  no  longer  correspond  to  the  technological 
reality  on  the  market.  Therefore,  this  possibility  may  require  a  very  broad 
interpretation  of  the  provisions  of  Decision  87/95/EEC.  Secondly,  the  question 
would remain whether the provisions of the Decision were still compatible with the 
general provisions of Directive 2004/18/EC which obliges contracting authorities to 
formulate  technical  specifications  either  by  reference  to  standards  or  equivalent 
documents or in terms of performance or functional requirements, provided that such 
parameters are sufficiently precise to allow tenderers to determine the subject-matter 
of  the  contract  and  to  allow  contracting  authorities  to  award  the  contract.  Thirdly, 
this  possibility  would  mean  that  contracting  authorities  would  have  to  apply  the 
formalities set out in Article 5(5) which were not conceived for cases like this. Due 
to  this  legal  uncertainty,  the  impacts  on  the  internal  market,  SMEs,  public 
authorities, consumers and innovation would be minimal. However, there would 
be no budgetary impacts. 

The  advantage  of  this  option  is  that  no  legislative  change  is  required  and  the 
corresponding  administrative  costs  for  the  EU  legislator  and  the  Member  States 
could be avoided.  

During  the  public  consultation,  only  3%  of  respondents  considered  that  the 
provisions  of  Decision  87/95/EEC  are  a  sufficient  legal  basis  for  allowing 
contracting authorities to use Fora and Consortia Standards for the purpose of public 
procurement. 

6.3.3.  Policy Option 3.B: Allow for the referencing of “Fora and Consortia Standards”  

The  main  advantage  of  this  option  is  that  the  possibility  of  referencing  selected 
Fora  and  Consortia  Standards  for  procurement  purposes  on  a  firm  legal  basis  is 
expected  to  counter  the  tendency  towards  market  fragmentation  and  to  have  a 
positive impact on the internal market, especially for businesses delivering goods or 
services  complying  with  these  Fora  and  Consortia  Standards.  Correspondingly,  the 
referencing  of  Fora  and  Consortia  Standards  can  be  expected  to  enhance  the 
competitiveness  of  enterprises,  with  the  creation  of  a  competitive  advantage  for 
businesses  concerned,  in  particular  the  European  ICT  industry.  Also,  the  fact  that 
these  specifications  are  officially  endorsed  would  reassure  enterprises  about  their 
stability and provide an incentive to invest. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
SMEs are expected to benefit in two main ways. First, the referencing of Fora and 
Consortia  Standards  would  reduce  information  costs,  as  it  would  be  easier  for 
operators to ascertain what specifications were available for their products. Second, 
the  availability  of  a  broad  range  of  recognized  Fora  and  Consortia  Specifications 
would  create  new  business  opportunities  for  SME,  as  they  could  build  on  existing 
protocols  and  procedures  and 
lower  costs  and  diminished 
innovate  with 
technological  and  market  assessment  risks.  In  standardised  and  modular  markets, 
SMEs  would  have  greater  opportunities  to  provide  add-ons  and  applications.  The 
impact of this option on innovation would probably be marginal.  

This option would also have positive indirect impacts on consumers, considering 
the  proliferation  of  high-tech  consumer  electronic  products  that  exhibit  network 
effects.  In  markets  with  network  effects,  the  benefit  to  consumers  of  joining  a 
network  depends  on  the  number  of  other  consumers  who  join.  This  has  several 
implications for competition in network markets. Firstly, expectations of consumers 
regarding  the  expected  future  size  of  a  network  are  critical  in  determining  the 
adoption of network products. Thus consumer expectations that one technology will 
become  predominant  may  indeed  lead  to  that  effect.  Secondly,  competition  in 
markets  with  network  effects  is  likely  to  lead  to  standardisation  on  a  single 
technology.  In  other  words,  the  long-term  co-existence  of  competing  incompatible 
specifications  is  unlikely.  This  is  because  a  small  initial  advantage  will  likely 
influence  consumer  expectations  about  the  adoption  of  a  particular  Fora  and 
Consortia  Specification.  This  in  turn  will  lead  to  more  consumers  adopting  the 
technology. Because the value of the product increases with the number of adopters, 
the  value  of  the  network  increases  to  future  adopters67  Widely  accepted  markets 
specifications  help  consolidate  a  larger  customer  base  (as  opposed  to  offering 
products/support  based  on  disparate  proprietary  technologies).  The  same  effect 
occurs for end-users since vendors are pooled together, which increases competition 
and drives prices down, producing better quantity and quality of end-user options68. 

These  positive  impacts,  however,  could  have  corresponding  risks,  in  particular  as 
regards competition and intellectual property rights. An important risk, for example, 
is that Fora and Consortia Standards could contain proprietary technologies, whereby 
a factual monopoly in a technology would result in a factual monopoly in the market 
for services and products based on the technology. This would then favour the single 
supplier  of  that  technology69.  However,  the  same  situation  applies  with  regard  to 
ESO  standards  which  can  also  contain  proprietary  technologies  and  an  analogous 
approach is therefore needed.  

Therefore, this option requires additional safeguards to address these risks: 

(1) 

Firstly,  the  “Fora  and  Consortia  standards”  would  need  to  fulfill  a 
number  of  predefined  criteria.  These  criteria  would  be  inspired  by  the 
Commission’s White Paper on “Modernising ICT Standardisation in the EU – 

Gandal  N.,  “Compatibility,  Standardization,  &  Network  Effects:  Some  Policy  Implications”,  2002, 
http://www.tau.ac.il/~gandal/netpolicy.pdf. 
Vomin  V.F.  and  Pedersen  M.K.,  “Open  Standards  and  their  early  adoption:  Implications  for  the 
http://www.itst.dk/it-arkitektur-og-standarder/standardisering/abne-
Government 
standarder/baggrundsrapporter/OStEA_Delphi_report3_Final1.pdf.  
See Annex 7. 

Policy”, 

2006, 

39 

   EN 

67 

68 

69 

EN 

 
                                                 
The  Way  Forward”70,  and  would  be  selected  and  assessed  by  the 
Commission. For example, it would be necessary that the Fora and Consortia 
Standards at least observe FRAND IPR policies, as is the case with the ESOs, 
or operate on a royalty free basis.  

(2) 

Secondly,  the  selection  process  would  have  to  be  done  with  the  assistance 
from stakeholders through a consultative “Platform” consisting of a very 
wide  range  of  stakeholders  and  interested  parties  and  without  recourse  to 
remunerated external expertise. The objective of the “platform” would be to 
help evaluate, inter alia, the openness of the standards development process, 
the quality of the Fora and Consortia Standards, the implemented IPR policies 
and the vendor and platform neutrality of their work product. The “platform” 
should guarantee that all stakeholders are fairly represented, that appropriate 
criteria are enacted, and that trustworthy results are made available.  

Therefore,  this  policy  option  would  not  entail  any  outlays  from  the  EU  budget 
except  the  budget  for  running  the  platform  which  could  be  estimated  at  about 
€120,000  per  year  during  the  first  2  years  (start-up  phase)  and  €60,000  per  year 
during the following years. 

This  impact  of  this  option  on  public  authorities  would  be  very  positive. 
Referencing  to  Fora  and  Consortia  Standards  in  public  procurement  is  expected  to 
lead to greater competition among suppliers, products and services, and this should 
translate into lower costs.  

At  the  moment,  it  is  impossible  to  quantify  the  consequences  of  this  option  for 
several reasons: 

(1) 

There  is  no  comprehensive  repository  in  the  public  domain  of  all  existing 
private and public Fora and Consortia Standards currently in use. Looking at 
the  ICT-sector,  approximately  70,000  standards  were  developed  in  the  ICT 
industry  between  the  eighties  and  200471  (more  than  four  times  the  total 
number  of  ISO  standards  at  the  same  date  and  roughly  10%  of  the  entire 
PERINORM  database  grouping  official  national  and  international  standards 
worldwide).  If  the  same  growth  patterns  had  been  maintained  over  the  last 
five  years  –  considering  that  each  year  some  3,000  new  ICT  specifications 
appear - this figure would likely have increased to anywhere between a total 
80,000  and  90,000  specifications.  Furthermore,  considering  that  the  3GPP 
project  alone  resulted  in  over  14,000  specifications,  some  practitioners 
believe that the total figure is now closer to 100,000 units.  

(2) 

It  is  impossible  to  calculate  the  financial  savings  enabled  by  this  option.  In 
theory,  one  could  attempt  to  calculate  them  on  the  basis  of  econometric 

70 

71 

A list of possible attributes is set out in point 2.1 of the Commission’s White Paper on “Modernising 
ICT Standardisation in the EU – The Way Forward”, COM(2009)324 of 3.7.2009. It should be noted 
that,  for  those  standard-setting  agreements  which  risk  creating  market  power,  the  Guidelines  on  the 
applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to horizontal co-
operation agreements [C(2010)9274 of 14.12.2010] set out the conditions under which such agreements 
would normally fall outside the scope of Article 101(1) TFEU. 
See WTO, World Trade Report, 2005 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
                                                 
estimates  of  the  premium  price  commanded  by  control  of  proprietary 
standards enabling network  effects in the software  market in the past  which 
were found as high as 18% - 46% of costs. Public procurement is deemed to 
account  for  a  total  14%  of  total  ICT  expenditure  in  Europe  that  is  currently 
estimated at around € 670 billion. The software market is an estimated € 60-
70  bn  (of  which  an  estimated  16-20%  procured  in  public  markets)  which 
extends to exceed €200 bn if related cons ulting services are included, as these 
are usually bundled to the provision of software. In practice, however, there 
are too many uncertainties in this model to come to solid estimates. 

Other  intangible  benefits  include  the  fact  that  enhanced  standardisation  for 
interoperability purposes has the potential to speed up the adoption of IT solutions in 
the  public  sector  and  allow  the  provision  of  better  services  through  diversified 
channels.  Referencing  to  Fora  and  Consortia  Standards  can  hasten  the  conception 
and integration of information systems. The reduction of delays due to the adoption 
of common norms and standards allows a quicker implementation of online services. 
Better 
the  costs  of 
misunderstanding,  the  cost  of  operating  semantic  transformations,  the  costs  of 
establishing  platforms  to  transport  and  translate  date,  the  cost  of  developing 
interfaces  between  applications,  the  cost  of  maintaining  developments  and  settings 
and configurations which are parameters known to influence investment decisions.  

interoperability  decreases  on  a  case  by  case  basis 

The public consultations gave very mixed results on this option. In one consultation, 
the large majority of respondents are against the possibility to refer to the documents 
developed  by  fora  and  consortia  in  legislation  and  public  policies.  However,  the 
positive  replies  to  this  question  came  mainly  from  companies  and  associations 
working  in  the  ICT  domain.  In  the  other  consultation,  most  respondents  were  in 
favour of this option. 

6.3.4.  Policy  Option  3.C:  Grant  Selected  Private  fora  and  consortia  the  Status  of 

Recognized Entities under Directive 98/34/EC.  

The  impacts  of  this  option  depend  on  a  number  of  external  factors,  such  as  the 
willingness  of  the  selected  fora  and  consortia  to  be  recognised  and  to  submit  to 
controls  with  respect  to  the  WTO-criteria  on  standardisation.  Fora  and  consortia 
might be reluctant to apply for recognition due to the additional cost of accreditation, 
its  periodical  renewal  (e.g.  cost  for  internal  audit72)  and  the  costs  related  to 
compliance  with  the  process  requirements  and  considerations  regarding  their 
“independence”.  In  case  of  recognition,  fora  and  consortia  would  have  to  comply 
with  certain  procedural  aspects  of  formal  standardisation  which  may  slow  down 
future standard development.  

Obviously, these fora and consortia are subject to competition law to the extent that 
they can be considered to be an undertaking or an association of undertakings within 
the meaning of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU73. In that case, one should assess, under 

72 

73 

The magnitude of audit costs is difficult to determine, as no real equivalent of the accreditation system 
envisaged  by  this  option  appears  to  exist.  However,  based  on  parameters  referred  to  the  American 
National  Standards  Institute  (ANSI),  one  could  envisage  a  figure  in  the  order  of  US$  10,000  to  US$ 
15,000 (between around 7.000 to 11.000 €) 
See judgment of 12 May 2010 in Case T-432/05, EMC Development AB v. Commission. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Article 101(1) TFEU, whether an agreement between undertakings, which is capable 
of affecting trade between Member States, has an anti-competitive object or actual or 
potential restrictive effects on competition. In addition, one should then determine , 
under  Article 101(3)  TFEU,  which  only  becomes  relevant  when  an  agreement  is 
found to be restrictive of competition within the meaning of Article 101(1), the pro-
competitive  benefits  produced  by  that  agreement  and  to  assess  whether  those  pro-
competitive effects outweigh the restrictive effects on competition74.  

The recognition of private fora and consortia would pose some notable governance 
and  co-ordination  problems.  In  general  terms,  the  areas  of  overlap  between  the 
various  recognised  standardisation  organisations  would  increase  coordination  costs. 
Based on some conservative estimates, the largest fora and consortia would have to 
withdraw, as a result of the recognition, from 3% to 5% of their standard portfolios, 
with cumulative effects leading to a total possible 10%-30% as long as their number 
increases.  It  is  unclear  whether  recognition  would  produce  negative  effects  on  fora 
and  consortia  in  terms  of  reduced  room  for  manoeuvre  and  thus  possible  lost 
opportunities.  

to 

the  cost  of  participation 

in  standards  work,  compared 

Private  fora  and  consortia  usually  have  sizeable  membership  fees,  which  could 
discourage  SME  participation  in  the  standardisation  process  and  represent 
discrimination.  The  costs  for  a  European  SME  of  participating  as  a  member  in  a 
given private standardisation project can easily increase by 50% to 100% annually as 
compared to the prevailing practice within an ESO. The size of this additional burden 
tends  to  decrease  the  higher  the  number  of  projects  an  SME  is  interested  in,  but 
certainly  represents  a  barrier  for  niche  producers  with  very  specific  interests.  This 
explains  previous  research  findings  that  it  is  generally  ICT  SME  with  a  broad  IPR 
portfolio that tend to follow standardisation, including the works of the private fora 
and  consortia.  Membership  dues  are  in  any  case  a  relatively  minor  cost  of 
participating 
in 
standardisation activities. All in all the number of SME that have enough resources 
to  take  part  into  ICT  standardisation  activities  is  very  unlikely  to  exceed  a  few 
hundred  across  Europe.  The  main  competitive  advantage  these  SME  without  IPR 
could draw from the participation in a standard developing organization relates to the 
information  value  of  such  participation  with  regard  to  the  latest  technological 
developments  and  the  transient  competitive  edge  this  can  provide.  To  this  end,  a 
crucial distinction should be made in the degree of “openness” between those private 
consortia  that  make  draft  specifications  available  for  comment  very  early  in  the 
standardization phase and therefore do not discriminate as far as access to strategic 
knowledge  is  concerned  and  those  who  give  this  possibility  to  members  only. 
Finally,  the  consolidation  and  concentration  process  of  consortia  activities  in  ICT 
standardisation  decreases  the  variety  of  options,  especially  for  small-  and  medium-
sized enterprises, to join consortia. Their relative influence in the reduced number of 
(probably  larger)  consortia  will  probably  also  be  lower.  On  the  other  hand, 
monitoring  consortia  activities  will  be  easier  through  concentration  on  a  smaller 
number  of  consortia,  which  have  not  shifted  the  focus  of  their  activities.  In  total, 
small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  would  face  increased  challenges  in  actively 
participating in consortia, but fewer problems in passively observing their activities. 

74 

See  Guidelines  on  the  applicability  of  Article  101  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the European 
Union to horizontal co-operation agreements [C(2010)9274 of 14.12.2010].  

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Consequently, 
standardisation engagements. 

larger  companies  are  more 

likely 

to  gain  by 

their  active 

In  any  event,  this  option  would  require  careful  scrutiny  of  the  procedural 
guarantees  offered  by  the  fora  and  consortia,  as  part  of  the  selection  process.  A 
key  characteristic  of  some  consortia  is  that  the  commercial  considerations  of  their 
members play an overt role in influencing standard development, whereas in the case 
of  traditional  standardisation  bodies  such  motivations,  even  if  not  necessarily  less 
significant,  are  more  covert.  Therefore,  although  such  consortia  often  follow  the 
same rules as the official standardisation bodies, the rules are adapted to the interests 
of  the  community  that  the  consortia  serve.  For  example,  although  the  consensus 
principle  is  often  part  of  the  private  standard  consortia  voting  system,  the  range  of 
actors  involved  is  much  smaller,  hence  limiting  the  array  of  technical  and 
commercial  interests  involved  in  developing the  standard.  Participation  can  be  also 
strictly controlled and limited to a particular category of actors, whereas transparency 
can be restricted to the members of a particular community. In addition, the lack of 
official  status  means  that  there  is  no  need  to  follow  strictly  all  the  stages  in  the 
bureaucratic process, in the same way that standardisation bodies must. At the same 
time,  it  also  means  that  such  organisations  have  to  account  only  to  their  members. 
Consequently,  consensus  is  easier  to  achieve  and  standard  development  is  quicker. 
At the same time, the access to standards use as well as standardisation process can 
be  severely  restricted,  and  the  benefits  are  more  than  often  unequally  distributed 
among the members. Furthermore, there is a risk that a broad recognition of fora and 
consortia  would  lead  to  the  opposite  result  to  that  which  European  standardisation 
aims  to  achieve.  European  standardisation  aims  inter  alia  at  eliminating  conflicting 
standards,  through  cooperation  and  coordination.  However,  fora  and  consortia 
develop  standards  in  similar  or  even  identical  fields  so  that  the  likelihood  of 
conflicting standards would increase. 

This option would entail additional costs for the fora and consortia, especially in 
demonstrating  compliance  with  WTO-criteria  and  in  particular  for  the  process 
requirements  and  considerations  regarding  their  “independence”.  In  case  of 
recognition, the fora and consortia would have to comply with the procedural aspects 
of formal standardisation  and would have to fulfil  the duties  of a  recognized  body. 
Neither  of  these  aspects  adds  value  to  the  content  and  quality  of  the  standard.  It 
would  also  require  additional  resources  from  the  EU  budget  since  it  would  be 
reasonable for organisations complying with all criteria to be entitled to benefit from 
a financial contribution from the EU.  

This option was not supported in the consultation process. Respondents highlighted 
that further fragmentation of the European standards landscape would place a greater 
time,  cost  and  effort  burden  on  stakeholders (especially  weaker  ones)  to  be  able  to 
monitor,  follow  and  /  or  participate  in  relevant  standards  development  activities, 
which  would  lead  to  more  scattered,  less  effective  stakeholder  participation  and 
ultimately  more  situations  where  standards  are  developed  without  relevant 
stakeholder  involvement.  There  were  also  concerns,  especially  from  stakeholder 
organisations,  about  the  operational  implications  of  an  expanded  system.  In 
particular,  their  concerns  relate  to  (i)  barriers  to  accessing  other  F&C  (higher  fees, 
less appropriate tools/processes), (ii)  the strength of  certain interest groups in other 
F&C and opportunities for private parties to manipulate standardisation outcomes for 
their  own  interests,  (iii)  the  increasing  difficulty  in  delivering  a  single  coherent 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
standardisation  response  to  a  market  need,  risk  of  conflicting  standards  / 
requirements  and  greater  difficulties  in  complying  with  them,  and  (iv)  decreased 
legitimacy, respect for and trust in the formal standardisation process. 

7. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

The policy options for the three problem areas are compared below according to the 
criteria  of  effectiveness  (i.e.  to  what  extent  they  fulfil  the  specific  objectives), 
efficiency  (i.e.  at  which  costs  they  do  so)  and  coherence  with  other  EU  policies. 
Given  the  qualitative  nature  of  the  impact  assessment,  the  following  scores  were 
chosen for illustrative purposes: low, medium and high. 

7.1. 

Problem  1:  the  process  for  adopting  European  standards  requested  by  the 
Commission is not fast enough 

COMPARISON OF THE OPTIONS FOR PROBLEM 1 

OPTIONS 

EFFECTIVENESS 

EFFICIENCY 

Policy Option 1.0: Base-line 
scenario 

N.A 

N.A 

Policy  Option  1.A:  specify 
deadlines  on  the  delivery  of 
European standards 

Policy  Option  1.B:  create  a 
European 
for 
would 
Standards 
manage  the  standard-setting 
process 

Agency 
that 

HIGH:  the  increase  of  the 
costs  of  carrying  out  the 
work  at  a  faster  speed  is 
moderate compared with the 
very 
economic 
benefits. 

positive 

LOW: This would lead to an 
additional  annual  cost  for 
the  EU  budget  of  at  least 
€20,000,000.  The  extra  cost 
for the EU budget related to 
a 
agency 
could  be  higher  than  the 
current cost. 

standardisation 

HIGH: 
positive 
very 
economic  benefits.  In  some 
cases,  ESOs  could  decline 
requests  for  new  items  for 
standardisation,  in  particular 
for  technically  complex  or 
contentious  items.  Possible 
negative 
the 
consensus  about  the  content 
standard,  unless 
of 
specific  measures  are  taken 
involvement  of 
to  ensure 
SMEs 
societal 
and 
stakeholders. 

impacts  on 

the 

for 

LOW:  the  possible  benefits 
of  a  closer  supervision  by 
the  European  legislator  and 
a  more  efficient  overall 
structure  in  1  organisation 
would be outweighed by the 
expertise, 
need 
consensus  and  respect  for 
the common principles about 
Faster 
standardisation. 
EU 
development 
reduce 
standards  would 
costs 
the 
fragmentation of the internal 
market  and  to  conformity 
procedures. 
assessment 

linked 

of 

to 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
Policy 
1.C: 
Option 
transparent  and  simplified 
procedures  for  harmonised 
other 
standards 
standards 
European 
requested 
the 
Commission 

and 

by 

HIGH:  no  extra  costs  could 
be identified. 

Gains  could  be  smaller  than 
for  option  1.C  as  the  speed 
gained through this option is 
less clear. No support in the 
public consultation. 

HIGH:  the  overall  period 
for  the  standardisation  work 
could be reduced with 1 year 
so  that  the  harmonised  or 
any other standard requested 
by the Commission could be 
available to businesses much 
earlier.  Businesses  would 
benefit  earlier 
the 
presumption  of  conformity 
granted  to  those  using  such 
harmonised  standards  No 
negative  impacts  on  ESOs 
which supported the idea. 

from 

Consequently,  options  1.A  (provided  that  specific  measures  are  taken  to  ensure 
involvement  of  SMEs  and  societal  stakeholders)  and 1.C are clearly dominant from the 
perspective of effectiveness and efficiency. 

7.2. 

Problem  2:  Underrepresentation  of  SMEs  and  societal  stakeholders  in  the 
European standardisation process 

COMPARISON OF THE OPTIONS FOR PROBLEM 2 

OPTIONS 

EFFECTIVENESS 

EFFICIENCY 

N.A. 

N.A. 

Policy  Option  2.0:  base-line 
scenario  (i.e.  the  financial 
to  SME  and 
contribution 
societal 
stakeholders 
representation 

LOW: Membership dues are 
in  any  case  a  relatively 
minor cost of participating in 
standards work, compared to 
the  cost  of  participation. 
Risk of fragmentation. 

SMEs 

Policy Option 2.A: Facilitate 
direct  public  representation 
societal 
of 
stakeholders  within 
the 
European 
standardisation 
organisations 

and 

a 

the 

resource 

MEDIUM: 
most 
effective, but also most time 
intensive, 
and 
approach. It requires a strong 
technical  understanding  of 
proposed standards and their 
very 
and 
context 
significant  commitment  of 
time.  Negative  impact  on 
information  exchange  with 
other  interested  SMEs  and 
societal  stakeholders.  Strong 
concerns of interested parties 
with  respect  to  principle  of 
delegation. 
national 
Negative  impact  on  problem 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
rights 

Policy  Option  2.B:  Grant 
voting 
to 
representing 
organisations 
societal 
SMEs 
stakeholders  within 
the 
European 
standardisation 
organisations 

and 

Policy 
2.C: 
Option 
Strengthen  the  position  of 
representing 
organisations 
societal 
SMEs 
stakeholders  within 
the 
ESOs  by  providing  for  the 
possibility  of  an  operating 
grant 

and 

1  (trade-off  and  coherence 
problem). 

MEDIUM: the effectiveness 
is high but moderated by the 
the 
about 
uncertainty 
feasibility  of 
this  option. 
Support  during  the  public 
consultation. 

the 

and 

opinions 

HIGH:  strong  impetus  to 
encourage  ESOs  to  ensure 
that 
of 
representing 
organisations 
SME 
societal 
stakeholders s are adequately 
taken into account during the 
technical  work  on  European 
standards. Positive impact on 
information  exchange  with 
other  interested  SMEs  and 
societal  stakeholders.  Large 
support 
the 
consultation. 

during 

SMEs 

HIGH:  Some  organisations 
representing 
and 
societal  stakeholders  already 
participate,  as  an  associate 
member  or  equivalent 
in 
CEN  and  CENELEC,  or  as 
members  in  ETSI.  Voting 
rights  could  strengthen  the 
position 
these 
organisations. 

of 

consolidate 
of 

HIGH:  The  possibility  of 
continuous  financial  support 
would 
the 
representing 
position 
organisations  in  the  ESOs, 
provided that an exception to 
the  principle  of  degressivity 
was  granted  and  the  current 
level of funding maintained. 

Thus,  option  2.C  is  clearly  dominant  from  the  perspective  of  effectiveness  and 
efficiency. 

7.3. 

Problem 3: “Fora and Consortia Standards” cannot currently be referenced in 
public procurement of ICT. 

COMPARISON OF THE OPTIONS FOR PROBLEM 3 

OPTIONS 

EFFECTIVENESS 

EFFICIENCY 

Policy  option  3.0:  base-line 
scenario 

N.A 

N.A. 

Policy  Option  3.A:  Revive 
the  implementation  of  the 
of  Council 
mechanisms 
87/95/EEC 
Decision 
concerning 
public 
procurement  and  the  policy 
dialogue 

Policy Option 3.B: Allow for 
the referencing of “Fora and 
Consortia Standards” 

LOW: absolute lack of legal 
certainty.  No  support  during 
the consultation process. 

LOW:  extra  administrative 
burden  for  ESOs  and  an 
additional  cost  for  the  EU-
budget 

HIGH:  this  option  would 
have  a  general  positive 
some 
impact.  Although 
expressed 
concerns  were 

the 

HIGH: 
cost-
effectiveness of this measure 
is  optimal  if  these  standards 
are  selected  and  assessed  on 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
Policy  Option  3.C:  Grant 
Selected  Private  fora  and 
consortia 
the  Status  of 
Recognized  Entities  under 
Directive 98/34/EC 

the  basis  of  predefined 
criteria  or  attributes  and 
following  consultation  of 
interested parties 

LOW:  costly  procedures, 
notable 
and 
governance 
coordination problems. 

during  the  consultation,  the 
ICT  businesses  expressed 
their full support. 

MEDIUM:  depends  on  a 
number  of  external  factors 
which are difficult to assess. 
Important  negative 
side-
and 
SME 
on 
effects 
stakeholder  participation  in 
the  standardization  process 
(trade-off 
coherence 
and 
difficulties  for  problem  2). 
Little  support  during 
the 
consultation. 

Therefore, option 3.B is clearly dominant from the perspectives of effectiveness and 
efficiency. 

7.4. 

Preferred options 

Consequently, it is suggested that the following options be retained: 

•  The  combination  of  policy  Options  1.A  (deadlines  on  the  delivery  of  European 
standards)  and  1.C  (Transparent  and  simplified  procedures  for  harmonised 
standards and other European standards requested by the Commission); 

•  Policy  Option  2.C:  Strengthen  the  position  of  organisations  representing  SMEs 
and  societal  stakeholders  within  the  ESOs  by  providing  for  the  possibility  of  an 
operating grant; 

•  Policy  Option  3.B:  Allow  for 

the  referencing  of  “Fora  and  Consortia 

Specifications”. 

None of these options has negative side-effects. 

The  three  preferred  options  have  all  a  positive  impact  on  competitiveness,  while 
options 1.A and 1.C having the strongest impact. 

–  Options  1.A  and  1.C:  In  the  case  of  shorter  and  more  transparent  process  for 
development  of  harmonised  standards,  businesses  can  use  the  presumption  of 
conformity due to the compliance with the standard early on and do not have to 
demonstrate  compliance  with  essential  requirements.  Therefore  businesses  save 
costs and conflicting national standards could be avoided. 

–  Option  2.C:  SMEs  are  an  important  source  of  innovation.  Maintaining  and 
enhancing  their  participation  con  tribute  to  the  development  of  innovative 
standards and to mitigate risks of proprietary rights  

–  Option 3.B: In as much as risks regarding proprietary technologies are mitigated, 
the referencing of Fora and Consortia Standards can be expected to enhance the 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
competitiveness of enterprises, in particular the European ICT industry thanks to 
their specific standardisation coverage and speed.  

7.5. 

Choice of legal instrument 

The suggested options as well as the simplification items do not require amendment 
of the legislation of Member States. These items only concern the ESOs, the NSBs, 
organisations representing SMEs and societal stakeholders, and the EU Institutions. 
Therefore, a Directive would not be an appropriate instrument in this case. 

The  legal  instrument  would  have  to  be  of  general  application,  in  particular  for  the 
part on the use of Fora and Consortia standards in procurement which would have to 
directly applicable in all Member States. In addition, the legislative instrument would 
contain  a  number  of  obligations  that  would  be  directly  applicable  to  the  ESOs,  the 
NSBs,  organisations  representing  SMEs  and  societal  stakeholders,  and 
the 
Commission. Therefore, the most appropriate legal instrument would be a regulation. 

8. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The  Commission  will  publish  an  annual  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  entire 
regulation.  This  report  will  be  partly  based  on  the  information  gathered  by  the 
Commission  and  the  regular  reporting  by  the  ESOs,  especially  regarding  the 
evolution of problems 1 and 2.  

The length of the European standard-setting process would be measured on the basis 
of  the  information  about  the  length  of  the  actual  standardisation  process  which  the 
ESOs already annually provide to the Commission, the provisional date of issuing a 
mandate  as  indicated  in  the  Commission  work  programme  and  the  date  of 
publication  of  the  reference  of  the  harmonised  standard  in  the  OJ  or  the  (partial) 
withdrawal  following  an  objection,  whichever  the  latest.  However,  it  would  be 
necessary to launch a further evaluation, at fairly short notice, to assess if additional 
measures  could  be  taken  to  make  European  standard  setting  (including  for  the 
European  standards  that  are  not  requested  by  the  Commission)  faster  and  more 
efficient. 

Organisations representing SMEs and societal stakeholders would have to provide, as 
part  of  the  annual  reporting  about  the  activities  partly  funded  by  the  EU  grant, 
detailed information about their activities in the standardisation bodies as well as an 
evaluation of the extent to which their points of view are actually taken into account 
in standardisation work. The reporting by the ESOs on the evolution of the problem 
of  under-representation  of  SMEs  and  societal  stakeholders  in  the  European 
standardisation  process  might  require  a  specific  contribution  from  the  NSBs, 
especially as regards the representation of SMES and societal stakeholders in mirror 
national  standardisation  committees  and  the  actions  in  place  at  national  level  to 
support participation of SMEs and societal stakeholders. 

The  references  of  the  selected  Fora  and  Consortia  standards  in  calls  for  tenders 
issued by public authorities will be gathered as an indicator for the evaluation of the 
solution to problem 3. 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
In  addition,  it  would  be  appropriate  to  provide  for  a  fuller  evaluation  of  the 
functioning of the Regulation after a few years. This would be particularly relevant 
in  measuring  the  evolution  of  problem  3  where  the  need  to  increase  EU 
competitiveness  by  promoting  the  rapid  adoption  of  pan-EU  interoperable  products 
and  services  in  public  procurement  would  require  a  further  evaluation  of  the  ICT 
standards used in public procurement and the uptake of e-Government services.  

By 2013 at the latest, an independent review will be launched to measure and assess 
if  the  strategic  objectives  of  the  Strategy  on  European  standardisation  are  being 
achieved, as set out in the communication COM(2011)311. 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
 
9. 

ANNEXES 

9.1. 

ANNEX 1 – CONSULTATION AND EXPERTISE 

9.1.1. 

Standardisation system – external studies 

In  2008,  the  Commission  services  commissioned  a  study  to  assess  the  “Access  to 
standardisation”75  The  objective  of  the  study  was  to  evaluate  to  what  extent  the 
current European Standardisation System was open to participation by all necessary 
stakeholders.  The  study  did  not  only  evaluate  the  system  as  it  is,  but  also  how 
stakeholders themselves perceived it. The time required for participation, travel and 
subsistence costs as well as the fees were identified as the main barriers.  

Detailed barriers to participation by specific groups of stakeholders as mentioned by 
standardisation organisations are presented in Annex III. 

In  January  2009  the  Commission  established  an  independent  expert  group,  the 
Expert  Panel  for  the  Review  of  the  European  Standardisation  System 
(EXPRESS),  with  the  aim  of  making  strategic  recommendations  regarding 
standardisation in Europe for the decade to come.  

The  Panel  was  composed  of  30  experts  from  European,  national  and  international 
standards  organisations,  industry,  SMEs,  NGOs,  trade  unions,  academia,  fora  and 
consortia and public authorities from EU Member States. 

EXPRESS  delivered  its  report  "Standardisation  for  a  competitive  and  innovative 
Europe: a vision for 2020"76to the European Commission in February 2010 

9.1.2. 

ICT – external studies 

In  2006,  the  Commission  launched  a  study77  to  analyse  the  current  European  ICT 
landscape  and  standardisation  policy  and  to  make  recommendations  for  future 
development. The final report of the study was published in July 2007. Following a 
web-based public consultation on the results, the comments received were published 
on  the  Europa  website  and  discussed  at  an  Open  Meeting  in  February  2008  where 
broad support for policy changes was expressed. 

In  order  to  support  the  assessment  of  likely  impacts  of  policy  options,  DG  ENTR 
contracted a study on “Future Standardisation Policy: Impact Assessment of Policy 
Options” in January 2009. The final report was presented in January 201078.  

75 

76 

77 
78 

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/european-
standards/files/standards_policy/access_to_standardisation/doc/access_to_standardisation_study_eim_e
n.pdf 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/european-
standards/files/express/exp_384_express_report_final_distrib_en.pdf 
Study on “Specific Policy Needs for ICT Standardisation” by DLR Piper, Belgium 
Report  presented  by  the  Italian  consultant  Economisti  Associati  and  published  on  the  DG  ENTR 
website 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
                                                 
9.1.3.  Main stakeholders 

The main stakeholder groups are as follows: 

–  International Standards Bodies – ISO, IEC, ITU 

–  European  Standards  Organisations  (ESOs)  –  CEN,  CENELEC,  ETSI.  A  more 

detailed description of ESOs is presented in Annex V  

–  National Standards Bodies (NSBs) – which are members of CEN and CENELEC 

–  Member  State  Authorities  (MSA)  –  National  authorities  from  Member  States  of 
the  European  Standardisation  System,  including  EU  Member  States,  plus  EFTA 
countries  and  EU  candidate  countries.  They  are  represented  on  the  Senior 
Officials Group for Standardisation (SOGS),  

–  Third  Countries  National  Standardisation  Organisations  –  American  National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) 

–  Fora  and  Consortia  (FORA  AND  CONSORTIA)  –  private  organisation 

developing standards outside the official ESOs system 

–  Commission Services (EC) – responsible for European standardisation policy  

–  Industry Associations(including ICT, software and ICT solution using industries) 

–  Societal stakeholders (consumer and environmental organisations, unions, SME's 

and employers representatives) – ANEC, ECOS, ETUI, NORMAPME,  

–  Companies (including SMEs) – standards' users 

–  EFTA secretariat  

9.1.4.  Results of the publication consultation on the Standardisation package 

9.1.4.1.  Executive summary 

Within  the  scope  of  the  Impact  Assessment  exercise  concerning  the  reform  of  the 
European  Standardisation  System,  this  public  consultation  was  carried  out  between 
March 23rd and May 21st 2010. 

The  aim  of  this  consultation  was  to  give  all  standardisation  stakeholders  the 
possibility  to  express  their  views  on  the  current  functioning  of  the  European 
that  could  be 
Standardisation  System  and  on 
implemented. 

improvements 

the  possible 

Due  to  the  high  interest  in  standardisation  and  a  large  publicity,  this  initiative  has 
been very successful in terms of number of replies. A total number of 483 answers 
from  various  categories  and  nationalities  of  stakeholders  were  received.  A  detailed 
analysis of the respondents is presented in point 3 of this report. 

The 14 questions were grouped into 4 main topics: 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
•  Adaptation  of  the  European  Standardisation  System  to  the  rapid  evolution  of 

technologies 

•  Avoidance  of  the  creation  of  new  technical  barriers  to  trade  for  products  and 

services in the internal market 

•  Adaptation  of  the  European  standardisation  system  to  new  markets  and  societal 

challenges 

•  Cost of standards 

As a summary of the replies, we can conclude that, independently from the category 
of  stakeholders  (citizens,  companies,  industry  associations,  public  authorities, 
organisations of public interest, European and National Standards Bodies), there is a 
general  satisfaction  with  the  current  structure  and  functioning  of  the  European 
standardisation system.  

Respondents  clearly  highlight  that  it  is  vital  to  preserve  the  national  delegation 
principle. In addition to this, they are not in favour of opening up the process to new 
standardisation  actors  (e.g.,  fora  and  consortia)  because  of  potential  concerns  in 
terms of the transparency and limited stakeholder involvement.  

Respondents also underline the beneficial inputs and outcomes which derive from the 
public-private  partnership  nature  of  the  system  currently  in  place  and  they  are 
concerned with any potential interference of Brussels-based authorities.  

Last but not least, from the replies that have been collected, a strong need emerges to 
further promote the importance of standards in general and to make standards more 
user-friendly and accessible, also in terms of purchasing price. 

In  general,  respondents  showed  their  appreciation  for  this  public  consultation 
initiative  and  the  possibility  they  had  to  express  their  views  on  the  review  of  the 
European standardisation system. 

9.1.4.2.  Respondents 

In the period from March 23rd 2010 to May 21st 2010, a total number of 483 replies 
were  sent  to  the  three  functional  mailboxes  for  this  public  consultation  (citizens, 
public  authorities  and  organisations).  The  distribution  of  replies  amongst  the 
different categories of stakeholders is as follows: 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
Number of 
responses 

% of total 
respondents 

Citizens 

Companies (it includes 19 SMEs) 

ESOs & NSBs 

Industry associations 

Organisations of public interest (it includes 
NGOs, environmental and consumer 
associations and trade unions) 

Public authorities 

other categories 

TOTAL 

68 

158 

29 

162 

17 

39 

10 

483 

14,1%

32,7%

6,0% 

33,5%

3,5% 

8,1% 

2,1% 

In geographical terms, Germany is the biggest contributor with 213 replies. 

Other bigger contributors are as follows: France (58/483 - 15%), UK (25/483 - 5,2%) 
and Spain (17/483 - 3,5%) 

Out of the 10 categories of stakeholders reported above, the following six ones were 
selected for the purpose of this analysis: 

Citizens 

Companies 

ESOs & NSBs 

Industry associations 

Organisations of public interest (it includes NGOs, 
environmental and consumer associations and trade 
unions) 

Number 
of 
responses 

% of total 
respondents 

68 

158 

29 

162 

17 

14,1%

32,7%

6,0% 

33,5%

3,5% 

Public authorities 

39 

8,1% 

A  breakdown  of  the  results  by  these  six  categories  will  be  provided  for  each 
question. 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
 
  
  
  
It  must  be  mentioned  that  some  of  the  replies  present  are  similar  and/or  often 
identical. For instance, this is the case of the 26 replies that were sent by companies 
belonging to the Saint Gobain Group, or the 21 replies that were sent by companies 
which are part of the German Industry Association VDMA. 

In  those  cases,  each  single  reply  is  considered  as  an  individual  one,  thus  following 
the  same  policy  that  was  adopted  for  the  publication  of  the  replies  on  the  Europa 
website.  Actually,  it  would  be  unfair  not  to  take  into  account  the  contribution  of  a 
single reply just because it comes from a group or just because a reference is made to 
the opinion of an association. 

It is true that this choice will give a considerable weight, in statistical terms, to the 
opinions  of  these  associations  or  groups.  However,  it  would  be  discriminatory  to 
ignore  the  contribution  of  one  of  these  replies  –  that,  once  again,  come  from 
individual entities - to this public consultation.  

9.1.4.3.  Methodological approach 

The consultation document and the fourteen questions it contains aimed at gathering 
the  European 
stakeholders’  opinions  and  views  on  a  potential  review  of 
Standardisation  System.  The  final  goal  was  to  make  stakeholders  react  to  some 
propositions of change and suggest possible alternative solutions. 

Open-ended questions were identified in the majority of cases as the most adequate 
means to accomplish this goal, since they allow respondents to make comments and 
observations supporting their position with regard to one particular topic. 

An  illustration  of  the  results  of  this  consultation  with  a  breakdown  by  category  of 
respondents  will  be  presented  in  the  following  section  of  this  document.  No 
breakdown  by  country  was  undertaken  since  it  does  not  seem  relevant  for  the 
purpose of this public consultation. 

Due  to  the  large  amount  of  replies,  far  beyond  initial  expectations,  the  need  to 
facilitate  analysis  of  the  responses  imposed  some  methodological  constraints.  The 
qualitative  nature  of  this  consultation  was  preserved  and  the  opinions  and 
suggestions expressed by stakeholders were duly noted down and taken into account. 
At  the  same  time,  when  feasible  an  attempt  is  made  to  provide  a  sort  of 
quantitative/statistical  analysis  of  the  responses  so  as  to  make  the  main  results  of 
each question easier to access and comment on. 

Therefore,  for  some  of  the  questions  (1-2-3-5-10)  a  “yes”/“no”  or  “not  possible  to 
define”  analysis  was  carried  out.  For  some  other  questions  (4-6-7-8-9),  where  this 
analysis  could  not  be  conducted,  a  “trend  analysis”  was  carried  out.  To  be  more 
precise,  in  addition  to  the  qualitative  analysis,  each  individual  reply  was  classified 
according to the following three categories: 

•  Category “No”: the reply denotes a general indication not to change or modify the 
system in place with regard to the specific issue explored through the question; 

•  Category  “Yes”:  the  reply  denotes  a  general  indication  to  modify  or  change  the 
system in pace with regard to the specific issue explored through the question; 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
•  Category  “Unclear/No  possible  to  define”:  the  respondent  does  not  take  a  clear 

position on the possibility to change the system in place. 

The  results  of  this  quantitative  analysis  will  not  reflect  the  richness  of  the  replies. 
indication  of 
Nevertheless,  such  statistical  analysis  may  provide  a  useful 
stakeholders’ general attitude with regards to a specific topic. 

9.1.4.4.  Results 

For each question, a summary table indicating the percentage of respondents - with a 
breakdown by the chosen six categories of stakeholders – is presented. Respondents’ 
views – in terms of Yes/No/NotDefined – are synthetically reported in the same table 
for those questions where this classification was possible (this is the case of question 
1-2-3-5-10).  The  percentages  for  this  classification  refer  only  to  those  respondents 
who actually provided a reply to the question. 

In  order  to  provide  the  reader  with  the  same  background  information  that 
respondents could find in the consultation document, the introductory paragraphs for 
each section of questions are provided in italics. 

Avoidance  of  the  creation  of  new  technical  barriers  to  trade  for  products  and 
services in the internal market  

The  emergence  of  national  service  standards  and  alternative  standardisation 
documents  (like  Publically  Available  Specifications)  developed  by  National 
Standards Organisations (NSO) constitutes a risk of technical barriers to trade within 
the  internal  market.  Since  the  80’s,  the Commission  and  the  standardisation  bodies 
(ESOs and NSOs) shall be informed – in the field of products - of the new subjects 
for  which  NSOs  have  decided,  by  including  them  in  their  standards  programme  to 
prepare  or  amend  a  standard.  The  same  procedure  could  be  envisaged  for  national 
programmes  of  service  standards  (including  process  standards)  and  alternative 
standardisation documents. 

1)  Do  you  think  that  service  standards  (including  process  standards)  and  alternative 
standardisation documents should be included in the scope of Directive 98/34/EC or its 
successor? 

Services standards (including process standards) in the scope of Directive 98/34/EC 
or its successor: 

Number  of 
responses 

411 

51 

140 

29 

All 

Citizens 

Companies 

ESOs & NSBs 

%  on 
total 

85% 

75% 

89% 

100%

55 

% 
Yes 

74%

86%

75%

97%

% 
No 

20% 

10% 

20% 

0% 

% 
ND
* 

6% 

4% 

5% 

3% 

   EN 

EN 

 
  
Industry 
associations 

Organisations of 
public interest 

Public authorities 

*not possible to define 

137 

85% 

63%

33% 

4% 

15 

32 

88% 

82% 

47%

97%

20% 

0% 

33%

3% 

Alternative  standardisation  documents  in  the  scope  of  Directive  98/34/EC  or  its 
successor: 

Number  of 
responses 

%  on 
total 

411 

51 

140 

29 

137 

15 

32 

85% 

75% 

89% 

100%

85% 

88% 

82% 

% 
Yes 

31%

37%

41%

28%

26%

13%

19%

% 
No 

61% 

59% 

54% 

48% 

69% 

80% 

75% 

% 
ND
* 

8% 

4% 

5% 

24%

5% 

7% 

6% 

All 

Citizens 

Companies 

ESOs & NSBs 

Industry 
associations 

Organisations of 
public interest 

Public authorities 

*not possible to define 

As the two tables above clearly show, respondents generally split this question into 
two separate ones. 

On the one hand, most respondents are in favour of including service standards in the 
scope  of  Directive  98/34/EC  or  its  possible  successors.  This  is  true  for  all  the  six 
categories of stakeholders and also for those 19 companies that registered as SMEs 
(75% is the percentage of “Yes” in their case, with just 19% of “No” replies). 

On  the  other  hand,  61%  of  respondents  are  against  the  inclusion  of  alternative 
standardisation  documents.  Actually,  among  all  the  categories,  there  is  a  general 
concern that these documents are  the  result of a process which does not reflect the 
views and opinions of all the relevant stakeholders. A more positive attitude towards 
the  inclusion  of  alternative  standardisation  documents  can  be  seen  in  the  case  of 
companies and industry associations working in the ICT field. 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
2)  Are  you  aware  of  specific  cases  where  national  service  standards  and  alternative 
standardisation documents have caused technical barriers to trade? 

Number of 
responses 

401 

51 

139 

28 

132 

14 

31 

All 

Citizens 

Companies 

ESOs & NSBs 

Industry 
associations 

Organisations 
of public 
interest 

Public 
authorities 

*not possible to define 

% 
on 
total

83%

75%

88%

97%

81%

% 
Yes 

12%

8% 

9% 

25%

11%

% 
No 

75% 

82% 

82% 

71% 

73% 

% 
ND
* 

13%

10%

9% 

4% 

16%

82%

14%

86% 

0% 

79%

35%

35% 

30%

Three  quarters  of  respondents  are  not  aware  of  any  specific  cases  where  national 
service  standards  and  alternative  standardisation  documents  have  caused  technical 
barriers to trade. A difference must be pointed out in the case of public authorities, 
where  replies  are  equally  split  among  those  respondents  who  are  aware  of  specific 
cases and those who are not.  

The cases of technical barriers mentioned in the replies have to do, inter alia, with 
integration requirements for migrant workers, interoperability in the railway domain, 
medical  equipments  and  technologies,  education  of  sport  trainers  and  planning  and 
building-related  activities  in  the  construction  sector.  The  fields  of  tourism,  e-
government, e-health and labelling are also mentioned. 

It  must  be  said  that,  in  some  of  the  “No”  replies,  while  replying  that  they  are  not 
aware  of  specific  barriers  due  to  existing  national  standards  and/or  standardisation 
documents, some stakeholders point out that the lack of harmonised standards does 
represent an impediment to the effective provision of a specific service. For instance, 
some  concerns  are  raised  about  ticketing  and  booking  procedures  for  cross-border 
transportation of passengers in the railway sector. 

Adaptation  of  the  European  standardisation  system  to  the  rapid  evolution  of 
technologies 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
  
 
The  traditional  standardisation  process  lasts  an  average  of  1  to  3  years.  This  pace 
very  often  does  not  correspond  to  the  speed  with  which  new  technologies  are 
developed, and some sectors have been reluctant to ask the standards organisations to 
develop  standards,  even  if  such  standards  would  have  contributed  to  extend  their 
market  or  rationalise  their  processes.  Others,  especially  the  ICT  sector,  have 
developed  interoperability specifications in fora and consortia, outside the ESOs as 
described in the Commission White Paper – Modernising ICT standardisation in the 
EU – the Way Forward. However, neither the current legal framework of European 
standardisation  (Decision  87/95/EEC),  nor  the  rules  on  public  procurement  allow 
referencing of such fora and consortia specifications in regulations of public policies. 

3) For areas other than Information and Communication Technology (ICT), should it be 
possible to refer to documents developed by fora and consortia in legislation and public 
policies? If it should, how should it be implemented? 

Number of 
responses 

421 

52 

146 

29 

143 

13 

32 

All 

Citizens 

Companies 

ESOs & 
NSBs 

Industry 
associations 

Organisations 
of public 
interest 

Public 
authorities 

*not possible to define 

%  on 
total 

87% 

76% 

92% 

100%

88% 

% 
Yes 

13%

6% 

13%

10%

15%

% 
No 

83% 

87% 

84% 

90% 

81% 

76% 

38%

62% 

% 
ND
* 

4% 

7% 

3% 

0% 

4% 

0% 

82% 

9% 

81% 

10%

As clearly emerges from the table, the large majority of respondents are against the 
possibility  to  refer  to  the  documents  developed  by  fora  and  consortia  in  legislation 
and public policies. This is true also for the sub-category of the 19 SMEs, where the 
percentage of “No” replies is equal to 94%. 

Respondents recognise that these documents are already part of ICT standardisation 
and they generally say that they understand this inclusion because of the peculiarities 
of the sector. However, they oppose having this option in the case of standardisation 
in  general.  Respondents  explain  their  opposition  by  referring  to  the  nature  of  the 
actors which produce these documents and to the procedures these actors follow in 
the  standard  development  process.  In  particular,  responses  tend  to  highlight  the 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
  
 
following potentially problematic issues: the small number of stakeholders involved 
in these fora and consortia, and the limited transparency of the internal processes and 
procedures. According to stakeholders, one of the risks is the official recognition of 
the decisions made by a small number of highly influential actors. 

The issues of transparency and limited stakeholder involvement are also mentioned 
in many of the replies which are in favour of this inclusion. Actually, conformity to 
conditions of transparency and openness is often indicated as the key implementation 
requirement. 

In general, we observe that respondents appear quite open to the possibility of using 
these  documents  as  a  starting  point  for  discussions  in  the  standardisation  processes 
within officially recognised standards development bodies.  

Finally, it must be said that many positive replies to this question tend to come from 
companies  and  associations  working  in  the  ICT  domain.  This  can  be  easily 
understood  since  the  inclusion  of  documents  developed  by  fora  and  consortia  is 
already accepted as required for ICT standardisation.  

4) How could ESOs and NSOs be encouraged to accelerate their standards development 
process?  Should  for  example  the  EU  financing  for  standardisation  be  subject  to 
conditions in terms of speed of delivery whilst maintaining the openness of the process? 

All 

Citizens 

Companies 

ESOs & NSBs 

Industry associations 

Organisations of public 
interest 

Public authorities 

Number  of 
responses 

416 

50 

144 

29 

143 

13 

31 

%  on 
total 

86% 

74% 

91% 

100% 

88% 

76% 

79% 

The analysis of the main trends shows that 86% of respondents do not wish to have 
the EU’s financing of standardisation subject to conditions of speed of delivery. This 
is  true  for  each  one  of  our  six  categories  of  stakeholders  (80%  of  citizens;  92%  of 
companies;  84%  of  industry  associations;  65%  of  public  authorities;  90%  of 
European  and  national  standards  bodies  and  92%  of  public  interest  organisations) 
and  for  the  19  SMEs  as  well  (in  this  case,  the  percentage  of  replies  indicating  an 
opposition is even equal to 100%).  

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
  
There is a general tendency to perceive the time needed for the standard-setting and 
definition process as reasonable in most cases. Increasing speed is often perceived as 
having a negative impact on the quality of the outcome of the process. 

If,  however,  a  need  emerges  to  further  speed  up  the  process,  respondents  say  that 
possible  speed-related  conditions  in  EU  financing  would  not  improve  the  situation. 
As  an  alternative,  they  suggest  increasing  the  use  of  IT  solutions  in  working 
methods,  tools  and  processes  of  National  and  European  Standards  Bodies.  Some 
replies also suggest concentrating resources and efforts only on the development of 
those standards which are relevant for market players. 

Adaptation of the European standardisation system to new markets and societal 
challenges 

European  standardisation  has  been  developed  on  the  model  of  the  international 
standards  organisations,  to  contribute  to  rationalisation  of  production,  growth  of 
labour  productivity,  opening  of  markets  and  safety  of  products.  Globalisation,  new 
global challenges, “Better regulation” public policies, new societal demands as well 
as a growing share of services in the global economy and the boosting of innovation 
to resolve the current economic crisis request standardisation to adapt its traditional 
structures. 

Standards remain voluntary instruments. Their effect depends on their credibility and 
of the level of consensus that they represent. The current diversification of the use of 
standards  requires  a  broadening  of  the  range  of  partners  involved  in  the 
standardisation  process,  therefore  more  openness,  transparency  and  balanced 
representation. 

Standards  facilitate  global  trade  and  access  to  markets.  Standards  need  to  be 
accessible  to  all  users,  and  the  availability  of  translations  of  standards  can  help 
disseminate new technologies.  

5)  Should  the  WTO  principles  of  transparency,  openness,  impartiality,  consensus, 
efficiency, relevance and consistency79 be integrated in the legal framework of European 
standardisation  (especially  in  EU  Directive  98/34/EC  or  in  its  successor)?  How  should 
this be implemented? 

Number of 
responses 

415 

50 

143 

All 

Citizens 

Companies 

%  on 
total 

86% 

74% 

91% 

% 
Yes 

32%

16%

17%

% 
No 

54% 

74% 

61% 

% 
ND
* 

14%

10%

22%

79 

As  approved  in  the  Decision  of  the  Committee  on  principles  for  the  development  of  international 
standards,  guides  and  recommendations  with  relation  to  article  2,  5  and  annex  3  of  the  WTO/TBT 
Agreement (G/TBT1/rev.8 23 may 2002). 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
  
                                                 
ESOs & NSBs 

Industry 
associations 

Organisations 
of public 
interest 

Public 
authorities 

*not possible to define 

29 

140 

14 

33 

100%

86% 

31%

39%

48% 

51% 

21%

10%

82% 

79%

14% 

7% 

85% 

61%

27% 

12%

It can be observed that more than half of the respondents are against the integration 
of  WTO  principles  of  transparency;  openness,  impartiality,  consensus,  efficiency, 
relevance and consistency into the legal framework of European standardisation (the 
same  trend  can  be  observed  in  the  case  of  the  19  SMEs,  where  the  percentage  of 
“Nos”  amounts  to  82%).  Respondents  tend  to  say  that  these  principles  are  already 
followed and adopted by standards bodies at both national and European level. The 
explicit  inclusion  of  these  principles  within  European  legislative  documents  – 
respondents  indicate  -  would  just  lead  to  a  multiplication  of  the  numbers  of  actors 
involved  in  the  European  standardisation  system  and  to  the  consequent  official 
recognition  of  documents  elaborated  by  organisms  like  fora  and  consortia.  As 
already  observed,  the  activity  of  these  actors  and  the  documents  they  produce  is 
generally criticised for a lack of transparency, openness and balanced representation.  

It can be observed that percentages are different in the case of public authorities and 
NGOs/environment/consumer/public interest organisations. However, this difference 
can be explained by the fact that these categories of respondents appear to be more 
focused  on  the  relevance  of  these  principle  in  itself  and  are  therefore  mainly  in 
favour of their explicit inclusion in legislation documents. 

6) How could the participation of Consumers’ organisations, NGOs, Trade Unions and 
social  partners,  and  SMEs  be  best  promoted?  What  should  be  the  role  of  public 
authorities  (European  Commission  and  Member  States)  in  supporting  such  a 
participation  in  a  transparent,  open,  impartial,  consensual,  efficient,  relevant  and 
consistent European standardisation system?  

All 

Citizens 

Companies 

ESOs & NSBs 

Number of 
responses 

418 

49 

143 

29 

%  on 
total 

87% 

72% 

91% 

100% 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
  
Industry associations 

Organisations of public 
interest 

Public authorities 

144 

15 

32 

89% 

88% 

82% 

The analysis of the main trends shows that 69% of respondents declare that, even if 
the national delegation principle already guarantees a good level of involvement, the 
participation  of  consumer  organisations,  environmental  NGOs,  trade  unions  and 
social  partners,  and  SMEs  within  standardisation  bodies  and  committees  should  be 
further  promoted.  This  is  true  for  78%  of  citizens;  58%  of  companies  and  65%  of 
industry  associations.  The  majority  of  public  authorities  (97  %)  European  and 
national 
of 
(90%) 
NGOs/environment/consumer/public  interest  organisations  (93%).  are  in  favour  of 
further participation. Favourable replies are in the majority (71%) also in the case of 
the 19 SMEs. In the case of SMEs, this percentage may look lower than expected but 
is probably due to the fact that some SMEs have reported the opinion of the industry 
associations  they  are  part  of,  and,  as  figures  show,  industry  associations  tend  to  be 
already quite satisfied with the current level of stakeholder participation. 

standards 

bodies 

case 

and 

the 

in 

Financial  support  to  participation  by  public  authorities,  reduced  membership  and 
participation fees and awareness raising initiatives are the most frequently suggested 
solutions  in  order  to  better  promote  the  participation  of  consumer  organisations, 
NGOs,  trade  unions  and  social  partners,  and  SMEs.  Stakeholders  also  suggest 
modifying  the  voting  procedures  within  standardisation  bodies  in  order  to  further 
stimulate the setting-up of mixed groups. A revision of the list of participants aiming 
at a further inclusion of under-represented areas of civil society, an increased use of 
IT  tools  and  technologies  and  a  comparison  of  best  practice  experiences  in  Europe 
are also suggested. 

It  must  also  be  said  that  a  minority  of  respondents  (large  companies,  mainly)  are 
against  the  option  of  financially  supporting  the  less  represented  stakeholders,  since 
this could be viewed as a discriminatory measure in relation to other actors. 

7) How could the national standardisation organisations deepen their cooperation, and 
mutualise their activities? Could the following tasks be shared amongst several national 
standards  organisations?  a)  Management  of  the  Secretariats  of  Technical  Committees; 
b) Notification of new national standardisation projects, c) Promotion/Sales of standards 
or d) Other? 

All 

Citizens 

Companies 

Number of 
responses 

383 

49 

137 

%  on 
total 

79% 

72% 

87% 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
  
ESOs & NSBs 

Industry associations 

Organisations of public 
interest 

Public authorities 

29 

126 

5 

32 

100% 

78% 

29% 

82% 

The analysis of the main trends shows that three quarters of respondents (75%) are 
opposed to changes with regards to the current level of cooperation among the NSOs. 
Favourable replies are only 12% in the case of citizens; 8% for companies; 10% for 
industry  associations;  13%  for  public  authorities;  3%  for  European  and  national 
standards  bodies  and  20%  for  public  interest  organisations).  This  is  true  for  the  19 
SMEs as well, where 76% declare to be satisfied with the situation as it is. 

In order to understand this “negative” attitude from respondents, two things must be 
highlighted. 

First, respondents in general declare that the level of cooperation among NSOs has 
already improved a lot. They also tend to affirm that the options suggested within the 
questions are already in place. 

Second,  many  stakeholders  fear  that  the  way  the  question  is  formulated  indirectly 
supports - or encourages support for - the establishment of a Brussels-based form of 
control  (even  in  the  form  of  a  single  European  standardisation  body)  of  the 
standardisation process. In the eyes of these respondents, this would generate more 
bureaucracy, costs, and might undermine the independence of standardisation actors. 
These  concerns  explain  why  many  replies  stress  the  importance  of  the  national 
delegation  principle  and  call  for  the  preservation  of  the  private-public  partnership 
nature of the current standardisation system. 

Without  prejudice  to  the  national  delegation  principle,  how  could  the  European 
Standards  Organisations  manage  directly,  on  a  case  by  case  basis,  some 
standardisation activities, especially some Technical Committees? 

Number of 
responses 

% on total 

All 

Citizens 

Companies 

ESOs & NSBs 

Industry associations 

Organisations of 

394 

50 

138 

29 

132 

11 

82% 

74% 

87% 

100% 

81% 

65% 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
  
public interest 

Public authorities 

28 

72% 

The analysis of the main trends shows that about three quarters of respondents (76%) 
are  opposed  to  the  idea  of  having  European  Standards  Organisations  manage 
directly,  on  a  case  by  case  basis,  some  standardisation  activities,  especially  some 
Technical Committees. The percentage of replies in favour is just 6% in the case of 
citizens;  22%  for  companies;  10%  for  industry  associations;  4%  for  public 
authorities; 7% for European and national standards bodies and 36% - slightly higher 
than the average - for public interest organisations. This is true also in the case of the 
19 SMEs as well, where no one was in favour of this change. 

As  was  the  case  for  question  No.  7,  the  fear  of  a  potentially  strong  interference  of 
Brussels-based authorities in the European standardisation process, and a consequent 
potential  prejudice  to  the  national  delegation  principle,  justifies  this  opposition  by 
respondents. 

8)  What  support  should  the  European  Commission  provide  to  facilitate  the  use  of 
European standards as a means to open global markets? What would be the operational 
means that the Commission should use? (Support experts’ participation in international 
standardisation activities, translation of European standards into extra-EU languages?) 

All 

Citizens 

Companies 

ESOs & NSBs 

Industry associations 

Organisations of public 
interest 

Public authorities 

Number of 
responses 

397 

51 

142 

29 

124 

14 

32 

%  on 
total 

82% 

75% 

90% 

100% 

77% 

82% 

82% 

in 

Respondents tend to suggest the following measures to facilitate the use of European 
standards as a means to open global markets: supporting, also in financial terms, the 
participation  of  European  experts 
international  standardisation  activities; 
promoting the use of European standards in international trade agreements and in the 
working  groups  of  international  trade  organisations,  and  providing  translations  of 
European standards in non-EU languages. With regards to this last measure, it must 
be said that a minority of stakeholders are opposed to it, since they believe that the 
English version is sufficient for use in international activities and that the European 
Commission  should  focus  on  guaranteeing  the  translation  of  standards  in  all  EU 
languages. 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
  
9) Under which conditions do you think that the European Commission could launch, on 
a case by case basis,  calls  for  tenders, open to the  ESOs and  to other organisations, to 
develop standards supporting EU policies and legislation? 

Number of 
responses 

408 

49 

143 

29 

138 

13 

30 

All 

Citizens 

Companies 

ESOs & NSBs 

Industry 
associations 

Organisations of 
public interest 

Public authorities 

*not possible to define 

%  on 
total 

84% 

72% 

91% 

100%

85% 

% 
Yes 

10%

4% 

8% 

0% 

13%

% 
No 

83% 

86% 

86% 

79% 

83% 

76% 

46%

46% 

77% 

10%

83% 

% 
ND
* 

7% 

10%

6% 

21%

4% 

8% 

7% 

The  analysis  of  the  main  trends  shows  that  83%  of  respondents  are  against  the 
launch,  on  a  case  by  case  basis,  of  calls  for  tenders  open  to  European  Standards 
Bodies  and  other  organisations  aiming  at  developing  standards  in  support  of  EU 
policies  and  legislation.  This  is  true  for  all  categories  of  stakeholders  (86%  in  the 
case  of  citizens  and  companies;  82%  in  the  case  of  SMEs;  83%  of  industry 
associations  and  public  authorities;  79%  in  the  case  of  European  and  national 
standards  bodies),  with  the  exception  of  public  interest  organisations,  where  both 
negative and positive replies score the same (46%).  

As was the case for questions 1, 3 and 5, concerns regarding a potential increase in 
the number of actors involved in the European standardisation process and that these 
new actors (fora and consortia.) may not guarantee transparency and openness are the 
main reasons behind this strong opposition. 

These  concerns  are  reflected  also  in  the  case  of  the  favourable  replies,  where  it  is 
strongly  highlighted  that  every  potential  contractor  resulting  from  these  calls  must 
strictly ensure a balanced and transparent consultation process. 

10)  What  is,  in  your  views,  the  most  efficient  level  of  participation  in  the  process  of 
Standards Development: National, European or International? 

All 

Number of 
responses 

416 

%  on 
total 

86% 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
  
  
Citizens 

Companies 

ESOs & NSBs 

Industry associations 

Organisations of public 
interest 

Public authorities 

49 

143 

29 

142 

15 

32 

72% 

91% 

100% 

88% 

88% 

82% 

The  analysis  of  the  replies  shows  that  there  is  a  general  tendency  not  to  indicate  a 
preference  among  the  national,  the  European  and  the  international  standardisation 
level  in  terms  of  efficiency.  All  levels  are  seen  as  equally  important  and  their 
efficiency  is  perceived  as  depending  on  the  circumstances  and  factors  taken  into 
account. 

At  a  general  level,  it  is  worth  underlining  that  many  respondents,  even  if  they 
decided not to select it as the most efficient level of participation, took advantage of 
this  question  to  strongly  defend  the  important  role  of  the  national  standardisation 
level. This level is seen as the one where the standardisation process really starts and 
where all the actors, even the small ones, are involved and can exert their influence. 

Finally,  in  the  case  of  those  replies  where  a  clear  preference  is  expressed,  we  can 
observe some interesting relations between the preferred level of standardisation and 
the business sector in which the stakeholder is involved: for instance, operators of the 
construction  sector  tend  to  select  the  European  level  as  the  most  efficient  one, 
whereas the preference goes to the global level for respondents operating in the ICT 
sector. 

11) In your opinion, is where is the major added value in European standardisation with 
respect to national standardisation?” 

Number of 
responses 

%  on 
total 

All 

Citizens 

Companies 

ESOs & NSBs 

Industry associations 

406 

47 

140 

29 

138 

84% 

69% 

89% 

100% 

85% 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
  
Organisations of public 
interest 

Public authorities 

14 

32 

82% 

82% 

From the replies that were collected, it emerges that the development of harmonised 
standards, the removal of trade barriers and the creation of a single market represent 
by far the major added value of European standardisation. Companies  and industry 
associations in particular benefit from a reduction of transaction costs, an increased 
level of interoperability and the development of a common technical language within 
the European market. 

Cost of standards 

The  costs  of  purchasing  standards  have  been  identified  as  an  important  barrier  to 
their use, especially by SMEs. Purchasing a full collection of standards is sometimes 
necessary to answer a call for tender, access specific markets or take full advantage 
of the benefits of the “New Approach” regulation. Some stakeholders consider that 
the price of standards – different in every National Standards Organisations - is too 
high with respect to their public interest function. 

12)  What  are,  in  your  views,  the  most  serious  barriers  to  the  use  of  standards  by 
enterprises: 
(purchasing  price)?  Costs  of  operational 
implementation? Access to information? Knowledge of existing standards?80 

standards 

costs  of 

Number of 
responses 

411 

51 

145 

26 

143 

8 

32 

All 

Citizens 

Companies 

ESOs & NSBs 

Industry associations 

Organisations of public 
interest 

Public authorities 

% 
on 
total 

85% 

75% 

92% 

90% 

88% 

47% 

82% 

80 

These  barriers  have  been  identified  in  the  Study  « Access  to  Standardisation »  -  EIM  March  2009, 
commissioned by the European Commission 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
 
  
                                                 
The  replies  indicate  that  the  lack  of  knowledge  and  awareness  about  both  the 
importance of the standardisation process and the content and field of application of 
standards  themselves  represent  the  most  serious  barrier  to  the  use  of  standards. 
Stakeholders  generally  complain  about  the  difficulty  to  access  information  about 
which  standards  to  apply,  the  complexity  of  the  technical  language  used,  and  the 
large amount of standards (and updates) that may concern one specific product. 

Both  problems  accessing  information  and  the  complexity  of  technical  language 
contribute to making implementation costs another key barrier to the application of 
standards. Stakeholders declare that some training would be needed in order to help 
market players, above all the smaller ones, access information concerning standards 
and understand which specific regulations directly concern the products they produce 
and sell. 

Although the price of standards – in a draft classification of the most recurrent issues 
raised  by  respondents  –  ranks  third  after  lack  of  knowledge  and  awareness  and 
implementation costs, it does emerge as another major barrier to the use of standards. 
The price is perceived as too high, above all by smaller operators. However, it must 
be pointed out that it is not the price itself that appears to be the key issue. Actually, 
the  problem  is  that  for  a  specific  product  more  than  one  standard  is  needed  and 
previews of standards do not often provide buyers with a clear idea of the relevance 
of  specific  standards  to  their  needs  (in  other  words,  they  may  end  up  buying 
standards  they  do  not  really  need).  Furthermore,  compliance  with  standards  is 
sometimes  not  a  voluntary  choice  but  de  facto  a  mandatory  one.  Therefore,  actors 
have no option but to buy standards. 

Many respondents have the feeling they are paying for standards twice: firstly, they 
actually  need  to  pay  to  be  involved  in  the  standardisation  process;  secondly,  they 
need to pay to buy the outcome of the process they have been directly involved in. 

Finally, respondents complain about the sometimes huge differences in the prices of 
the same standards among the different National Standards Bodies and the fact that 
they cannot choose where to make their purchase.  

13) What could the standards organisations do, in addition to their current practice, to 
facilitate the access to standards, especially by SMEs? 

All 

Citizens 

Companies 

ESOs & NSBs 

Industry associations 

Number 
responses 

of 

%  on 
total 

394 

43 

140 

27 

139 

82% 

63% 

89% 

93% 

86% 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
  
Organisations of public 
interest 

Public authorities 

7 

32 

41% 

82% 

It can be observed that respondents generally took advantage of this question to put 
forward their solutions to the issues raised in question No. 13. 

Concerning  lack  of  knowledge  and  awareness,  respondents  suggest  increasing  the 
communication  effort  to  promote  the  importance  of  standards  and  to  illustrate  the 
benefits these voluntary standards generate for a company. Standards bodies are also 
invited  to  adopt  a  more  common  technical  language,  to  provide  more  user-friendly 
summaries  and  to  make  use  of  IT  technologies  and  solutions  (eg.,  simple  email 
alerts)  in  order  to  keep  market  players  up-to-date  with  newly  developed  standards. 
importance  of  standards  and 
Respondents  also  suggest  emphasising 
standardisation in general in education programmes and seminars. 

the 

In  order  to  reduce  implementation  costs,  different  measures  are  recommended: 
further investment in training and workshops (with the support of industry and trade 
associations), the provision of guidelines in the different national languages and the 
adoption of more user-friendly language in the editing of standards. 

As  far  as  the  price  of  standards  is  concerned,  many  respondents  observe  that 
standards  should  ideally  be  free.  At  the  same  time,  they  are  aware  that  the  sale  of 
standards  is  a  vital  part  of  standards  bodies’  business  model.  Therefore,  some 
“softer” measures are suggested in order to deal with this issue: 

–  availability of mandatory standards at a reduced price when bundles/packages of 

standards are bought; 

–  free availability of the main content of each standard for web consultation only; 

–  free summaries in local languages so as to limit the risk for companies to purchase 

standards they do not need; 

–  specific  cooperation  agreements  with  associations  of  SMEs  aiming  at  making 

standards available at a cheaper price for this category of market players. 

The  European  Commission  and  public  authorities  in  general  are  asked  to  give 
financial contributions to every measure helping to make standards less expensive for 
companies and users in general. 

Still  on  the  price  of  standards,  two  standards  bodies  –  DIN  and  DKE  –  are  often 
mentioned as examples to be followed. Respondents were particularly satisfied with 
some  initiatives  undertaken  by  these  two  organisms,  like  the  provision  of  free 
summaries  in  the  local  language  and  the  sale  of  bundles  of  standards  at  a  reduced 
price. 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
9.1.5.  Detailed results of the public consultation on ICT Standardisation 

9.1.5.1.  Introduction 

In 2006, the Commission launched a review with a study to analyse the current EU 
ICT  standardisation  policy  and  bring  forward  recommendations  for  its  future 
development.  The  study  report  was  published  in  July  2007  and  a  web-based 
consultation followed. The comments received were published on the Europa website 
and  an  open  conference  was  held  in  February  2008  to  examine  the  study 
recommendations and those comments. 

As  a  result,  it  was  decided  to  present  a  White  Paper  to  ascertain  the  degree  of 
consensus  on  the  possible  proposals  for  policy  choices  and  specific  measures  that 
would help the European ICT standardisation policy to better respond to industry and 
societal needs.  

An open consultation on the White Paper was launched on 3 July and closed on 15 
September 2009. Responses could be provided through the Commission’s web-based 
interactive policy making tool (IPM), through a dedicated email address or by post.  

Following  the  wide  publicity  given  to  the  consultation,  especially  through 
standardisation related committees and organisations, a total of 130 responses were 
received; 53 from industry or business organisations, 27 from standardisation bodies, 
18  from  individuals,  17  from  public  authorities  and  the  rest  from  research  or  other 
societal  organisations.  All  of  the  responses  have  been  published  in  full  on  the 
‘Europa’ website81. 

The  objective  of  the  consultation  was  to  ascertain  the  degree  of  consensus  on  the 
possible  proposals  for  policy  choices  and  specific  measures  that  would  help  the 
European ICT standardisation policy to better respond to industry and societal needs.  

The White Paper discussed possible proposals in 6 main policy domains of European 
ICT standardisation policy:  

•  Attributes of ICT standards associated with EU legislation and policies  

•  The use of ICT standards in public procurement  

•  Fostering synergy between ICT research, innovation and standardisation  

•  Intellectual property rights in ICT standards 

•  Integration of fora and consortia in the ICT standardisation process  

•  Enhancing the dialogue and partnership with stakeholders  

81 

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/ict/standards/extended/consultation_2009_en.htm.  

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
                                                 
While  the  overall  response  to  all  the  proposals  contained  in  the  White  Paper  was 
broadly  positive,  most  respondents  provided  extensive  comments  and  additional 
input that will facilitate further refinement of thinking on many of the issues.  

The proposed attributes for ICT standards to be associated with EU legislation and 
policies  and  the  link  between  those  attributes  and  WTO  criteria  were  very  much 
welcomed.  Some  respondents  suggested  that  certain  attribute  definitions  needed 
further  clarification  while  others  called  for  clear  and  transparent  processes  and 
procedures  for  evaluating  the  compliance  of  specifications  with  the  attributes.  In 
addition,  some  felt  that  any  future  ICT  standardisation  policy  needed  to  cover  the 
coherence of standards. 

A need for more flexibility for public procurement was widely supported as was the 
need for public procurement to be based on open and transparent processes allowing 
for  fair  competition.  There  was  also  broad  support  for  the  compliance  with  the 
attributes  as  a  means  of  identifying  standards  which  could  be  referred  to  in  public 
procurement activities. 

Although  most  respondents  felt  that  greater  synergy  between  ICT  R&D  and 
standardisation  would  benefit  researchers  and  standardisers  alike,  there  was  strong 
opposition to any mandatory requirements governing the relationship between those 
activities.  Many  respondents  also  pointed  out  that  the  strong  business  driver  of 
standardisation was not always present in R&D activities. 

With  regard  to  the  treatment  of  intellectual  property  rights  (IPR)  there  was  a  large 
consensus that standards developing organisations should set open, transparent, fair 
and predictable IPR policies which also take account of emerging business models. 
While  many  respondents  felt  that  the  use  of  ex-ante  declarations  of  maximum 
licensing rights was an option which should be considered by each SDO in order to 
increase predictability, it should not become a mandatory approach.  

While  better  cooperation  between  fora  and  consortia  and  ESOs  was  supported,  the 
majority of respondents (but not the national standardisation organisations) were also 
of the opinion that the possibility of directly referencing specific fora and consortia 
deliverables in support of EU legislation or policy was needed as well. 

Finally,  the  creation  of  a  multi-stakeholder  platform,  as  an  extension  of  SOGITS, 
was very widely welcomed. However, it was also felt that its composition, rules and 
procedures would need to be carefully and clearly defined.  

9.1.5.2.  Questionnaire  

The White Paper discussed possible proposals in 6 main policy domains of European 
ICT standardisation policy:  

•  Attributes of ICT standards associated with EU legislation and policies  

•  The use of ICT standards in public procurement  

•  Fostering synergy between ICT research, innovation and standardisation  

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
•  Intellectual property rights in ICT standards 

•  Integration of fora and consortia in the ICT standardisation process  

•  Enhancing the dialogue and partnership with stakeholders  

Within each area, the White Paper raised a number of specific questions to identify 
the  potential  legislative  or  other  changes  which  could  be  envisaged  to  help  a  new 
ICT  standardisation  policy  to  reach  the  objectives  set,  including  interoperability 
goals. 

9.1.5.3.  Respondents  

Of  the  133  responses  received,  1  arrived  by  post  and  the  rest  were  evenly  shared 
between the IPM tool and email.  

18 individuals responded and 112 answers were made on behalf of organisations.  

The 112 answers on behalf of organisations were subdivided as follows: 

•  35 ICT service and product suppliers,  

•  27  standardisation  organisations  (10  international  organisations,  9  national 

standardisation bodies, 4 European organisations and 4 US organisations),  

•  17 industry associations (covering users and producers), 

•  17 Member State public authorities,  

•  6 organisations representing societal interests,  

•  5 organisations with a specific R&D focus, and 

•  3 SME associations. 

•  2 other organisations 

69  respondents  supported  all  of  the  possible  proposals  although  most  provided 
additional comments to explain their views.  

51  respondents  did  not  agree  with  one  or  more  of  the  possible  proposals,  again 
providing supporting justification. 

6  respondents  focused  on  one  particular  issue  and  did  not  reply  to  the  rest  of  the 
questionnaire. 

4 responses were unclear. 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
Overview of responses per country

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

AT BE BG CY CZ DK FI

FR DE EL HU IT LV MT NL PT

RO ES SE UK

Non-EU

Responses were received from a total of 20 Member States however some of these 
responses were made on behalf of European or global companies and organisations. 

9.1.5.4.  Attributes of ICT standards associated with EU legislation and policies  

One specific question was raised in the White Paper in this area: 

Do  you  agree  that  the  attributes  for  standards  to  be  associated  with  EU  legislation 
and policies should be integrated in the future ICT standardisation policy as set out in 
section 2.1 of the White Paper? 

Number of 
Responses 

% of total 
respondents 

% of 
Positive/Negative 
responses 

Positive 

Negative 

No answer/unclear  

Total 

115 

5 

10 

130 

77% 

3% 

1% 

80% 

96% 

4% 

- 

100% 

To facilitate the use of the best available standards in support of EU legislation and 
policies, the White Paper proposed that requirements be laid down, in the form of the 
list of attributes, for such standards and their associated processes. Compliance with 
the attributes would help ensure that wider policy objectives as well as public interest 
expectations were met. 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
The vast majority of respondents welcomed the suggestion to integrate the proposed 
set of attributes into the revised European ICT standardisation policy and to use this 
set  of  requirements  as  a  basis  for  evaluating  the  eligibility  of  ICT  standards  for 
association with European legal frameworks and policies. 

The  link  between  the  proposed  set  of  attributes  and  the  criteria  set  by  WTO  for 
International  standardisation  organisations  was  very  much  welcomed.  Many 
respondents  noted  that  the  principles  of  openness,  consensus,  balance  and 
transparency  were  already  applied  by  the  European  standardisation  bodies  and  by 
certain fora and consortia.  

Various  respondents  underlined  the  need  to  analyse  the  criteria  thoroughly, 
especially  those  attributes  that  relate  to  the  standards  themselves  with  a  view  to 
allowing  them  to  be  used  for  evaluating  a  specific  standardisation  deliverable  in  a 
given  context.  In  particular,  they  felt  that  the  attributes  covering  IPR  policy 
technology  neutrality  and  quality  needed  careful 
requirements, 
consideration  to  make  sure  they  unambiguously  related  to  any  standardisation 
deliverables. 

relevance, 

Some  respondents  called  for  further  clarification  of  the  attributes  defining  the 
standardisation  processes  that  led  to  a  specific  deliverable  such  as  openness, 
consensus, and balance. 

Attention  was  also  drawn  to  the  fact  that  organisations  such  as  IETF,  OASIS  and 
W3C are widely perceived as being as open and transparent in their processes as the 
formal  standardisation  bodies  while  however,  reaching  compliance  with  the 
attributes  by  other  means  than  those  applied  within  formal  standardisation.  For 
example,  participation  in  their  activities  is  usually  open  to  any  organisation  or 
individual on the basis of direct membership. 

Several respondents furthermore stressed the need for adequate processes to ensure 
that consumer and SME expectations were met using the attributes list, while others 
suggested  adding  “coherence”  either  to  the  list  of  attributes  or  as  a  general 
consideration in any revised legislation to avoid any risk of duplicating, conflicting 
and competing standards. 

Nearly all respondents furthermore pointed to a need to define and implement clear 
assessment processes, including responsibilities and decision-making procedures, to 
evaluate  compliance  of  standards  with  the  attributes  list.  In  that  regard  several 
relevant  evaluation  processes  were  cited  such  as  the  ARO  process  applied  within 
ISO/IEC JTC1 and the CAMSS process developed in the context of the EIF.  

9.1.5.5.  The use of ICT standards in public procurement  

Two specific questions were raised in the White Paper in this area: 

Do you agree that the public procurement provisions of Council Decision 87/95/EEC 
should  be  updated  so  that  public  authorities  can  more  easily  acquire  ICT  services, 
applications  and products  that  fulfil  their specific requirements  and  in  particular  an 
adequate level of interoperability? 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
Number of 
Responses 

% of total 
respondents 

% of 
Positive/Negative 
responses 

Positive 

Negative 

No answer/don’t know 

Total 

115 

4 

11 

130 

77% 

3% 

2% 

81% 

96% 

4% 

- 

100% 

Do you agree with the need to clarify that when they are defined within the context 
of ICT strategies, architectures and interoperability frameworks, the implementation 
of  standardised  interfaces  can  be  made  a  requirement  in  public  procurement 
procedures,  provided  the  principles  of  openness,  fairness,  objectivity  and  non-
discrimination and the public procurement directives are applied? 

Number of 
Responses 

% of total 
respondents 

% of 
Positive/Negative 
responses 

Positive 

Negative 

No answer/don’t know 

Total 

112 

7 

11 

130 

74% 

5% 

2% 

81% 

93% 

7% 

- 

100% 

Many  respondents  underlined  the  potential  impact  of  public  procurement  with 
respect  to  fast  market  take  up  of  innovative  solutions.  They  also  recognised  the 
potential support to the further deployment of standards via public procurement.  

Respondents  largely  highlighted  the  dramatic  evolution  that  has  taken  place  in  the 
ICT  environment  over  the  last  decade,  the  subsequent  growth  in  the  need  for 
electronic  data  exchange  between  public  administrations  and  between  those 
administrations  and  business  and  citizens.  In  domains  such  as  eGovernement, 
eLearning,  eAccessibility  and  eHealth,  interoperability  was  seen  as  a  key  issue  in 
reaching policy objectives. 

Respondents therefore largely agreed with the suggestion that the public procurement 
provisions  of  Council  Decision  87/95/EEC  should  be  updated  so  that  public 
authorities can more easily acquire ICT services, applications and products that fulfil 
their specific requirements and in particular an adequate level of interoperability. 

Most  respondents  furthermore  agreed  that  the  requirements  within  given  ICT 
architectures and strategies are such that public authorities may in specific cases need 
to impose specific interfaces in order to meet their interoperability objectives.  

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
 
 
Many  comments  however  stressed  the  need  to  respect  the  principles  of  openness, 
fairness,  transparency  and  non-discriminations  when  referencing  standards  and 
specifications in public procurement. They therefore felt that the standards referred 
to in public procurement should also comply with the attributes set out in the White 
paper. 

Several respondents also highlighted the impact of IPR issues in public procurement, 
some of them arguing that IPR should at least be made available at fair, reasonable 
and  non-discriminating  conditions,  while  others  argued  that  royalty-free  conditions 
were needed in order to guarantee fair competition and support innovation. 

A  few  respondents  were  however  of  the  opinion  that  no  additional  flexibility  was 
required in order to allow procurement of effective ICT services. They felt that the 
necessary  levels  of  fair  competition,  openness  and  transparency  can  already  be 
realised  by  adherence  to  the  public  procurement  legislation  laid  down  by  Directive 
2004/14 and by referring only to standards issued by the recognised standardisation 
organisations CEN, CENELEC and ETSI.  

9.1.5.6.  Fostering synergy between ICT research, innovation and standardisation  

Three specific questions were raised in the White Paper in this area: 

Do  you  agree  that  standardisation  and  research  stakeholders  should  be  regularly 
consulted  to  ensure  that  relevant  European  research  initiatives  contribute  most 
effectively to ICT standardisation activities? 

Number of 
Responses 

% of total 
respondents 

% of 
Positive/Negative 
responses 

Positive 

Negative 

No answer/don’t know 

Total 

114 

6 

10 

130 

76% 

5% 

1% 

81% 

94% 

6% 

- 

100% 

Do  you  agree  that  standardisers  should  adapt  their  procedures  where  necessary  to 
ensure  that  contributions  from  research  organisations,  consortia  and  projects 
facilitate the timely production of ICT standards? 

Number of 
Responses 

% of total 
respondents 

% of 
Positive/Negative 
responses 

Positive 

Negative 

No answer/don’t know 

108 

12 

10 

76 

EN 

74% 

7% 

1% 

92% 

8% 

- 

   EN 

 
 
 
Total 

130 

81% 

100% 

Do  you  agree  that  Member  States  should  similarly  consider  regular  consultation  of 
standardisation  and  research  stakeholders  to  ensure  that  relevant  national  research 
initiatives contribute most effectively to ICT standardisation activities? 

Number of 
Responses 

% of total 
respondents 

% of 
Positive/Negative 
responses 

Positive 

Negative 

No answer/don’t know 

Total 

114 

6 

10 

107 

77% 

3% 

1% 

80% 

96% 

4% 

- 

100% 

The general thrust of the suggestions put forward in the White Paper was accepted by 
respondents.  They  largely  felt  that  the  facilitation  of  knowledge  transfer  between 
R&D  and  standardisation  would  certainly  raise  awareness  of  the  potential  benefits 
standardisation can provide. 

However,  although  respondents  clearly  support  the  idea  of  establishing  regular 
dialogues  between  the  R&D  and  standardisation  communities,  the  majority 
expressed concern about the dangers of bureaucratising such relationships and were 
firmly  opposed  to  the  introduction  of  any  mandatory  links  between  R&D  projects 
and standardisation.  

Many  respondents,  mostly  representing  industry,  drew  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
transfer of  technology into standardisation is always a business decision.  Moreover 
many  R&D  results  do  not  automatically  call  for  further  standardisation  efforts. 
Respondents  feared  that  an  institutional  link  between  standardisation  and  R&D 
would  lead  to  the  publication  of  many  standards  with  no  direct  business  relevance 
and little prospect of implementation. 

The  majority  of  respondents  therefore  support  dialogue  between  ETPs  and 
standardisation at the planning phase of R&D initiatives and an increased exchange 
of information between both communities.  

On  that  basis  most  respondents  saw  no  need  for  additional  measures  to  improve 
standardisation  processes  or  the  procedures  of  standards  developing  organisations. 
For formal organisations and fora and consortia alike, the R&D community already 
has sufficient opportunities to liaise with and participate in standardisation activities. 

With a few exceptions, most of the Member States do not appear to have major R&D 
initiatives that would be of interest with regard to ICT standardisation. Respondents 
in  general  were  also  of  the  opinion  that  the  dialogue  between  the  Research 
community and standardisation at national level should be established in an informal 
and non-bureaucratic manner.  

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
 
9.1.5.7.  Intellectual property rights in standardisation  

One specific question was raised in the White Paper in this area: do you agree that 
ICT  standards  developing  organisations  should,  subject  to  competition  law  and 
respecting  the  owner’s  IPR:  1)  implement  clear,  transparent  and  balanced  IPR 
policies  which  do  not  discriminate  among  different  business  models,  2)  ensure  the 
effectiveness of procedures for IPR disclosures, and 3) consider a declaration of the 
most  restrictive  licensing  terms,  possibly  including  the  (maximum)  royalty  rates 
before  adoption  of  a  standard  as  a  potential  route  to  providing  more  predictability 
and transparency? 

Number of 
Responses 

% of 
responses 

% of 
Positive/Negative 
responses 

Positive 

Negative 

No answer/Unclear  

Total 

104 

16 

10 

130 

69% 

10% 

2% 

81% 

88% 

12% 

- 

100% 

The IPR related suggestions triggered a large number of comments and contributions 
to the ongoing policy discussion on how to deal with IPR in ICT standardisation. All 
respondents  except  one  provided  contributions  on  this  topic.  In  fact  a  number  of 
respondents only reacted to the IPR related  proposals and to no other aspect of the 
White Paper.  

The  majority  of  respondents  agreed  with  the  problem  analysis  in  the  White  Paper. 
IPR is perceived as one of the most critical issues in ICT standardisation, especially 
when  looked  at  in  relation  to  the  suggestions  made  concerning  public  procurement 
and further cooperation with fora and consortia. 

Respondents  for  the  most  part  agreed  that  ICT  standard-developing  organisations 
should 
interests  (IPR  owners,  standard 
implementers and end users) and implement clear and balanced IPR policies which 
do not discriminate and allow competition among different business models.  

take  account  of  all  stakeholders’ 

Most respondents seem happy with the FRAND approach to IPR licensing, although 
several  felt  that  it  could  be  improved  to  provide  more  clarity,  transparency  and 
predictability. Some respondents were of the opinion that FRAND with no royalty-
free  option  was  the  only  way  to  deal  with  IPR  in  standardisation,  arguing  that  this 
would ensure the return on investment required to finance further research activities. 
The  majority  of  respondents  supporting  FRAND  policies,  however,  supported  the 
inclusion  of  royalty-free  approaches,  noting  the  development  of  other  business 
models providing income to support further R&D. Several respondents felt that IPR 
should always be made available on a royalty-free basis for standards associated with 
legal frameworks and/or public policies.  

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
 
Many  respondents  drew  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  fast  evolution  of  ICT 
technologies and the subsequent increase in the number of patents in the ICT domain 
have dramatically increased the complexity of monitoring the implementation of IPR 
policies. Moreover, the time spent negotiation on licensing arrangements was said by 
many to be out of step with the speed of evolution or innovation.  

Although many felt that there might be scope for improving FRAND, the possibility 
of  requiring  a  declaration  of  the  most  restrictive  licensing  terms,  including 
(maximum) royalty rates before adoption of a standard, was not generally accepted 
as a route to providing more predictability and transparency.  

While the users of technologies broadly supported the proposal, technology providers 
generally have no wish to see such an approach become mandatory, arguing that it 
would prolong standardisation discussions and probably increase the royalties. Some 
technology providers and industry associations however, could consider the inclusion 
of ex-ante declarations of royalty rates on a voluntary basis. 

Most standard-developing organisations also opposed the proposal. They were of the 
opinion  that  “commercial”  discussions  should  not  take  place  in  standardisation 
organisations.  A  few  though,  could  accept  a  voluntary  approach  within  their  IPR 
policies and very few already envisaged such a possibility.  

Some respondents also drew attention to the copyright issue, noting that that the free 
availability of standards would increase accessibility and consequently the likelihood 
of implementation, especially in SMEs.  

9.1.5.8.  Integration of fora and consortia in the ICT standardisation process 

Two specific questions were raised in the White Paper in this area: 

1.  Do  you  agree  with  enabling  the  referencing  of  specific  fora  and  consortia 
standards  in  relevant  EU  legislation  and  policies  subject  to  a  positive 
evaluation of the standard and the forum or consortium processes with regard 
to the attributes list as described in chapter 2.1 of the White Paper? 

Number of 
Responses 

% of responses  % of 

Positive/Negative 
responses 

Positive 

Negative 

No answer/don’t know 

Total 

104 

16 

10 

130 

69% 

11% 

2% 

81% 

87% 

13% 

- 

100% 

2.  Do  you  agree  that  better  cooperation  should  be  promoted  between  fora  and 
consortia  and  ESOs  on  the  basis  of  a  process  which  would  lead  to  standards 
issued by the ESOs? 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
 
Number of 
Responses 

% of 
responses 

% of 
Positive/Negative 
responses 

Positive 

Negative 

No answer/don’t know 

Total 

110 

10 

10 

130 

73% 

8% 

1% 

81% 

91% 

9% 

- 

100% 

The majority of respondents felt that the dynamics of the ICT sector and the growing 
need  for  interoperability  solutions  required  fast  and  effective  implementation  of 
standards.  They  felt  this  was  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  in  new  and  innovative 
domains, like the internet, several non-ESO standard-developing organisations such 
as IETF, OASIS and W3C have gained wide market acceptance and are recognised 
as leaders in their specific domains.  

The  majority  of  respondents  therefore  agreed  with  the  proposal  to  enable  direct 
referencing  of  specific  fora  and  consortia  standards  in  relevant  EU  legislation  and 
policies to help achieve interoperability objectives, subject to a positive evaluation of 
the  standard  and  the  related  forum  or  consortium  processes  with  regard  to  the 
attributes list. Respondents were of the opinion that this would permit a balance to be 
achieved between public interest expectations and market requirements.  

Many respondents provided additional comments to highlight that the referencing of 
fora  and  consortia  standards  in  European  policies  and  legislation  to  ensure 
interoperability  should  focus  primarily  on  existing  specifications  in  technical 
domains that are not covered by the ESOs and for which the technical responsibility 
clearly belongs to the specific forum or consortium. In that context, the stakeholder 
platform and the Member States would have a key role in monitoring the coherence 
of  ICT  standards  and  in  ensuring  that  they  responded  to  identified  public  interest 
expectations,  being  compliant  with  the  attributes  as  well  as  providing  business 
relevance.  

16 respondents, including 9 national standardisation bodies and CEN/CLC, opposed 
the  possibility  of  directly  referencing  any  fora  or  consortia  specifications  in 
legislation  or  policies.  These  organisations  believe  that  the  ESOs  should  keep  a 
monopoly on standards for referencing in EU legislation and policy referring to the 
success  of  the  “New  Approach”  internal  market/product  safety  legislation.  A 
majority of respondents, however, supported the proposals made by the White Paper 
in relation to the revision of the Council Decision 87/95 fostering the implementation 
of standards to achieve interoperability. 

Moreover  several  national  standards  bodies  highlighted  the  range  of  existing 
processes  which  allow  the  transposition  of  fora  and  consortia  specifications  into 
European  standards  which,  they  say,  makes  the  proposal  for  direct  referencing 
superfluous.  However,  the  implicit  assumption  that  fora  and  consortia  would  be 
willing to transfer their specifications to ESOs was rejected by several respondents.  

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
 
In opposition to the national standards organisations, most of the national authorities 
responding  to  the  White  Paper  consultation  generally  welcome  these  proposals 
subject  to  clear  and  transparent  procedures  for  evaluating  fora  and  consortia 
specifications.  Several  would  also  like  to  see  SMEs  and  consumer  organisations 
being  helped  to  participate  in  the  activities  of  international  standards  developing 
organisations.  

Some respondents were of the opinion that fora and consortia fully complying with 
the  attributes  should  be  recognised  as  ESOs  and  included  as  such  in  the  annex  of 
Directive 98/34/EC. Other respondents feared that the strong industry focus in some 
fora and consortia may not afford sufficient access to societal representation and ran 
the risk of producing specifications which were not technology neutral. 

A  great  many  comments  stressed  the  need  for  differentiation  between  fora  and 
consortia  highlighting  the  gulf  between  on  the  one  hand,  well-established 
organisations  which  have  implemented  advanced  open,  transparent  and  effective 
processes  and  which  have  a  broad  membership  and  on  the  other  hand,  the  “closed 
groups” which are not open to the participation of all stakeholders and often have a 
limited scope and set of objectives.  

A  large  majority  of  respondents  agreed  with  the  proposal  to  promote  better 
cooperation  between  fora  and  consortia  and  ESOs  on  the  basis  of  a  process  which 
would lead to standards being issued by the ESOs. Some added however, that such a 
cooperation process should be subject to case by case arrangements clearly defining 
all  aspects  of  the  cooperation  and  the  related  responsibilities  e.g.  for  maintenance, 
participation,  visibility,  publication  and  copyright.  Moreover,  since  the  cooperating 
organisations  do  not  necessarily  have  identical  IPR  policies,  an  agreement  on  IPR 
issues prior to the start of the cooperation was critical.  

Several  respondents,  mainly 
industry  and  non-formal  standards  developing 
organisations,  were  opposed  to  such  a  2  steps  process.  Not  only  is  the  process 
lengthy,  but  many  fora  and  consortia  see  no  added  value  since  it  focuses  on 
procedural  aspects  and  does  not  lead  to  a  wider  implementation  of  their 
specifications, which in most cases are already implemented at global level. 

In  that  regard  several  respondents  noted  the  risk  that  successive  processes  could 
change  the  content  of  a  specification  which  would  be  confusing;  if  change  was 
excluded,  it  would  at  best  be  a  duplication  or  rubber  stamping  which  should  be 
avoided.  They  also  felt  there  was  a  danger  of  European  isolation  from  global 
standardisation as other regions implemented the specifications immediately and do 
not transpose them into national standards.  

9.1.5.9.  Enhancing dialogue and partnership with stakeholders  

Two specific questions were raised in the White Paper in this area: 

Do  you  agree  with  the  establishment  of  a  permanent,  multi-stakeholder,  ICT 
standardisation  policy  platform  (with  a  wider  membership  than  the  Member  State 
SOGITS Committee previously established by Council Decision 87/95) to advise the 
Commission on all matters related to the European ICT standardisation policy and its 
effective implementation? 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
Number of 
Responses 

% of 
responses 

% of 
Positive/Negative 
responses 

Positive 

Negative 

No answer/don’t know 

Total 

113 

7 

10 

130 

75% 

5% 

1% 

81% 

93% 

7% 

- 

100% 

Do you agree that the ESOs and other ICT standard developing organisations should 
be invited to review the function and composition  of the current  ICTSB to make it 
more efficient? 

Number of 
Responses 

% of 
responses 

% of 
Positive/Negative 
responses 

Positive 

Negative 

No answer/don’t know 

Total 

113 

4 

13 

130 

76% 

2% 

3% 

81% 

97% 

3% 

- 

100% 

The  overwhelming  majority  of  respondents  agreed  with  the  proposal  to  extend  the 
current  Member  States  committee  SOGITS,  set  up  by  Council  Decision  87/95,  to 
allow the participation of all ICT standardisation stakeholders and transform it into a 
permanent multi-stakeholder ICT standardisation platform. A few respondents were 
of the opinion that such a platform should be set up and monitored by the ESOs. 

In their comments and contributions, respondents underlined that the platform should 
enhance  the  dialogue  on  ICT  standardisation  policy  between  all  stakeholders 
involved  but  the  composition  of  the  platform  was  critical,  and  should  be  balanced, 
including SME and consumer representatives.  

Respondents  agreed  with  the  scope  and  tasks  set  out  in  the  White  Paper  and  noted 
that  the  Member  States  must  be  able  to execute their responsibilities in accordance 
with the rules and procedures of the Institutions. Comments underlined the need for 
the platform to focus on the implementation of ICT standards for Europe ensuring an 
adequate 
industry 
expectations with public interest needs. 

interoperability  and  coherence,  while  balancing 

level  of 

With  respect  to  the  “ICTSB”  successor,  the  majority  of  respondents  supported  the 
proposal made by the White Paper. They felt that the ICTSB should be composed of 
relevant standards developing organisations and could be hosted by the ESOs. They 

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
 
 
also noted that the ICTSB should complement the platform by coordinating standard 
setting to support policy orientations set by the platform. 

9.1.6.  Consultation  of  Member  State  Authorities,  European  Standards  Organisations, 

National Standards Bodies and Fora and Consortia  

During  January-February  2010,  Member  State  Authorities  (MSA),  European 
Standards  Organisations  (ESOs),  National  Standards  Bodies  (NSBs)  and  Fora  and 
Consortia (F&C) were consulted with the assistance of the Technopolis Group. 

Each  of  the  main  groups  of  stakeholder  consulted  is  listed  in  the  table  below,  with 
the  number  of  organisations,  representatives  or  countries  (depending  on  the 
stakeholder group) targeted in each and details of the coverage of responses received. 
The  total  response  coverage  was  96%,  meaning  that  only  5  of  the  129  target 
organisations,  representatives  and  countries  failed  to  provide  a  response  within  the 
time available. Full coverage was also achieved in 6 of the 9 stakeholder groups. 

Stakeholder Group 

Targets Coverage 

Coverage 
(%) 

European Standardisation 
Organisations (ESO) 

Organisations  3 

3 

100% 

National Standards Bodies 
(NSB) 

Representativ
es 

67 

66 

99% 

Member State Authorities 
(MSA) 

Countries 

33 

30 

91% 

Fora and consortia (F&C) 

Organisations  6 

6 

100% 

Stakeholder Organisations 
(SH) 

International Standards 
Organisations (ISO/IEC) 

Organisations  13 

12 

92% 

Organisations  2 

2 

100% 

Total 

124 

119 

96% 

Only  the  questions  and  replies  that  directly  or  indirectly  concern  the  problems 
outlined in this impact assessment are set out below. 

9.1.6.1.  Objective 1 - Service standards and alternative standardisation deliverables 

Question  1.1:  Make  an  obligation  to  each  National  Standards  Organisation  to 
notify all national service standards. 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
 
 
The  Commission  wanted  to  understand  the  numbers  of  national  service  standards 
developed in the last five years, the proportion of these that had been notified to the 
Commission  on  a  voluntary  basis,  and  the  costs  and  implications  of  a  new 
requirement for all national service standards to be notified in future. 

Replies by the NSBs: 

•  The  average  number  of  service  standards  developed  by  each  NSB  over  the  last 

five years is around 15, an average of three per NSB per year.  

•  89% of the NSBs that responded currently notify all of their new work items on 

service standards to the Commission, via CEN/CLC. 

•  One responding NSB produces a large number of service standards each year but 
does  not  currently  notify  these.  Among  the  other  NSBs  that  responded  the 
proportion  of  service  standards  notified  on  a  voluntary  basis  over  the  past  five 
years was 96%. 

•  The  majority  of  NSBs  expect  there  to  be  either  no  (58%)  or  negligible  (25%) 
additional costs were they to be required to notify all service standards in future. 

•  The costs associated with a move to oblige all NSBs to notify all national service 
standards do not appear to be significant for ‘Member State’ NSBs but may be for 
those  who  do  not  currently  notify  (mainly  accession  and  EFTA  countries). 
However, based on the available data it is not possible to provide a firm estimate 
of  those  costs.  The  expected  procedure  and  basis  for  calculation  of  costs  would 
have  to  be  more  clearly  defined  before  an  accurate  cost  estimate  could  be 
provided. 

•  There  do  not  appear  to  be  any  significant  practical  barriers  or  negative 
implications  to  adoption  of  this  provision  for  the  vast  majority  of  NSBs.  None 
argued against this provision. 

•  The situation  with  regard to service standard development within  ETSI  NSOs is 
unclear and would need to be investigated further if the provision is expected to 
extend into the telecommunications sector. 

Replies by the ESOs: 

•  CEN/CLC do not expect there to be any significant costs or negative implications 
of  the  provision,  although  some  adjustment  to  IT  systems  and  reporting 
procedures would be necessary. 

•  ETSI indicated that there would be a significant additional cost and workload but 
that these were difficult to identify accurately as ETSI is currently unaware of the 
level  of  national  service  standardisation  in  the  ICT  (telecommunications)  sector 
and the nature and level of reporting expected by the EC. 

Replies by the MSAs: 

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
•  The majority of MSAs do not expect there to be any significant costs or practical 

implications associated with the adoption of this provision. 

•  A small number do envisage (relatively minor) additional costs that may need to 
be  provided  by  them  to  their  NSBs  in  order  to  support  the  new  notification 
requirements. 

•  Additional  detailed  comments  were  provided  by  a  small  number  of  MSAs  in 

relation to the possible legal arrangements at European and national levels. 

Question  1.2:  Open  the  possibility  for  the  Commission  to  impose  standstill  on 
national  service  standards  development  process  and  to  request  European 
Standards Bodies to develop European service standards. 

The Commission wanted to understand the additional workload for the Commission 
to  review  the  notifications,  impose  standstill  procedures  where  necessary  and  issue 
an  additional  10  mandates  per  annum.  It  also  wished  to  understand  the  additional 
workload  for  the  ESOs  and  NSBs  in  evaluating  and  responding  to  those  mandates, 
along with any practical implications of the provision. 

Replies by the ESOs: 

•  ETSI  foresees  additional  workload  of  ~140  person  days  per  annum  (costs  of 
~€85,000)  and  CEN/CLC  foresee  additional  workload  of  ~200  person  days  per 
annum (costs of ~€100,000). 

•  These costs could increase if there is a need for coordination among the ESOs or 
more widely (with other bodies) or if the mandates relate to particularly large or 
complex standardisation projects. 

•  The  stated  costs  do  not  include  work  following  acceptance  of  the  mandate  (e.g. 

contracting, detailed planning, execution of the work). 

•  The  costs  in  dealing  with  the  mandates  would  be  higher  if  EC  financing  is 
provided  for  the  standardisation  work,  due  to  the  considerable  administrative 
burden associated with the financial and administrative arrangements. If there is a 
need to establish new technical bodies to respond to the mandates this may also 
impose additional costs at ESO-level. 

Replies by the NSBs: 

•  Most  NSBs  could  not  provide  an  estimate  of  costs  as  the  work  involved  in 

responding to each mandate is very different in nature and complexity. 

•  Where  NSBs  could  provide  cost  estimates,  the  average  workload  foreseen  is  an 
additional  95  person  days  (i.e.  9.5  per  mandate)  at  an  additional  cost  of  €30k. 
There  was,  however,  a  broad  range  of  estimates  from  a  low  of  40  days  (4  per 
mandate) to a high of 160 days (16 per mandate). 

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
•  Several  NSBs  suggested  that  adoption  of  this  provision  would  not  present  any 

problems, and no significant practical implications were noted. 

Replies by the MSAs: 

•  The  majority  of  MSAs  stated  that  there  would  be  no  significant  practical 

implications or costs to the MSAs associated with this provision. 

•  Some additional costs could be incurred by MSAs and NSBs if a greater body of 
European  standardisation  work  is  foreseen  (costs  associated  with  discussion  / 
coordination between Member States). 

•  Some  MSAs  pointed  out  that  national  standards  development  work  might 
sometimes  be  useful  as  a  precursor  to  European  standardisation.  Stopping  it  too 
early (through standstill) could have a negative impact in some cases. 

•  Other  comments  urged  caution  in  slowing  down  or  interrupting  standardisation 
activities  at  national  level,  so  EU  level  activity  should  be  initiated  quickly 
following any standstill procedure. 

•  The  ESS  already  has  good  processes  for  identifying  the  appropriate  level  for 
standardisation activity (national, EU, International) and so further intervention by 
the Commission should be managed carefully and efficiently. 

Question  1.3:  Make  an  obligation  to  each  National  Standards  Organisation  to 
notify all national standards and other normative documents. 

The  Commission  wanted  to  understand  the  costs  and  implications  of  extending 
notification procedures to all standardisation deliverables produced at national level. 

Replies by the NSBs: 

•  The average number of new work items on national standardisation products (all 
types) developed by each NSB over the last five years is around 280, an average 
of 56 per NSB per year. There was a very significant range in the level of activity, 
with some NSBs developing no new work items and others producing in excess of 
330 per year. 

•  The  likely  number  of  notifications  that  would  have  to  be  reviewed  by  the 
Commission is >2,000 per annum across all of the NSBs. However, roughly 80% 
of  the  new  work  items  developed  by  the  NSBs  are  already  being  notified  on  a 
voluntary  basis,  so  the  additional  number  of  work  items  notified  may  be  in  the 
order of 4-500 per annum. 

•  Roughly half of the NSBs notify all new work items as part of current practice so 
there  are  no  significant  practical  implications  or  costs  for  these  NSBs,  although 
not all agree that this would be a positive development. 

•  For those NSBs not currently notifying all new work items, the average additional 
administrative workload per annum was estimated to be ~70 person days at a cost 

EN 

86 

   EN 

 
of  just  over  €33k.  However  the  very  broa d  range  of  estimates  provided  suggest 
that  the  basis  for  calculating  these  costs  may  have  been  different  in  different 
NSBs and a more detailed or specific exercise to arrive at a cost estimate may be 
warranted. 

•  NSBs  that  provided  data  indicated  that  the  average  additional  workload  per 
annum associated with making all draft standardisation documents available to the 
Commission  would  be  in  the  order  of  60  person  days  per  NSB  per  annum,  at  a 
cost of ~€36k. Again, it appears that thes e cost estimates may be unreliable due to 
uncertainties as to the expected procedures involved (e.g. physical documents vs. 
electronic, translated vs. not translated, made available at enquiry stage vs. other 
points in the process, etc.). 

•  A  small  number  of  NSBs  noted  that  there  may  be  confidentiality  /  IPR  issues 
associated with transfer of ‘private’ documents developed by industry consortia. 

•  Some NSBs believe that extension of notification procedures and introduction of 
the  possibility  of  standstill  for  industry  specifications  (PAS)  would  have  a 
negative impact on the willingness of industry groups to develop these ‘informal’ 
documents  within  the  NSB  ‘system’,  affecting  adversely  the  NSBs’  competitive 
position  and  causing  industry  to  carry  out  a  greater  level  of  standardisation 
activity out of sight of the NSBs. 

Replies  by  the  ESOs:  Both  CEN/CLC  and  ETSI  indicated  that  it  was  difficult  to 
calculate a reliable estimate of the additional costs of this provision (workload and €) 
at  this  stage.  However,  ETSI  estimated  that  the  provision  would  require  at  least  an 
additional 65-70 person days in year one and additional costs of ~€42,000, but that 
these costs may be lower in subsequent years once processes and IT tools have been 
set-up. CEN/CLC noted that IT developments and additional reporting workload are 
foreseen 

Replies by the Stakeholder Organisations: 

•  The  provision  provoked  a  mixed  response  from  stakeholders,  with  some 
suggesting that notification of all work items may help to improve transparency, 
reduce  duplication  of  effort  and  enable  a  greater  proportion  of  standardisation 
work to be harmonised at European or international levels. This could serve both 
to minimise new barriers to trade, support the internal market, reduce duplication 
of effort and improve the coherence between national, European and International 
standardisation. 

•  Others,  however,  argued  that  the  requirement  for  notification  and  the  attendant 
threat  of  standstill  might  drive  participants  to  develop  their  informal  standards 
outside  of  the  NSB  system,  reducing  transparency  and  reducing  the  extent  to 
which  these  documents  can  be  developed  through  a  broader  and  stronger 
consensual  process.  This  may  reduce  the  number  of  actors  involved  in  formal 
standardisation  activities  and  may  limit  the  extent  to  which  informal  standards 
developed first at national level could eventually be transferred to European level. 

EN 

87 

   EN 

 
•  Any  implementation  of  this  provision  should,  in  the  view  of  stakeholders,  be 
introduced  carefully  and  gradually,  and  standstill  only  imposed  in  cases  where 
there are clear and obvious benefits to acting at a European level. 

•  Existing  processes  are  already  in  place  to  decide  the  level  at  which  it  is  most 
appropriate  for  a  given  document  to  be  developed.  Not  all  national  work  has 
European level significance or sufficient demand from other countries, and there 
is a danger that if European work is initiated too soon it may fail while at the same 
time the Commission will have prevented national level activity from proceeding. 
This would obviously serve to curtail rather than enhance standardisation activity. 

•  Other possible negative implications identified by stakeholders include a slowing 
formal 
down  of  standards  development  work, 
standardisation 
local  needs,  fostering  negative  sentiments 
to  respond 
concerning  the  (increased)  level  of  EU-level  political  control  over  national 
innovation  by  requiring  greater 
standardisation  activity,  and  hampering 
justification for new, industry-led initiatives. 

flexibility  of 

reduced 

to 

Replies by the MSAs: 

•  Most MSAs stated that there would be no costs or practical implications to their 

own activities as a result of this provision. 

•  Some  MSAs  expressed  support  for  the  provision,  on  the  grounds  that  full 
notification  would  enable  all  documents  to  be  covered  by  the  same  legal 
framework. 

•  Other  MSAs  argued  against  the  provision,  suggesting  that  it  may  reduce  the 
number of cases where stakeholders use NSBs to support the development of their 
own ‘informal’ standards, reducing the level of oversight that NSBs can provide 
into new developments at national level. 

•  It  was  also  noted  that  notification  may  not  be  necessary  in  all  cases  (e.g.  not 
necessary  for  best  practice  guides  that  do  not  impose  any  requirements  but  are 
merely a support tool). 

Question 1.4: Open the possibility for the Commission to impose standstill on all 
national  standards  and  normative  document  development  process  and  to 
request  European  Standards  Bodies  to  develop  European  standards  or 
normative documents. 

The Commission wanted to understand the additional workload for the Commission 
to  review  the  notifications,  impose  standstill  procedures  where  necessary  and  issue 
an  additional  10  mandates  per  annum.  It  also  wished  to  understand  the  additional 
workload  for  the  ESOs  and  NSBs  in  evaluating  and  responding  to  those  mandates, 
along with any practical implications of the provision. 

Because  the  questions  surrounding  this  provision  mainly  related  to  the  additional 
administrative  costs  and  workload  involved  in  developing  (EC)  and  responding  to 

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
(ESOs,  NSBs)  an  additional  10  mandates  per  annum,  the  relevant  answers  have 
already been provided in relation to Provision 2 above. These were as follows: 

•  ETSI  foresees  additional  workload  of  ~140  person  days  per  annum  (costs  of 
~€85,000)  and  CEN/CLC  foresee  additional  workload  of  ~200  person  days  per 
annum (costs of ~€100,000) although these co sts could increase if there is a need 
for  coordination  among  the  ESOs  or  more  widely  (with  other  bodies),  if  the 
mandates  relate  to  particularly  large  or  complex  standardisation  projects,  if  the 
mandate  requires  the  setting  up  of  new  TCs/TBs  or  if  Commission  financing 
accompanies  the  mandates.  The  stated  costs  do  not  include  work  following 
acceptance  of  the  mandate  (e.g.  contracting,  detailed  planning,  execution  of  the 
work). 

•  Most  NSBs  could  not  provide  an  estimate  of  costs  as  the  work  involved  in 
responding to each mandate is very different in nature and complexity, but where 
estimates could be provided an additional workload of around 95 person days (i.e. 
9.5 per mandate) at an additional cost of €30k per NSB was envisaged. 

•  Most MSAs do not foresee any significant additional costs but some noted that the 
workload  within  their  NSB  would  increase  (and  would  have  to  be  paid  for 
somehow) and that increased notification would require greater levels of dialogue, 
information exchange and opinion sharing between Member States. 

NSBs and MSAs provided additional comments as follows: 

•  NSBs  reiterated  concerns  that  the  threat  of  possible  standstill  proceedings  being 
imposed on ‘informal’ standardisation work might drive industry / stakeholders to 
develop  these  outside  the  formal  standardisation  system,  leading  to  further 
fragmentation  of  the  market  and  disconnecting  NSBs  from  informal  national 
standardisation activity. 

•  NSBs  have  extended  their  portfolios  to  embrace  informal,  low-consensus 
normative  documents  in  order  to  remain  connected  to  this  activity  and  improve 
the basis on which such documents are produced. It is not always appropriate for 
these  documents  to  be  turned  into  national  or  European  standards,  although  this 
may  be  a  natural  consequence  to  their  successful  development  and  use  on  an 
informal basis (first). 

•  The provision would be inequitable as it would impose requirements on NSBs in 
relation  to  informal  documents  that  are not  imposed  on  other  fora  and  consortia 
(SDOs), thereby placing NSBs at a competitive disadvantage. 

•  The  provision  may  slow  the  development  of  informal  standards  and  technical 
specifications, acting a s brake on innovation, and may cause the EC to interfere 
in the production of tools that serve a purely national need.rr 

9.1.6.2.  Objective 2 – Improving access to harmonised standards 

Question 2.1: National Standards Bodies to provide free access to Harmonised 
Standards supporting New Approach directives. 

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
The Commission wished to understand the financial implications of this provision for 
the  operating  budgets  of  the  NSBs  by  understanding  the  scale  of  ‘lost’  income  if 
European harmonised standards could no longer be sold. It also wished to understand 
the implications from the perspective of ISO/IEC were European standards based on 
ISO/IEC documents to be made available for free. 

Replies by the NSBs: 

•  In the vast majority of cases the NSBs were not able to provide figures for the sale 
of European harmonised standards, and only just over half provided figures on the 
revenues generated from the sale of all products containing standards. Figures for 
sale of standards could not be provided in most cases because NSBs’ information 
systems do not provide disaggregated data at this level. 

•  For those that could provide data on the sale of all standards documents, annual 
revenues average €3.8 million per NSB, broa dly in line with the figures provided 
by the Commission. 

•  Grossed  up  annual  sales  figures  for  all  products  containing  standards  for  all  40 

NSBs totalled just over €150 million per annum. 

•  The  annual  ‘losses’  that  would  be  incurred  by  NSBs  if  harmonised  standards 
would  no  longer  be  sold  (i.e.  would  be  made  available  for  free)  cannot  be 
calculated  accurately,  and  only  a  minority  of  NSBs  could  provide  any  kind  of 
estimate. However, based on the limited data available we can estimate that NSBs 
would  lose  revenues  of  between  10%  and  20%  of  their  total  operating  budgets, 
equivalent to €50 - €100 million per annum in total across all 40 NSBs. However, 
even  this  very  broad  estimate  is  subject  to  a  high  degree  of  uncertainty  and  the 
proportion  of  overall  revenues  lost  may  be  below  10%  in  some  cases  and 
significantly more than 20% in others. 

•  NSBs pointed out that the ‘costs’ of this provision would go far beyond a loss of 

income from the sale of European HS: 

– 

– 

– 

It  would  disrupt  the  existing  business  model,  requiring  significant 
changes  to  business  processes  and  operating  procedures,  based  on  the 
need  to  apply  different  funding  models  for  different  parts  of  the 
operations; 

The  change  may  create  confusion  on  the  part  of  industry  as  to  why 
some  standards  are  free  while  others  are  not  and  may  impact  on  the 
ability  of  NSBs  to  continue  to  charge  the  same  amounts  for  non-
harmonised standards; 

Neither the Commission nor the MSAs would be in a position in most 
cases to compensate the NSBs for these losses. 

•  NSBs also stated that the provision would stand in contravention to the copyright 
rules of ISO and IEC and would not be permissible under the terms of the Vienna 
and Dresden agreements. Attempts on the part of NSBs to provide free access to 

EN 

90 

   EN 

 
European  harmonised  standards  based  on  ISO/IEC  standards  would  result  in 
copyright infringements, may result in legal action, and may lead ISO/IEC to no 
longer  make  their  standards  available  for  adoption  as  European  standards.  This 
could  lead  to  significant  disconnection  between  European  and  International 
standardisation, with negative consequences at both levels. 

•  NSBs also stated that there is insufficient evidence to show that the purchase price 
of standards is a significant barrier to take up and use of standards by SMEs, and 
it is appropriate that tools that cost money to produce and add value to business 
operations  should  be  charged  for.  Moreover,  other  barriers  to  take-up  (such  as 
lack of information on standards, low awareness of the benefits that they provide, 
the  costs  of  meeting  the  requirements  imposed  by  the  standards,  and  so  on)  are 
shown  to  be  more  significant  barriers  for  SMEs.  Initiatives  are  underway  to 
further address these problems. 

•  Finally,  NSBs  confirmed  that  many  steps  have  been  taken  to  improve  SMEs’ 
access to standards and to reduce the prices they have to pay. Standards represent 
good value for money and making them freely available through the use of public 
subsidies would devalue them. 

Replies by ISO/IEC: ISO/IEC stated that the provision would compromise the entire 
ISO/IEC system, have a significant negative impact on operations and jeopardise the 
agreed  established  process  by  which  the  costs  of  international  standardisation  are 
spread across stakeholders and users. In short, without this commercial sales activity 
the  system  could  not  continue  in  its  current  form  or  at  its  current  levels.  Specific 
additional points raised included: 

– 

– 

– 

ISO/IEC  central  offices  get  significant  revenues  from  the  sale  of 
standards and their operations would be jeopardised by the proposal 

Most  members  of  ISO/IEC,  on  which  the  system  depends,  rely  on  the 
sale of standards to finance their operations. Without that income they 
could not support international standardisation at the same level 

The provision would be in direct contravention of the rules of ISO/IEC 
which place the commercial exploitation of publications as fundamental 
to  the  financial  integrity  of  their  respective  systems.  ISO/IEC  also 
stated that numerous studies have confirmed that the (purchase) price of 
standards is negligible in relation to the value they add. They attract and 
reassure  customers,  demonstrate  market  leadership,  create  competitive 
advantage,  develop  and  maintain  best  practice.  It 
therefore 
appropriate  that  users  pay  a  nominal  fee  to  purchase  these  business 
tools 

is 

Replies by the MSAs: A small number of the MSAs provided comments, reaffirming 
the  points  expressed  above,  specifically  that  they  would  not  be  in  a  position  to 
compensate NSBs for the losses, that the financial model of the national, European 
and  International  standardisation  systems  would  be  jeopardised,  and  that  there  is  a 
lack of evidence that the provision would be effective. 

EN 

91 

   EN 

 
Question 2.2: Member States or the Commission to compensate losses generated 
for the budget of NSBs due to free access to Harmonised Standards. 

The Commission wished to understand whether MSAs and or the Commission itself 
would  be  in  a  position  to  compensate  NSBs  for  the  shortfalls  in  their  operating 
budgets  were  European  Harmonised  Standards  to  be  made  available  for  free.  The 
Commission  also  wished  to  understand  what  might  be  an  appropriate  basis  for 
allocating any future compensation package. 

Replies by the MSAs:  

•  The majority of the MSAs that responded indicated that they would not be willing 
and / or able to compensate NSBs for the losses. The main reasons related to: 

– 

– 

The potential scale of the compensation package necessary, depending 
on the NSB in question, was estimated at anywhere between €180k per 
annum  and  €6  million  per  annum.  MS As  already  provide  significant 
financial  support  for  standardisation  and  many  envisaged  that  the 
current level of support may need to be doubled, something that is not 
feasible in the current economic climate which is placing considerable 
pressure on public finances; 

Lack of adequate justification for the provision that would give rise to 
this  need,  namely  that  there  is  not  a  sufficient  case  for  making 
harmonised  standards  available  for  free.  It  was  also  mentioned  that  if 
the  Commission  is  correct  in  its  assumptions  and  that  making  HS 
available without charge would increase demand, then the scale of the 
compensation  package  required  would  also  increase.  However,  many 
MSAs clearly do not feel that this change is necessary or appropriate. 

•  Only  one  MSA  indicated  that  they  would  be  in  a  position  to  compensate  their 

NSB for the losses. 

•  Several  MSAs  were  not  able  to  provide  a  definitive  response,  mainly  on  the 
grounds  that  a  more  in  depth  analysis  of  the  likely  costs  and  the  political  and 
practical consequences that this change would bring would be needed. Any final 
decision would have to be a political one and the MSAs were not in a position to 
pre-judge the outcome of that political process. 

•  Some  MSAs  suggested  that,  in  principle,  free  access  to  harmonised  standards 
would be beneficial in promoting the use of HS among SMEs and may provide a 
better  implementation  of  New  Approach  Directives,  thereby  improving  the 
operation of the internal market. Free access may also promote the wider adoption 
of  European  HS  internationally,  bringing  trade  benefits  between  Europe  and  the 
rest of the world. 

•  However,  a  similar  number  of  MSAs  stated  that  free  access  would  not  lead  to 
improvements  in  implementation,  given  that  the  purchase  costs  are  often  very 
small in relation to the costs of implementation and given that the standards are 
still often not available in national languages. Some MSAs suggested that sorting 

EN 

92 

   EN 

 
out  the  (lack  of)  translation  of  standards  into  national  languages  was  a  more 
significant barrier than their purchase price, and that improved financing for this 
activity would be a more effective use of limited resources. 

•  A  small  number  of  MSAs  argued  that  free  access  to  HS  would  diminish  their 
value  and  that  users  should  recognise  and  value  the  benefits  that  the  use  of 
standards can bring. 

•  Most  MSAs  were  unable  or  unwilling  to  specify  an  appropriate  basis  for  a 
compensation  package,  either  because  they  did  not  agree  with  the  provision, 
would  be  unable  to  provide  financial  support,  or  believed  that  the  compensation 
package  should  be  drawn  up  by  and  funded  by  the  Commission.  Where 
suggestions  were  given  these  were  either  based  around  past  sales,  future 
distribution  volumes,  the  costs  of  the  HS  development  process,  or  the  costs  of 
distribution  /  dissemination.  No  clear  consensus  emerged  as  to  how  any 
compensation package should be organised. 

Replies by the ESOs: 

•  ETSI  indicated  that  the  provision  was  not  relevant  to  it  as  all  ETSI  deliverables 

are already made freely available. 

•  CEN/CLC  indicated  that  because  it  does  not  sell  standards  any  compensation 

package would have to be directed to the national members (NSBs/NCs). 

•  CEN/CLC also stated that the private or semi-private (independent) status of the 
NSBs was important and that a greater reliance on public financing could distort 
the  system  and  have  (negative)  repercussions  on  the  attitudes  and  behaviour  of 
private stakeholders. 

•  CEN/CLC  indicated  that  any  action  that  impacted  on  the  sustainability  and 
financial  robustness  of  its  members  could  have  a  negative  impact  on  the  central 
secretariat. 

•  Finally,  CEN/CLC  pointed  out  that,  given  the  problems  with  the  current  EC 
financing  system  and  the  unwillingness  of  many  NSBs  to  participate  in  co-
financed mandated work, it is perhaps unrealistic to imagine that NSBs could be 
fully compensated for the losses through an increase in this type of funding. 

Replies by the NSBs: 

•  Most  NSBs  stated  that  if  HS  were  to  be  made  freely  available  then  the  NSBs’ 
work to support their development could only be continued if the Commission or 
MSAs were in a position to provide full compensation for all the losses incurred. 

•  A  compensation  package  based  on  past  sales  would  not  be  feasible  so  should 
instead be based on 100% of the real costs of all work to support the development, 
implementation,  revision  and  dissemination  of  HS  going  forward.  This  should 
include any administrative costs associated with accessing the funding. 

EN 

93 

   EN 

 
•  Several  NSBs  do  not  believe  that  the  Commission  or  the  MSAs  would  be  in  a 

position to provide such compensation. 

•  Several  NSBs  also  stated  that  such  a  change  would  diminish  the  important 
principle that standardisation should be an industrial activity, and so indicated that 
reducing  private  contributions  and  increasing  public  ones  would  be  a  retrograde 
step.  The  current  financing  model  is  more  robust,  appropriate  and  less  open  to 
political will and influence than the one that might have to be adopted if HS were 
to be made freely available. 

•  Regardless of whether an appropriate and workable compensation package could 
be achieved, this does not address the fundamental issue of ISO/IEC agreements 
and copyright rules which would have to be overcome before HS could be made 
freely available. 

9.1.6.3.  Objective 3 – Improving stakeholder access to the standards development process 

Question 3.1: Request Member States to monitor and report on the balance of 
representation of stakeholders in NSB mirror committees. 

The  Commission  wished  to  understand  the  costs  to  itself,  to  the  NSBs  and  to  the 
MSAs of the development and implementation of a monitoring and reporting system 
designed  to  detail  the  balance  of  representation  of  up  to  10  (defined)  groups  of 
stakeholder  within  national  mirror  committees.  It  also  wished  to  understand  any 
practical  implications  of  the  establishment  of  such  a  monitoring  and  reporting 
system. 

Replies by the NSBs: 

•  Half  of  the  NSBs  provided  a  cost  estimate  for  the  set-up  and  ongoing 
implementation  of  a  new  monitoring  and  reporting  system.  Based  on  these 
estimates the average cost per NSB to set up the system would be ~€112k, with 
the  range  of  estimates  running  from  €0  to  €500k.  The  ongoing  annual 
implementation costs are estimated at €75k  per NSB per year, with the range of 
estimates running from €2k to €650k. It should be noted that because the system 
to be developed and implemented has not yet been defined in any detail the cost 
estimates are subject to a high degree of uncertainty. However, the total costs to 
the  NSBs  (i.e.  across  all  40)  can  be  estimated  at  ~€4.5  million  for  initial  set-up 
and €3 million for annual implementation. 

•  It will be imperative for a detailed specification for the monitoring and reporting 
system  to  be  defined  and  agreed  at  a  European  level  prior  to  implementation  at 
national level. Some iteration may be required so that differences in interpretation 
and in national structures can be resolved. 

•  A  significant  minority  of  NSBs  already  monitor  and  report  on  the  balance  of 
stakeholder  representation  in  their  standardisation  committees,  and  the  costs  of 
complying with the Commission’s system could be relatively low if it mirrors that 
already in place. However, many NSBs expect that this would not be the case. 

EN 

94 

   EN 

 
•  A significant number of NSBs stated that the ‘concept’ of balanced representation 
would have to be defined. This may be difficult or impossible to do intelligently, 
other  than  at  the  level  of  individual  committees  in  individual  countries,  as  an 
‘appropriate’  balance  will  depend  on  the  work  programme  of  the  committee  in 
question, factored by the relevance of the issues to the national stakeholder groups 
and also their willingness and ability to get involved. 

•  National mirror committees are already open and making all relevant actors aware 
of the work and allowing all to participate leads to the achieved ‘balance’. It is not 
appropriate  or  feasible  to  enforce  a  remotely  defined  ‘idealised’  balance  within 
national  committees.  For  this  reason  many  NSBs  fail  to  see  the  merits  in  a 
centralised (and potentially bureaucratic) reporting system as it could (or should) 
not form the basis for corrective action. 

•  Other  actions  to  improve  stakeholder  access  to  standardisation  (e.g.  supporting 
financially stakeholder groups that are known not to have as much representation 
as might be desirable) may be a more effective use of resources than a monitoring 
and reporting system. 

Replies by the MSAs: 

•  Most MSAs felt unable to provide an estimate of their costs to install and maintain 

an annual monitoring and reporting system. 

•  Ten MSAs provided an estimate of the costs, which were calculated at an average 
of  €150k  for  initial  set-up  and  an  average  of  €40k  per  annum  for  ongoing 
implementation.  However,  one  MSA  provided  very  different  estimates  to  the 
others and if this ‘outlier’ is removed the average set-up costs would be estimated 
at €55k per MSA and ongoing implementa tion costs would be €22k per MSA per 
year. 

•  MSAs confirmed that the balance of representation within national standardisation 
committees  was  an  important  issue  and  they  should  be  (and  are)  vigilant  in 
ensuring  that  this  is  achieved  as  much  as  possible.  Many  MSAs  place  formal 
requirements on their NSBs in this regard. 

•  While  the  principle  and  ambition  underlying  the  provision  is  important,  several 
MSAs  stated  that  this  issue  requires  further  consideration.  The  very  significant 
costs  to  the  MSAs,  NSBs  and  participants  in  implementing  and  maintaining  the 
reporting  system  could  be  excessive,  and  disproportionate  to  the  utility  of  the 
information provided. It is not clear how different levels of participation would be 
judged and what an ideal ‘balance’ might look like. 

•  More  suitable  ways  forward  may  be  to  limit  the  requirement  to  committees 
dealing  with  mandated  European  standards  only,  to  provide  more  effective 
support  to  under-represented  stakeholder  groups,  and  /  or  to  ensure  careful 
monitoring of complaints about the balance of participation or barriers to access to 
committees. 

EN 

95 

   EN 

 
•  MSAs  also  noted  that  the  situation  is  sometimes  different  in  smaller  countries 
where there are insufficient numbers of national experts available to represent all 
groups in all committees 

The  ESOs  did  not  identify  any  implications  /  costs  to  them  as  a  result  of  this 
provision 

Question  3.2:  NSBs  to  provide  free  access  to  national  committees  for  SMEs, 
NGOs, consumer organisations and trade unions. 

The Commission  wished to understand  the  current  scales  of  fees (tariffs) requested 
by NSBs for participation in standardisation committees for each type of committee 
and  each  type  of  participant.  It  also  requested  information  on  the  number  of 
stakeholder groups / organisations paying those fees in each of the last five years and 
the total volume of revenues generated through these charges. The Commission also 
wished to understand any other practical implications or costs of this provision. 

Replies by the NSBs: 

•  Just  over  half  of  the  NSBs  do  not  charge  any  fees  for  participation  in  national 
committees,  although  many  are  only  able  to  do  this  because  they  generate 
sufficient  revenues  form  other  sources  (e.g.  the  sale  of  standards)  to  cover  their 
costs. 

•  Among those that do charge fees there are many and various charging models in 
place, including different scales for different types of organisation, fixed uniform 
fees for all types of participant, exclusions (i.e. free access) for some groups and 
not  others,  free  access  based  on  the  payment  of  a  membership  fee,  ‘entry’  fees 
payable  only  once,  and  so  on.  There  are  too  many  different  charging  models  in 
place to summarise here. 

•  None  of  the  NSBs  appear  to  differentiate  their  charges  based  on  the  type  of 
committee accessed or on the types of standards being developed within them. 

•  Only ten (25%) of the NSBs provided data on the number of stakeholders paying 
fees,  as  most  of  the  remainder  do  not  levy  any  charges.  Just  over  1,000 
organisations pay fees each year to each of these NSB on average. The numbers 
ranged from a low of 34 per year for one NSB to a high of almost 6,000 per year 
for another. 

•  Only six NSBs could provide data on the volume of revenues generated. The total 
volume of fees generated annually across these six was €3.5 million, equivalent to 
just  over  €580k  each  per  annum.  The  volume  of  revenues  generated  annually 
ranged from a low of €44k to a  high of just over €1.4 million. 

•  NSBs stated that the decisions as to whether to charge for access to committees, 
and  how  much  to  charge  and  on  what  basis  have  been  agreed  at  national  level 
between the stakeholders involved. 

EN 

96 

   EN 

 
•  There are clear interdependencies between the revenue streams employed within 
each NSB. Various mixes of public and private financing are employed depending 
on  the  national  context,  and  within  the  private  revenues,  a  combination  of 
membership  fees,  income  from  sale  of  standards,  certification  and  other 
commercial  activities  are  used  in  various  configurations  to  ensure  the  financial 
stability  of  the  NSB.  Any  moves  by  the  Commission  to  remove  one  source  of 
revenues  would  have  to  be  addressed  by  a  corresponding  increase  from  another 
source. 

•  Many  NSBs  charge  reduced  fees  for  minority  stakeholder  groups  and  SMEs 

although not all differentiate at these levels. 

•  NSBs appear to be more supportive of the idea that minority stakeholder groups 
should be provided with free access than the idea that SMEs should participate for 
free. In some cases providing free access to SMEs would have a profound effect 
on income levels, and NSBs believe that it is appropriate for SMEs to contribute 
as they are one of the main users / beneficiaries of the standardisation work (while 
consumers, NGOs, trade unions, etc. are not). 

•  Several NSBs do not believe that charges for access to committees are a hindrance 
to involvement, as evidenced by the fact that recent moves to provide free access 
to  certain  committees  has  not  resulted  in  greater  levels  of  participation  by 
minority stakeholder groups or SMEs. 

•  NSBs  also  pointed  out  that  various  initiatives  are  underway  to  improve 
stakeholder  participation  in  national  committees  without  interfering  with  the 
NSBs’ business models. 

The  ESOs  did  not  identify  any  implications  /  costs  to  them  as  a  result  of  this 
provision 

The  MSAs  did  not  identify  any  implications  /  costs  to  them  as  a  result  of  this 
provision  but  several  pointed  out  that  stakeholder  involvement  and  balanced 
representation is important. Others pointed out that the costs of providing free access 
would be high for their NSB and / or that they do not support the provision 

Question  3.3:  Member  States  to  ensure  that  minority  stakeholders  are 
represented  in  all  national  standardisation  committees,  including  by  providing 
financial support for representative groups at national level. 

The Commission wished to understand (i) the extent to which minority stakeholder 
groups  (MSGs)  at  national  level  receive  financial  support  to  enable  them  to 
participate in standardisation; (ii) the mechanisms and charges in place at NSB-level 
for  providing  these  groups  with  access  to  national  committees;  (iii)  the  funding 
provided  by  MSAs  to  enable  MSG  participation;  (iv)  the  nature  of  the  reporting 
relationship  between  NSBs  and  the  MSG  funding  bodies  concerning  their 
involvement in standardisation; and (v) the estimated costs to install and maintain a 
system  of  support  for  MSGs.  The  Commission  also  wished  to  understand  any 
significant practical implications associated with this provision. 

EN 

97 

   EN 

 
Replies by the NSBs: 

•  Most  of  the  NSBs  stated  that  no  direct  public  financing  is  provided  to  enable 
MSGs to participate in national standardisation committees. In many cases this is 
because access is free.. 

•  In around a third of the cases NSBs indicated that some support is provided, either 
through the ‘general’ funding of these groups, through the provision of travel and 
subsistence  grants  or  through  payments  to  reduce  the  level  of  membership  fees 
that have to be paid. 

•  NSBs did not identify any ‘special’ mechanisms for providing MSGs with access 
to  standardisation,  and  most  indicated  that  a  principle  of  open  and  equitable 
access is applied to all groups. However, funding provided to MSGs is known in 
some cases to enable free or reduced access to committees which otherwise would 
have to be paid for in full or at a higher rate. 

•  Regardless of the financing / charging situation most NSBs relay information on 
new work items and new committees to MSGs to facilitate their access, with some 
proactive  targeting  in  place.  In  some  cases  dedicated  committees  and  IT  tools 
have been installed in order to enhance MSG access to standardisation work. 

•  The  majority  of  NSBs  stated  that  no  special  reporting  procedures  are  in  place 
between them and their MSAs with regard to participation by MSGs, because no 
funding is provided to MSGs or no special distinction is made between them and 
other types of participant. In a minority of cases special reporting is in place, with 
NSBs  providing  information  on  participation  levels  through  annual  reports, 
dedicated regular reports or ‘on request’. 

•  Most NSBs were unable to provide an estimate of the costs of installing a system 
of support for MSGs at national level, and the small number that felt able came up 
with very different estimates, ranging from a low of €2.4k to a high of €600k. 

•  Several NSBs indicated that free access would not in and of itself be sufficient to 
guarantee  MSG  involvement  and  that  payment  of  expert  fees  and  travel  and 
subsistence costs may be necessary also to ensure higher levels of involvement. 

•  Some  NSBs  appear  to  believe  that  such  support  is  appropriate  while  others 
disagree and argue instead that the principle of open and equitable access would 
be compromised by this kind of positive discrimination. 

•  NSBs  also  pointed  out  that  funding  for  participation  would  only  address  part  of 
the  problem,  as  MSGs  often  do  not  have  sufficient  resources  and  systems  to 
consult  their  members  effectively.  Therefore,  while  funding  may  enable 
representatives  to  attend  it  is  not  necessarily  the  case  that  a  ‘position’  can  be 
adopted and carried forward to standardisation meetings. 

Replies by the MSAs: 

EN 

98 

   EN 

 
•  Roughly  a  quarter  of  the  MSAs  indicated  that  funding  is  provided  to  MSGs  to 
support  their  participation  in  standardisation,  covering  a range  of  different  types 
of support targeted to specific groups. The nature and level of funding provided to 
MSGs  varied,  in  some  cases  being  allocated  to  the  NSB  to  enable  MSG  access 
and in other cases being allocated directly to MSGs. The amounts allocated varied 
from €100k to €1.4 million per annum. 

•  Most  MSAs  could  not  provide  an  estimate  of  the  costs  of  installing  and 
maintaining  a  system  of  support  to  MSGs  at  national  level,  as  this  ‘system’  of 
support  has  not  yet  been  defined  in  any  way.  Around  a  third  did  attempt  to 
provide  an  estimate,  with  these  averaging  around  €200k  per  MSG  per  year. 
However, the MSAs clearly envisaged very different types and levels of support, 
ranging from a low of €2.4k to a high of  €1.1 million per MSG per annum. We 
therefore do not believe that it is possible to provide any kind of reliable estimate 
in the absence of some kind of standard specification as to the nature of support to 
be provided. 

•  There is no clear consensus as to whether MSAs are supportive of this provision. 
In  some  cases  it  is  felt  to  be  unnecessary  because  MSGs  can  already  access 
standardisation  committees  for  free  and  /  or  direct  support  for  participation  is 
already provided. In other cases there appears to be some support for the idea but 
there is not enough information to enable NSBs and MSAs to identify costs and 
implications. 

•  A  small  number  of  MSAs  indicated  that  awareness  and  interest  in  participation 
remains  a  significant  barrier  to  MSG  participation  and  this  should  be  tackled 
before any direct support for participation, while others do not support the idea of 
‘positive discrimination’ as it runs counter to standardisation principles and may 
lead to distortion in the behaviour of MSGs within the process. 

The  ESOs  did  not  identify  any  implications  /  costs  to  them  as  a  result  of  this 
provision 

Question 3.4: Member States to report to the Commission on actions in place to 
support participation of SMEs, NGOs, consumers and trade unions. 

The Commission wished to understand the costs to the MSAs of installing a system 
of annual reporting on the actions in place at national level to ensure representation 
by MSGs, as well as the costs to the Commission in reviewing and assessing those 
reports.  The  Commission  also  wished  to  understand  any  other  costs  or  practical 
implications of the provision. 

Replies by the MSAs: 

•  Most MSAs were not able to provide an account of the necessary procedures or 
the costs associated with a system of reporting on actions in place at national level 
to ensure the participation of MSGs in standardisation. 

EN 

99 

   EN 

 
•  13  MSAs  provided  cost  estimates  but 

the  procedures  envisaged  varied 

considerably resulting in very different estimates, ranging from a low of just €129 
to a high of just over €190k. 

•  Some  MSAs  suggested  that  the  provision  would  place  an  additional  and 
unnecessary burden on already scarce resources while a similar number stated that 
the provision could be accommodated relatively easily and at little cost. 

•  A small number of MSAs stated that they did not see the value in such a reporting 
system and that the administrative costs would outweigh the benefits realised. It is 
clear that MSAs support their respective NSBs and MSGs in different ways and 
that making comparisons may lead to wrong conclusions. 

•  It  was  suggested  that  discussions  /  presentations  through  SOGS  may  be  a  more 
cost-effective  way  to  share  good  practice  and  drive  improvements  in  MSG 
participation at national level. 

The  ESOs  did  not  identify  any  implications  /  costs  to  them  as  a  result  of  this 
provision 

Replies by the NSBs: 

•  Most NSBs did not comment, as the provision would affect the MSAs rather than 
themselves.  However,  some  felt  that  the  reporting  system  would  place  an 
additional  burden  on  them  as  it  is  envisaged  that  NSBs  may  need  to  provide 
information and data  on  MSG involvement in standardisation committees, along 
with  other  actions  in  place  at  NSB  level  to  support  MSG  participation.  In  some 
cases NSBs felt that the additional costs would outweigh the benefits realised. 

•  A  small  number  of  NSBs  reiterated  that  many  actions  have  been  put  in  place  at 
EU  and  national  levels  to  support  MSG  involvement  in  standardisation  and  that 
these efforts have not been recognised within the current exercise. The implication 
behind this set of provisions is that not enough is being done and that there is a 
need for corrective action, which many NSBs feel is not the case. 

9.1.6.4.  Objective  4  –  Improving  Member  State  involvement  in  the  EU  standardisation 

process 

Question 4.1: Member States to be obliged to send official experts to take part in 
all national mirror committees mirroring European TCs dealing with mandated 
standards under Directive 98/34/EC. 

The Commission wished to understand the number of mandated standards developed 
under 98/34 in the last five years, the number of formal objections raised in relation 
to  these  standards,  and  the  number  of  cases  where  formal  objections  are  likely  to 
have  been  avoided  had  MSA  officials  been  present  in  all  relevant  national  mirror 
committees. It also wished to understand the number of ESO TCs currently preparing 
mandated  standards  under  98/34,  and  the  level  of  MSA  official  representation  on 
these committees. Finally, the Commission wished to understand the number of days 
that  would  need  to  be  devoted  by  an  MSA  expert  in  each  relevant  national  mirror 

EN 

100 

   EN 

 
committee  in  order  to  contribute  to  the  development  of  a  mandated  European 
standard and what the average costs of MSA experts per day is.  

Replies by the ESOs: 

•  ETSI reported that there are currently 18 technical bodies (TBs) dealing with 34 
‘active’  mandates  and  that  10  of  these  technical  bodies  (as  a  minimum)  would 
involvement.  Because  ETSI  operates  under  direct 
require  MSA  expert 
participation  principles  and  because  all  MS  public  administrations  are  members 
they are able to attend and participate in all ETSI meetings.  

•  While  it  could  be  argued  that  all  TBs  should  have  MSA  expert  involvement, 
standardisation is a voluntary activity and participation is a decision taken by each 
public administration on a case-by-case basis. 

•  CEN/CLC  reported  that  there  are  347  active  TCs  that  are  developing  or  have 
developed  harmonised  standards.  In  principal  MSA  experts  should  be  present  in 
all  of  these  TCs,  given  that  they  are  stakeholders  within  the  context  of 
Harmonised Standards. 

Replies by the NSBs: 

•  NSBs  could  not  report  on  the  current  level  of  MSA  representation  on  national 
committees mirroring the development of mandated European standards because 
their  information  systems  cannot  link  MSA  participation  to  specific  (mandated) 
work items.r 

•  However,  14  NSBs  were  able  to  provide  data  on  the  number  of  active  national 
mirror  committees  and  the  level  of  MSA  representation  on  these.  The  results 
showed  that  these  NSBs  collectively  operate  just  over  2,000  mirror  committees 
and there is MSA representation on 66% of these. In some cases where there is no 
MSA  involvement  the  committee  will  not  be  involved  in  mirroring  mandated 
European  standards,  but  the  number  of  such  cases  cannot  be  determined.  It  is 
expected that the true level of MSA representation on such committees would be 
higher than 66%. 

•  NSBs pointed out that all of their committees are open to MSA involvement and 
participation  or  not  is  a  decision  for  the  relevant  MSA  based  on  their  level  of 
interest in the work of each committee. All new work items are notified to MSAs 
so there are no apparent barriers to participation by MSAs where they feel that it 
is appropriate and where they have the necessary resources. 

•  NSBs  estimated  that  ~10  person  days  input  would  be  required  on  average  each 
year  by  an  MSA  expert  participating  on  a  national  committee  mirroring  the 
development  of  a  mandated  harmonised  standard.  However,  depending  on  the 
nature  of  their  involvement  the  actual  level  of  input  could  be  slightly  less  or 
considerably more. 

•  NSBs  pointed  out  that  MSA  involvement  in  national  mirror  committees  is 
encouraged, but warned against any kind of ‘compulsory’ participation as MSAs 

EN 

101 

   EN 

 
do  not  always  have  an  interest  or  may  not  always  be  able  to  add  value  through 
their involvement. Participation is and should be voluntary and based on the needs 
and interests of stakeholders, and should not be enforced top-down. 

Replies by the MSAs: 

•  Data provided by 19 MSAs indicated that the costs in EUR per day for an MSA 
official participating in standardisation work averages just less than €500 per day. 
The  range  of  costs  varied  substantially,  from  a  low  of  €35  to  a  high  of  €1,200. 
However,  in  some  cases  only  the  ‘expenses’  were  included  while  in  other  cases 
salary  costs  plus  travel  and  other  incidentals  were  included.  As  such  it  is  not 
possible to rely on these figures. 

•  A  small  number  of  MSAs  stated  that  they  would  not  support  any  proposal  to 
impose an obligation on their participation in national mirror committees working 
on the development of mandated European standards. 

•  Several MSAs stated that there is no evidence that the current voluntary system of 
participation  presents  any  problems  or  that  formal  objections  would  be  avoided 
through increased levels of involvement. 

•  Several  MSAs  pointed  to  the  additional  costs  and  practical  implications  of  the 

provision, in particular a lack of necessary human and financial resources. 

•  A small number of MSAs felt that greater levels of involvement may be desirable 
as  a  means  to  enhance  MSA  competencies  and  interest  in  relation  to 
standardisation  and  to  assist  other  participants  in  understanding  the  legislative 
requirements. 

Question 4.2: European Commission to be able to finance mirror committees in 
all EU Member States. 

The Commission wished to understand (i) how many of the current ESO Technical 
Committees developing European standards have mirror committees at national level 
and how many do not; (ii) what are the current costs of NSB secretariat activities for 
mirror committees; and (iii) what are the current costs of NSB secretariat activities 
for  running  national  enquiries  and  national  implementations.  It  also  wishes  to 
understand any other costs or practical implications of this provision. 

Replies by the NSBs: 

•  Based  on  the  information  provided  by  NSBs  we  can  estimate  that  just  less  than 
half of the NSBs are mirroring all ESO TCs, just over a third are mirroring most 
and roughly one in five are mirroring less than half of the ESO TCs. A definitive 
number  of  cases  where  ESO  TCs  are  not  being  mirrored  cannot  be  determined 
based on the data provided, but we can estimate that there is a shortfall of at least 
1,500 committees across the 15 NSBs where it is clear that not all ESO TCs are 
being mirrored. 

EN 

102 

   EN 

 
•  Most  NSBs  could  not  provide  a  clear  estimate  of  the  costs  of  the  secretariat 
functions  they  perform  in  relation  to  the  running  of  national  mirror  committees, 
but an average cost of €22,000 was identified based on data supplied by 12 NSBs. 
The  majority  of  the  estimates  provided  were  in  the  range  €10k  -  €20k  per 
committee per annum. 

•  Most  NSBs  could  not  provide  a  clear  estimate  of  the  costs  of  the  secretariat 
functions they perform in relation to the running of national enquiries and national 
implementations, but an average cost per standard of €1,600 was identified based 
on  data  supplied  by  nine  NSBs.  The  basis  of  calculation  of  the  estimates  was 
highly variable and so a more precise definition of what costs should and should 
not  be  included  would  be  needed  before  a  more  reliable  estimate  could  be 
established. 

•  Most  NSBs  would  welcome  additional  financial  support  for  standardisation  at 
national level but questioned whether the focus of this provision was appropriate. 
NSBs suggested that the money could be better spent on: 

– 

– 

to  support 

in  national 
Measures 
standardisation,  particularly  for  smaller  countries  where  other  sources 
of income are more limited and curtail the range of support that can be 
provided by NSBs to these groups 

involvement  of  MSGs 

the 

Translation  of  European  standards  into  national  languages.  While  the 
Commission does provide some support for this the NSBs still carry the 
majority  of  the  costs  and  the  financial  arrangements  are  excessively 
bureaucratic, diminishing the true level of support provided 

•  Several  NSBs  pointed  out  that  it  is  not  appropriate  or  necessary  to  run  national 
mirror committees in all cases where European standards are being developed, as 
in  some  cases  the  standards  have  no  relevance  to  the  national  context.  In  these 
cases supporting the secretariat function would be meaningless in the absence of 
any stakeholder demand for participation. 

CEN/CLC  reported  a  small  number  of  concerns  in  relation  to  this  provision, 
specifically (i) the long-term sustainability of such an action and the significant level 
of  financing  required;  (ii)  the  risks  of  discriminating  between  EU  NSBs  and  those 
from  EFTA  countries  or  accession  states,  and  (iii)  the  lack  of  clarity  surrounding 
whether only the secretariat functions would be supported and not the participation 
of industry and other stakeholders. 

Replies by the MSAs: 

•  MSAs  also  reported  a  number  of  concerns,  although  the  majority  of  those  that 
responded  stated  that  they  would  welcome  the  provision.  Potential  positive 
benefits identified as a result of the support were (i) greater levels of participation 
by stakeholders (ii) increased activity in areas where secretariat functions cannot 
be supported through the sale of standards, (iii) increased sustainability of NSBs 
in  certain  (small)  Member  States,  and  (iv)  improvement  of  standard  production 
quality. 

EN 

103 

   EN 

 
•  Concerns  reported  by  MSAs  revolved  around  the  scale  of  the  funding  required 
and the potential for considerable added bureaucracy and administrative costs. It 
would  also  not  be  possible  to  focus  the  funding  only  on  European  activities,  as 
mirror committees would be involved in national and international work as well. 
It  may  also  prove  difficult  to  find  participants  in  some  areas  even  though  the 
secretariat functions are supported. 

9.1.6.5.  Objective 5 – Accelerate the standards development process 

Question  5.1:  ESOs  to  systematically  use  IT  harmonised  tools  to  support  the 
participation of stakeholders in the European standardisation process. 

The Commission wanted to understand (i) the extent to which existing IT tools are 
available to and used by existing ESO TCs and NSB MCs in the development of EU 
standards, (ii) what IT systems are ‘missing’ at ESO and NSB level that would need 
to be put in place in order to ensure that all NSB MCs can make use of the available 
IT tools, and (iii) what the costs of implementing these additional IT solutions would 
be. 

Replies by the ESOs: 

•  The  ESOs  have  undertaken  considerable  investment  into  modern  technology  in 
recent  years,  and  all  three  ESOs  provided  extensive  details  about  the  various 
existing IT tools available. 

•  IT  systems  are  now  available  to  and  used  by  ESO  and  NSB  committees 
throughout  the  standards  development  process,  helping  to  reduce  delivery  times 
and increase transparency. 

•  CEN/CLC  noted  that  different  tools  are  available  according  to  sector  and  /  or 
which  national  member  holds  the  secretariat,  but  that  all  European  TCs  can 
benefit from similar facilities. 

•  The three ESOs reported that there were no significant requirements for additional 
IT tools or developments (and therefore no additional costs implied), beyond fine-
tuning and maintenance. 

•  CEN/CLC  did  however  identify  a  small  number  of  areas  where  enhancements 
could  be  made  to  (i)  the  current  NMC  services  (a  common  CEN/CLC  NMC 
interface  and  centralised  NMC  platforms  for  purely  national  work)  and  (ii)  the 
tools  available  to  support  CEN/CLC  technical  bodies  (web-tools  to  support  the 
drafting process and central meeting management facilities), and there are planned 
and  ongoing  projects  within  the  ESOs  in  these  areas  aimed  at  further  increasing 
the level of automation available (e.g. virtual meeting facilities for TCs in 2010). 

Replies by the NSBs: 

•  The NSBs confirmed the comprehensive and detailed ESO account of the existing 
IT  systems  that  are  available  to  support  national  MC  participation  in  European 
standardisation 

EN 

104 

   EN 

 
•  The vast majority of NSBs stated that all of these tools are available, in use and 
functioning well at the national level and that all of the national MCs are able to 
make use of these IT tools. 

•  They  also  complemented  the  ESOs  on  the  considerable  advances  that  had  been 
introduced and believe that these IT solutions have contributed to a more effective 
and efficient process. 

•  The majority of NSBs reported that there are no ‘missing’ IT tools at ESO or NSB 

levels that would need to be put in place. 

•  Nevertheless,  many  other  NSBs  stated  that  the  proposed  common  CEN/CLC 
NMC  interface  and  platforms,  improved  ‘virtual  meeting’  facilities  and  new 
meeting management applications / tools are all welcome developments that will 
provide efficiency gains at national level. 

•  A  small  number  of  NSBs  suggested  that  take-up  of  the  available  tools  is  lower 
than  desirable  and  that  additional  actions  might  be  useful.  However,  the  main 
barriers identified to greater use are a lack of awareness, willingness and training, 
rather than availability or functionality. 

•  A  small  number  of  cost  estimates  were  provided  for  specific  desirable 

improvements. 

Question  5.2:  Make  it  an  obligation  for  European  Standards  Organisations  to 
answer any standardisation requests from the Commission within 2 months. 

The Commission wanted to understand the number of mandates issued by the EC to 
the  ESOs,  the  time  taken  to  respond  to  each  of  these,  and  the  current  ESO/NSB 
procedures and timeframes for consulting on and responding to these mandates. The 
Commission  also  wished  to  understand  whether  a  two-month  timeframe  for 
responding to mandates would be achievable (or what would be achievable), whether 
additional changes would be necessary and the other costs and implications incurred 
by ESOs/NSBs in meeting a requirement to respond within this timeframe. 

Replies by the ESOs: 

•  ETSI  reported  17  mandates  being  issued  over  3-years,  with  a  3-month  average 

acceptance time. 

•  CEN/CLC  reported  a  total  of  64  mandates  issued  over  the  past  3  years,  with 
average response times each year varying between 10.4 and 13.6 months per year. 

•  All  three  ESOs  provided  details  of  their  procedures  and  average  timeframes  for 

consulting on and responding to mandates. 

•  CEN/CLC  reported  a  2-month  timeframe  was  achievable,  while  ETSI  reported 
that  3-months  would  be  the  minimum  timeframe  possible  due  to  the  need  to 
coordinate  and  consult  before  acceptance.  These  targets  would  be  achievable 
without any significant additional financial costs. 

EN 

105 

   EN 

 
•  The  ESOs  reported  that  current  delays  are  often  due  to  factors  outside  of  the 
control of the ESOs, and instead reside with the EC. Achieving shorter response 
times  would  require  stronger  and  earlier  consultation  on  mandate  definition  and 
drafting,  improvements  to  the  presentation  and  clarity  of  drafts,  simplified 
contractual processes and for the EC to stick to a defined timeframe. 

Replies by the NSBs: A small number of NSBs added that the time taken to respond 
to  mandates  is  dictated  by  the  time  taken  to  consult  national  committees  and  other 
stakeholders, reach a position and prepare a response, all of which cannot always be 
undertaken as quickly as the Commission might wish. 

Question 5.3: ESOs to be obliged to develop European standards requested by 
the  EC  in  TCs  managed  directly  by  the  Central  Secretariats  and  not  by  the 
NSBs. 

The  Commission  wanted  to  understand  (i)  the  number  of  ESO  TCs  currently 
developing  European  standards  under  mandates,  (ii)  the  changes  to  processes  and 
procedures that would be required if TCs developing mandated European standards 
were to be managed by the ESOs under European-level representation principles, and 
(iii) what the costs and implications of this for ESOs, NSBs and stakeholders would 
be.  

The  Commission  also  wished  to  understand  (i)  whether  there  might  be  any 
implications at  the  international level  (on the  Vienna  and  Dresden  Agreements and 
on  national  participation  and  voting  rights)  were  the  European  Standardisation 
System to move away from the national delegation principle, and (ii) the number of 
cases  in  the  last  2  years  where  European  interests  would  have  been  outvoted  in 
ISO/IEC if the EU NSBs had only one collective vote, rather than 27. 

Replies by the ESOs: 

•  The  ESOs  reported  that  there  are  352  TCs  currently  developing  European 

standards under mandates issued by the EC (334 CEN/CLC and 18 ETSI). 

•  ETSI  and 

its  stakeholders  are  already  operating  under  European-level 
representation principles and so no change would be necessary for this provision. 
However, if more TBs were required in response to specific mandates, there may 
be a need to increase the size of the secretariat support. 

•  CEN/CLC,  by  comparison,  are  currently  coherent  with  the  national  delegation 
to  European-representation  would  require 
principle  and  believe  a  move 
modification of all internal regulations and dramatically change the way the ESO 
works. There would be fundamental issues to be solved around new processes and 
procedures and such a radical change would incur heavy costs. 

•  CEN/CLC  also  noted  that  the  provision  may  have  implications  for  balanced  TC 
representation  and  may  encourage  members  to  look  more  to  International 
Standards processes where possible. 

EN 

106 

   EN 

 
•  ETSI does not participate in ISO/IEC, but CEN/CLC reported that a move away 
from  the  national-delegation  principle  might  undermine  the  weight  of  the 
European NSBs in the approval processes and result in a loss of influence. 

•  None  of  the  ESOs  were  able  to  give  a  figure  for  the  number  of  cases  where 
European interests would have been outvoted at ISO/IEC in the last two years if 
EU NSBs had only one vote. 

•  However, CEN/CLC noted that while the possibility of being outvoted is a serious 
issue, the biggest impact would be the loss of influence (e.g. seats at the Council, 
Board, TMB/SMB, etc.). 

Replies by the NSBs: 

•  The  information  provided  by  the  NSBs  in  relation  to  the  required  changes  to 
processes  and  procedures  required  for  ESO-managed  TCs  largely  mirrored  that 
provided by CEN/CLC (above). 

•  The  NSBs  are  confused  as  to  why  the  Commission  would  consider  such  a 
proposal since it clearly jeopardises European interests (especially voting) and do 
not see any benefits to the provision. 

•  Their  main  concerns  in  relation  to  the  Vienna  and  Dresden  agreements  are 

covered by the implications identified by ISO/IEC below. 

•  None  of  the  NSBs  were  able  to  provide  data  on  the  number  of  cases  where 
European interests would have been outvoted in the last two years with only one 
collective vote at ISO/IEC, although several ventured that there would have been 
‘many’ cases. 

Replies by ISO/IEC: 

•  ISO/IEC reported that moving away from the national delegation principle would 
have  substantial  impacts  and  would  place  the  future  of  the  Vienna  and  Dresden 
Agreements in doubt. 

•  The  four  main  concerns  set  out  by  ISO/IEC  were  (i)  that  the  quality  of  the 
secretariat  work  of  committees  (expertise,  resources  and  support)  would  need  to 
be assured, (ii) that the representativeness of national votes would be brought into 
question, (iii) that the national connection to stakeholders would be jeopardised, 
and (iv) that it is uncertain whether individual European participation in ISO/IEC 
would  need  to  be  revised  to  reflect  the  new  single  consolidated  European 
representation and standards development process. 

•  Based  on  the  changes  proposed,  ISO/IEC  would  thus  insist  that  their  respective 
agreements with the ESOs be critically reviewed (with input from other parts of 
the world) to ensure that the commitment and appropriate mechanisms remain in 
place  to  continue  to  recognise  the  primacy  of  international  standards,  whilst 
recognising the particular needs of Europe. 

EN 

107 

   EN 

 
9.1.6.6.  Objective 6 – Improve the effectiveness of European standardisation 

Question  6.1:  Introduce  the  WTO/TBT  principles  of  standardisation  as  a 
requirement for European Standards Organisations to be included in directive 
98/34/EC  and  receive  standardisation  mandates  to  develop  harmonised 
standards in the EU. 

The  Commission  wanted  to  know  whether  individual  NSBs  had  already  signed  the 
WTO/TBT code of practice, and to understand: (i) [For those that have signed] what 
the  implications  have  been  in  terms  of  new  or  amended  procedures  actually 
implemented and the additional costs associated with these procedures, and (ii) [For 
those  that  have  not  yet  signed]  what  the  reasons  are  for  this,  whether  the  NSB  has 
plans to do so in the near future, and if so, what stage the discussions are at and what 
the  likely  outcome  of  those  deliberations  will  be.  The  Commission  also  wanted  to 
understand  whether  there  would  be  any  other  practical  implications  or  costs  to  the 
ESOs and NSBs of the provision. 

Replies by the NSBs: 

•  Based on the replies, 37 of the 40 NSBs have signed the WTO/TBT code. 

•  The vast majority of these NSBs stated that there were no implications (or costs) 
in terms of new or amended procedures to be implemented, as they were already 
compliant before signing. 

•  Four  NSBs  provided  brief  details  about  additional  actions  that  were  taken 
(including changes to notification procedures, IT tools and access to information) 
and in one case the cost (€30,000). 

•  Two of the NSBs that have not signed reported that they do intend to sign up to 
the  code  of  practice.  One  of  these  NSBs  explained  further  that  they  had  not 
previously  been  requested  to  sign,  but  were  now  in  early  stage  discussions  and 
expected a positive outcome in the near future. 

•  No  other  substantive  comments  were  received  in  relation  to  this  provision  from 

the NSBs. 

Replies by the ESOs: All three ESOs reported that there would not be any practical 
implications  or  costs  to  them  of  this  provision  as  ETSI  is  already  signed  up  to  the 
code  and  CEN/CLC  and  their  members  are  already  formally  committed  to 
WTO/TBT principles. 

Question 6.2: ESOs to open the possibility to approve documents developed by 
forums  and  consortiums  as  European  Standards  following  a  simplified 
procedure, provided those F&C have developed the documents according to the 
WTO/TBT standardisation principles. 

The Commission wanted to understand (i) the likely number (and names) of SDOs 
that may have to be approved by the ESOs and the likely number of documents to be 
transposed each year, (ii) whether other SDOs would cooperate with such a system 

EN 

108 

   EN 

 
and be prepared to sign up to and abide by the WTO/TBT code of conduct, and what 
charges  /  other  requirements  (if  any)  these  SDOs  would  impose,  were  their 
standardisation  documents  to  be  transposed  into  European  standards,  (iii)  what 
procedures  the  ESOs  would  have  to  put  in  place  in  order  to  develop  a  ‘fast  track’ 
approval  procedure  for  documents  created  by  other  SDOs  and  the  estimated  ‘unit’ 
cost (i.e. per SDO, per document), plus (iv) any other practical implications or costs 
of the provision. 

Replies by the SDOs (F&C): 

•  All  of  the  responding  F&C  reported  that  they  already  adhered  to  and  operated 
according  to  the  WTO/TBT  principles  and  /  or  would  be  prepared  to  sign  up  to 
and abide by the code of conduct. 

•  They  also  all  reported  that  they  would  in  principle  cooperate  with  the  proposed 
system,  although  most  indicated  some  concerns,  potential  challenges  and  issues 
that would need addressing, namely: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

The  possible  confusion  caused  (and  costs  incurred)  by  two  different 
documents  (ESO  and  F&C  version)  being  available  and  implemented 
separately and referenced in different ways; 

The additional burden of keeping track of modifications, extensions and 
updates made by either party and any confusion caused by one version 
lagging behind the other; 

Issues  of  maintenance  and  change  control,  and  whether  either  party 
could create derivative works and diverging subsequent versions of the 
specification; 

Issues related to transposition into another IPR regime, with a need to 
assess  the  terms  and  conditions  under  which  a  standard  can  be  used, 
implemented and accessed; 

Questions  regarding  who  would  receive  recognition/payment  for 
transposed specifications; 

Other issues relating to patent policy, disclosure obligations and royalty 
charges. 

•  Two  F&C  in  particular  had  major  reservations  and  would  prefer  to  explore 
the  possibility  of  directly  referencing  F&C 

alternatives  first,  such  as 
standardisation documents. 

•  Further investigation, thought and discussion around these issues would be needed 
before  F&C  would  be  able  to  agree  on  any  charges  and  other  requirements  that 
might be imposed. 

Replies by the ESOs: 

EN 

109 

   EN 

 
•  All  three  ESOs  reported  that  they  already  have  procedures  in  place  to  adopt 
specifications  from  other  SDOs,  however  these  are  not  currently  used  for  this 
purpose at all (ETSI) or to any great extent (CEN/CLC) and there are likely to be 
cost implications to increased approval activity. 

•  ETSI estimated the process would cost €18,000 per SDO document (although this 

would vary). 

•  All three ESOs also highlighted that there may be issues with ownership and IPR 

to be overcome. 

Replies by the NSBs: The main point raised by NSBs was that it is already possible 
to use the CEN/UAP and PQ procedures for the specifications drafted by SDOs and 
to adopt them as ENs, and it is unclear why another procedure would be necessary. 

Question 6.3: Extend the list of recognised ESOs beyond CEN, CENELEC and 
ETSI  and  make  it  possible  to  allocate  standardisation  requests  (mandates)  to 
these other organisations 

The Commission wanted to understand (i) the likely number (and names) of SDOs 
that would be expected to be ‘approved’ as formally recognised ESOs and the likely 
number  of  mandates  and  volume  of  co-financing  that  might  be  transferred  to  these 
SDOs  each  year,  (ii)  whether  other  SDOs  would  be  prepared  to  accept  these 
standardisation mandates from the EC, (iii) the likely impact on ESOs and NSBs if 
some  proportion  of  the  mandates  were  transferred,  (iv)  the  likely  impact  on 
stakeholder participation in EU standards development if the number of ‘recognised’ 
ESOs developing EU standards were to increase, and (v) other practical implications 
or costs. 

Replies by the SDOs (F&C): All of the responding F&C reported that they would, at 
least  in  principle,  be  prepared  to  accept  EC  standardisation  mandates,  although 
further  discussion  and  a  closer  review  of  the  possible  contractual  relationships  and 
practical details would be needed before this could be taken further. 

Replies by the ESOs: 

•  All  three  ESOs  reported  that  the  impact  of  transferring  mandates  to  other  SDOs 
would be significant for these organisations, though for slightly different reasons. 

•  ETSI expect the provision to lead to a reduction in membership and membership 
fee income, as industry invests in alternative forums, damaging the infrastructure 
and  financial  stability  of  ETSI.  It  would  be  faced  with  either  increasing  fees  to 
maintain budget, or reducing support to certain issues and losing staff. A reduced 
budget may also reduce the EC/EFTA Operating Grant. 

•  One-third  of  standards  currently  elaborated  by  CEN/CLC  are  mandated 
harmonised  standards,  so  a  reduction  in  mandates  would  result  in  less  work  for 
CCMC and reduced staff. 

EN 

110 

   EN 

 
•  The ESOs also raised wider concerns about potential damage to the ESS through 
increased  competition,  fragmentation,  loss  of  coherence  and  clarity  and  reduced 
visibility internationally. 

•  They  would  expect  to  see  all  SDOs  applying  the  same  rules  and  guarantees  as 
currently  provided  and  clearly  defined  responsibilities  and  obligations  (e.g.  for 
maintaining/updating standards). 

Replies by the NSBs: 

•  The  NSBs  indicated  that  the  provision  would  not  necessarily  have  a  significant 
impact on them in terms of loss of work or revenues, but would have significant 
negative implications for the coherence of the ESS more generally. 

•  The extent of impact would depend on the number of SDOs involved, the number 
of mandates given to other bodies, and also the extent to which other SDOs follow 
WTO/ESS principles. 

•  The provision may go against the principle of national delegation, cause exclusion 
of  certain  national  stakeholders,  and  make  it  more  costly  and  difficult  to  track 
developments or participate. 

•  The  provision  would  require  increased  coordination  and  communication  activity 
in  order  to  guard  against  fragmentation  and  conflicting  standards,  adding 
complexity and cost to the system. 

•  Responsibilities  and  obligations  (e.g.  for  maintaining/updating/withdrawing 
standards  and  ensuring  quality)  will  be  difficult  to  define  and  maintain  with 
increased numbers of SDOs. 

Replies by Stakeholders: 

•  A  few  Stakeholder  Organisations  suggested  the  provision  would  bring  positive 
benefits in terms of increasing pressure on ESOs to improve services and become 
more efficient, effective and responsive, as well as creating greater flexibility and 
choice as to where to pursue standardisation. 

•  However,  the  majority  foresaw  various  negative  consequences  that  would  have 
their 

indirectly)  for  stakeholders  and 

implications  (directly  or 

negative 
participation. 

•  In particular they highlighted that further fragmentation of the European standards 
landscape  would  place  a  greater  time,  cost  and  effort  burden  on  stakeholders 
(especially  weaker  ones)  to  be  able  to  monitor,  follow  and  /  or  participate  in 
relevant  standards  development  activities,  which  would  lead  to  more  scattered, 
less  effective  stakeholder  participation  and  ultimately  more  situations  where 
standards are developed without relevant stakeholder involvement. 

•  There  were  also  concerns  about  the  operational  implications  of  an  expanded 
system and the ability of other F&C to support the continuing success of the ESS. 

EN 

111 

   EN 

 
In particular, Stakeholder Organisations raised their concerns about (i) barriers to 
accessing  other  F&C  (higher  fees,  less  appropriate  tools/processes),  (ii)  the 
strength  of  certain  interest  groups  in  other  F&C  and  opportunities  for  private 
parties  to  manipulate  standardisation  outcomes  for  their  own  interests,  (iii)  the 
increasing difficulty in delivering a single coherent standardisation response to a 
market need, risk of conflicting standards / requirements and greater difficulties in 
complying  with  them,  and  (iv)  decreased  legitimacy,  respect  for  and  trust  in  the 
formal standardisation process. 

Question 6.4: Commission to be able to request development of standards to any 
organisation  via  call  for  tenders  to  all  Standards  Developing  Organisations 
meeting the WTO/TBT requirements 

The Commission wanted to understand (i) whether F&C would be likely to respond 
to calls for tender issued by the EC for the development of European standards, (ii) 
what the impact of the provision would be on the Commission’s own procedures and 
workload, and (iii) what the implications or costs would be for the ESOs and NSBs 
and in particular their business robustness 

Replies  by  the  F&C:  Most  F&C  reported  that  they  would,  at  least  in  principle, 
respond to calls for tender from the EC where these were felt to be relevant, although 
greater  clarity  over  the  practicalities  of  such  a  provision  would  need  to  be 
investigated further before such a system could be agreed 

Replies by the ESOs: 

•  All three ESOs expected the provision to lead to a fragmentation of the ESS and a 
reduction  in  the  ESO  operating  grants,  which  in  turn  would  either  lead  to 
increased  fees  or  reductions  in  staff  and  secretariat  support  services  provided  to 
the EC and stakeholders. 

•  CEN/CLC  also  expect  the  reduced  income  to  cause  a  certain  ‘refocusing’  of 
standards development work, reducing standards development in areas with high 
added  value  in  social,  public  or  regulatory  terms,  but  with  low  expected 
commercial return. 

•  CEN/CLC also felt that the increased commercial pressure on income may result 
in  NSBs  reconsidering  the  amount  of  yearly  financing  of  ESO  activities  and  to 
limit activities to core business and more lucrative standardisation documents. 

Replies by the NSBs: 

•  Most of the comments provided by NSBs did not relate directly to the impact of 
the  provision  on  their  business  robustness,  but  focused  on  possible  wider 
consequences of the proposed change. 

•  In  particular,  most  NSBs  suggested  that  the  negative  impacts  would  include 
undermining the current basis of European standardisation and many of its most 
important  principles,  leading  to  a  loss  of  coherence  and  transparency,  and 
weakening consensus as fewer actors and countries would be able to participate in 

EN 

112 

   EN 

 
the development process. Some NSBs went so far as to state that they would be 
unable to guarantee the implementation of European standards at national level if 
they were developed outside of the scope of the established ESS. 

•  In  addition,  expected  income  from  selling  standards  may  become  a  more 
significant  driver  for  ESO  and  NSB  business  decisions,  as  the  balance  between 
best sellers and “niche” standards cannot be ensured any longer. 

•  NSBs  also  highlighted  that  although  F&C  may  work  faster  and  cheaper  than 
NSBs  due  to  their  simpler  structures  and  less  restrictive  (and  lower  quality) 
procedures,  the  outputs  achieved  may  be  of  far  lower  utility  because  the  same 
level of input and consensus has not been achieved. 

•  A  number  of  questions  were  also  raised  by  NSBs  relating  to  the  practical 
implementation  of  the  provision  (e.g.  concerning  eligibility  criteria,  assessment 
criteria,  tender  evaluation  processes  and  procedures  and  methods  for  ensuring 
compliance with WTO/TBT principles). 

Question  6.5:  Commission  and  ESO  to  establish  an  accreditation  system  of 
Standards developing organisations in the EU 

The  Commission  wanted  to  understand  the  likely  roles  and  procedures  and  the 
necessary  infrastructure/operating  costs  of  an  EU-level  accreditation  system  for 
SDOs.  To  this  end,  it  also  wished  to  understand  various  aspects  of  an  existing 
comparable  system,  namely  the  accreditation  elements  of  ANSI’s  operations 
(including the procedures and process in place to carry out accreditation, the criteria 
used to accredit SDOs, processes for ensuring procedures and practices are followed, 
and  the  costs  and  fees  involved).  The  Commission  also  wanted  to  understand  any 
costs and implications of the provision on ESOs and NSBs. 

Replies by the ESOs: The ESOs also felt unable to provide information on the ‘look’ 
of a new accreditation system. 

Replies by the NSBs: 

•  The  NSBs  also  felt  unable  to  provide  information  on  the  roles,  procedures  and 

costs of a new agency, based on the information provided at this stage. 

•  Indeed,  most  responding  NSBs  questioned  why  such  a  proposal  was  being 
considered  when  the  existing  system  is  effective,  well-functioning  and  the 
preferred  model  for  the  majority  of  stakeholders.  The  need  for,  purpose  and 
benefits of a new accreditation agency were unclear. 

•  Based on the information available, there were concerns that the provision would 
lead  to  two  parallel  systems  (unworkable,  duplicative,  costly  and  complex,  with 
little 
reduce 
that 
transparency/coherence and ultimately be a regressive step. 

bureaucracy, 

it  would 

increase 

value), 

added 

EN 

113 

   EN 

 
9.1.6.7.  Objective 7 – Simplify the interface between the EC and the SDOs 

Question  7:  The  Commission  to  create  an  agency  or  a  similar  organisation  to 
manage the operational relations with standards development bodies 

The Commission wanted to understand (i) the consequences for the Commission of 
the  creation  of  a  new  agency  to  manage  calls  for  standardisation  work  in,  and  (ii) 
whether  there  would  be  any  practical  implications  or  costs  to  the  ESOs  of  this 
provision. 

Replies by the ESOs: 

•  All three ESOs expect that the creation of a new agency will make the ESS more 
complex.  They  reported  that  a  new  organisation  would  result  in  more  meetings, 
additional costs, a lack of clarity over the boundaries between the EC and the new 
agency and more difficult coordination amongst stakeholders at different levels. 

•  ETSI reported that it could see no benefits to the proposed approach. 

•  CEN/CLC  added  that  a  lack  of  clarity  about  the  objectives  of  the  proposed 
organisation  mean  that  a  thorough  assessment  of  the  practical  implications  and 
costs cannot be made. 

EN 

114 

   EN 

 
9.2. 

ANNEX 2 – ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF STANDARDS IN THE EU 

9.2.1.  Benefits of standards 

Academic research and studies carried out in different EU countries (and also outside 
the EU) agree on the beneficial overall effects of standards both for companies and 
sectors as well as the economy as a whole. 

9.2.2.  Microeconomic benefits  

Various economic studies spell out the benefits that companies and industries in the 
European Union derive from the standardisation process.  

These benefits can be seen in several areas:  

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

the  possibility 

the  possibility 

technical  requirements, 

to  anticipate 
transaction  costs  and 

Cost  reduction  or  cost  savings  derived  mainly  from  economies  of 
scale, 
the 
reduction  of 
to  access 
standardised components. According to the World Bank82, one of the 
most  important  economic  benefits  of  standards  is  that  they  increase 
productive  and  innovative  efficiency.  They  allow  suppliers  to 
achieve  lower  per-unit  costs  by  producing  large  homogeneous 
batches. In addition, producers gain skills and experience by focusing 
on fewer product variations. By allowing producers to concentrate on 
a manageable number of product options instead of fragmenting their 
R&D  efforts,  variety-reducing  standards  also  increase  innovative 
efficiency.  Surveyed  companies  agreed  that  they  would  incur 
additional costs without standardisation bodies because their in-house 
standardisers would have to work alone. 

Improved market access as a result of increased competitiveness due 
to  increased  efficiency,  reduced  trading  costs,  simplified  contractual 
agreements  (because  the  characteristics  and  functionalities  of  the 
product are clear as a result of the standards) and increased quality.  

Better  relations  with  suppliers  and  clients  derived  from  increased 
safety for consumers, increased trust, reduced liability risk and wider 
choice of suppliers for the same reasons mentioned above. Minimum 
safety  standards  are  the  most  straightforward  example  of  standards 
used  to  solve  imperfect  information  problems.  By  conveying 
information  about  the  harmful  effects  of  products,  they  allow 
customers  to  avoid  products  that  might  negatively  affect  them,  the 
general  public,  or  the  environment,  and  they  allow  regulators  to 
exclude  unsafe  products  from  the  market.  These  standards  allow 
buyers to confirm that products and processes have the characteristics 
they  want  without  the  additional  transaction  costs  of  independent 

82 

Quality Systems and Standards for a Competitive Edge (drafted by J. Luis Guasch, Jean-Louis Racine, 
Isabel  Sánchez  and  Makhtar  Diop),  The  International  Bank  for  Reconstruction  and  Development/The 
World Bank, 2007. 

EN 

115 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(d) 

testing.  By  codifying  market  preferences,  standards  also  save  sellers 
the  additional  costs  of  defining  consumer  preferences.  By  reducing 
information  asymmetries,  standards  can  help  mitigate  adverse 
selection problems83. 

technological 

innovation  and 

Standards  spur 
transfers.  They 
increase  the  efficiency  of  R&D  investment  and  reduce  the  costs  of 
research  due  to  shared  development  efforts  and  knowledge  sharing 
between  different  actors.  Otherwise  one  company  or  group  of 
companies  would  have  to  meet  all  the  cost  of  providing  information 
on the state of the art of a particular technology. When information on 
innovations  is  codified  in  standards  and  this  information  is  non-
proprietary, it is accessible to everybody, at least in principle. Firms, 
universities,  and  research  organizations  can  use  the  knowledge 
embodied  in  standards  to  adopt  innovations  or  generate  new  ideas. 
Standards  play  a  particularly  useful  role  in  disseminating  knowledge 
in  industries  where  products  and  processes  supplied  by  various 
providers must interact with one another. They ensure that information 
on innovations in one part of the sector will be diffused to other parts 
of the sector.  

Optimized returns on investment resulting from the possibility to confront competing 
possible options for the development of a certain product or technology early in the 
process and to avoid investments in those that will not be widespread. 

Compatibility  and  interface  standards  add  economic  value  to  goods  with  network 
externalities and facilitate the development of networks. Compatibility standards can 
increase  direct  network  externalities  by  allowing  products  to  work  as  part  of  a 
system or network. They allow each individual participant in the network to derive 
benefits from interacting with other participants in the network. 

There  are  no  quantitative  data  available  on  the  impact  of  standards  on  companies’ 
results. Some studies (Collaz 1979) estimated it at around 1% of turnover, although 
later studies (Blind 2004) concluded that this figure should be revised downwards. 

Specific effects of standardisation for specific sectors of the economy vary according 
to their characteristics. Studies and surveys carried out in companies indicate that the 
sectors that benefit the most from standards are those  more innovative, with bigger 
R&D and patents, bigger market concentration and more exports oriented. The size 
of the companies and the concentration of the market might also play a role. Benefits 
are also higher in the case of long lifespan products because the cycle of creation of a 
standard  is  long.  The  greater  role  in  recent  years  of  ¨de  facto  standards¨,  more 
flexible, might therefore be explained because the life of products is getting shorter.  

Studies  point  out 
telecommunication as benefitting the most from the impact of standards.  

such  as  aeronautics  and  aerospace  and 

sectors 

to 

83 

Quality Systems and Standards for a Competitive Edge (drafted by J. Luis Guasch, Jean-Louis Racine, 
Isabel  Sánchez  and  Makhtar  Diop),  The  International  Bank  for  Reconstruction  and  Development/The 
World Bank, 2007. 

EN 

116 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Surveys  also  point  out  that  sectors  such  as  transport,  communications  services, 
business  related  services  and  highly  regulated  sectors  benefit  more  from  standards. 
The biggest needs for standards can be found in more fragmented markets, business 
services  (that  benefit  more  than  consumer  services),  companies  operating  at 
international level, labour intensive services, and innovative companies. 

9.2.3.  Macroeconomic benefits 

Econometric  studies  (DIN  2000,  Blind  2004,  DTI  2005,  AFNOR  2009  )  in  several 
EU  countries  (France,  Germany,  United  Kingdom)  have  established  a  positive 
influence of standards on innovation (specially on dissemination of innovation), 
on technological change, on productivity and on trade. This reflects a connection 
between standards and economic growth. Standards are a fundamental element of a 
country’s  technical  and  economic  infrastructure  and  influence  technological 
development, which undoubtedly influences economic performance. 

The  existence  of  standards  is  trade-enhancing  because  of  their  positive  cost-
decreasing effect and the reduction of information asymmetries between the supply 
and the demand side, especially in the case of cross-border transactions84.  

Studies also point out to the relation between the increase in the stock/portfolio of 
standards and the increase in productivity and GDP growth. An increase of the 
national stock of standards of 1 % would contribute to around 0.12% of productivity 
growth and between 0,02%-0.1% of output growth. This  would result  in an overall 
impact on the economic growth of existing standards that has been estimated (DIN 
2000)  in  1%  of  German  GDP  per  year.  Similar  figures  have  been  estimated  for 
France (0,8%) and other technological leading economies and slightly lower figures 
appear for the United Kingdom. With all precautions (the impact could be different 
for  EU  countries  with  a  lower  technological  base)  and  lacking  similar  data  at  EU 
aggregated  level,  we  can  estimate  that  the  impact  of  standards  on  annual  GDP 
growth could rage from 0,3 to 1%. This, in terms of EU GPD value would give the 
figure  between  35,000.37  and  120,000,  million  euro  in  2009  (EU  GDP  2009: 
11,785,474.9 million euro according to Eurostat). 

9.2.4.  Possible negative effects of standards 

Standards can have anticompetitive effects if only one or a few companies are able to 
internalize their benefits or control their content. In this case, standards can be used 
as strategic instruments to expand market power. This occurs when the content of 
the  standards  covers  technological  areas  in  which  a  limited  number  of  firms  have 
property  rights,  exclusive  knowledge,  or  the  exclusive  resources  needed  to  use  a 
technology.  Distortion  of  standardisation,  e.g.  in  the  form  of  vendor  specific 
extension  or  technologies,  will  subsequently  distort  the  market  built  upon  that 
standard, 
in  failure  of 
competition, and increasing the risk of monopolization. This effect is amplified by an 

into  market-bias,  resulting 

translating  standard-bias 

84 

Blind K , « The role of standards for trade in services : hypotheses and first insights” in “The handbook 
of innovation and services : a multi-disciplinary perspective”, edited Gallouj F. and Djellal F, Edward 
Elgar Ltd., 2010; Den Butter F., Groot S., Lazrak F. “The Transaction Costs Perspective on Standards 
as a Source of Trade and Productivity Growth”, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper, 2007. 

EN 

117 

   EN 

 
                                                 
inherent  bias  for  very  large  corporations  in  standardisation,  whereas  innovation  is 
often  driven  by  small  and  medium  enterprises  (SMEs).  As  a  result,  standardisation 
has  the  potential  to  be  abused  by  large  players  to  create  market  bias  and  capture 
markets from the innovators85. 

The realisation of the innovative and competitive benefits of standards depends upon 
the  availability  of  standards  to  all  potential  innovators  and  competitors.  Exclusive 
rights  on  a  standard,  for  example  through  intellectual  property  rights, 
undermine the utility of standards. Participants in the standardisation process attempt 
to  mitigate  the  risk  of  patent  hold-ups  on  standards86.  Nevertheless,  there  is  still  a 
substantial  risk  of  third  party  claims  which  cannot  be  addressed.  Furthermore,  the 
assurances  provided  are  usually  non-binding  and  do  not  constitute  ex-ante 
permission to implement, leaving the possibility for future market capture by patent 
holders  or  exclusion  of  specific  groups  of  competitors,  e.g.  user-driven  and 
collaborative innovation models87. 

9.2.5.  Types of standards by their economic effects 

Generally  speaking,  economic  literature  distinguishes  different  types  of  standards 
by their economic effects. For the purpose of this impact assessment, the following 
classification88 will be used: 

•  Standards  for  interoperability  (or  compatibility)  define  physical  or  virtual 
relationships  between  independent  entities  for  the  purpose  of  interoperability  or 
communication. Most of a country’s infrastructure uses compatibility standards to 
connect  a  number  of  disparate  private  and  public  entities,  for  example  railway 
standards and network industries. 

•  Minimum  quality  and  safety  standards  allow  consumers  to  assess  the  quality  or 
safety of a product before purchasing it. These standards are developed to specify 
acceptable product or service performance along one or more dimensions such as 
functional  levels,  performance  variation,  service  lifetime,  efficiency,  safety,  and 
environmental impact. A standard that specifies a minimum level of performance 
often provides the point of departure for competition in an industry89. 

•  Variety-reducing 

the  common 
characteristics  of  two  or  more  entities.  In  this  way  they  provide  inter-

inter-changeability) 

standards  define 

(or 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

Quality Systems and Standards for a Competitive Edge (drafted by J. Luis Guasch, Jean-Louis Racine, 
Isabel  Sánchez  and  Makhtar  Diop),  The  International  Bank  for  Reconstruction  and  Development/The 
World Bank, 2007. 
See, for example, Geradin D. and Rato M., “Frand Commitments and EC Competition Law: a Reply to 
Philippe  Chappatte”,  in  European  Competition  Journal,  2010,  p.  129;  Chappatte  P,  “Frand 
Commitments – The Case for Antitrust Intervention”, European Competition Journal, 2009, p. 319. 
Greve,  G.C.F.,  “Inside  Views:  Innovation  Policy:  The  Balance  Between  Standards  and  Patent 
Regulation”, Intellectual Property Watch, 26 February 2009. 
See Blind K., “The Economics of Standards: Theory, Evidence, Policy”, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 
2004;  Quality  Systems  and Standards  for  a Competitive  Edge  (drafted  by  J.  Luis Guasch, Jean-Louis 
Racine,  Isabel  Sánchez  and  Makhtar  Diop),  The  International  Bank  for  Reconstruction  and 
Development/The World Bank, 2007. 
Tassey  G.,  “Standardization  in  technology-based  markets”,  Research  Policy,  2000,  vol. 29,  issue 4-5, 
pages 587-602.  

EN 

118 

   EN 

 
                                                 
changeability  and  generate  economies  of  scale  and  economies  of  learning  in 
production.  The  majority  of  standards  fall  into  this  category.  A  well-known 
standard of this type is the international paper standard, ISO 216, which defines 
the  A4  format  used  in  most  of  the  world  except  for  North  America.  The 
widespread use of A4 paper has many advantages other than economies of scale 
in paper production itself. It avoids the need to rework documents to fit different 
formats  and  allows  consumers  to  choose  between  competing  paper  brands, 
calculate  shipping  weights  from  the  number  of  pages  (most  A4  sheets  have  the 
same weight), and fit papers from different sources into the same envelopes and 
binders, among many other advantages. 

•  Information and measurement standards establish a common technical language in 
which 
technical 
to  compare  physical  attributes  and  convey  descriptive 
information. They include unit standards, such as the number system and weights 
and measures. 

EN 

119 

   EN 

 
9.3. 

ANNEX 3 – EUROPEAN STANDARDISATION ORGANISATIONS 

9.3.1.  Definitions – International context 

There is a wide variety of definitions with respect to standards90. For the purpose of 
this impact assessment, the following definitions are used: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

A  “Standard”  means  a  technical  specification  approved  by  a  recognised 
standardisation  body  or  agreed  upon  between  economic  operators,  for 
repeated  or  continuous  application  and  with  which  compliance  is  not 
compulsory.  It  can  be  an  international,  European,  national  or  Fora  and 
Consortia standard 

An  “International  Standard”  means  a  standard  adopted  by  an  international 
standardisation organisation91 and made available to the public; 

A  “European  Standard”  means  a  standard  adopted  by  a  European 
standardisation body and made available to the public; 

A  “National  Standard”  means  a  standard  adopted  by  a  national 
standardisation body and made available to the public; 

A “European Standardisation Organisation” or “ESO” means a body referred 
to in Annex II to Directive 98/34/EC, i.e. CEN, CENELEC and ETSI. Annex 
3 of this impact assessment contains a detailed description of these bodies; 

A  “National  Standardisation  Body”  or  “NSB”  means  a  body  referred  to  in 
Annex II to Directive 98/34/EC; 

A “Fora and Consortia Standard” or “FCS” means a technical  specification, 
convention or system developed by fora and consortia92 compliant with WTO 
criteria in the development of new standards but which has not been defined 

90 

91 

92 

The ISO/IEC Guide 2: 2004, defines a standard as a document, established by consensus and approved 
by a recognized body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics 
for  activities  or  their  results,  aimed  at  the  achievement  of  the  optimum  degree  of  order  in  a  given 
context.  The  terms  as  defined  in  ISO/IEC  Guide  2  cover  products,  processes  and  services.  The  TBT 
Agreement,  however,  deals  only  with  technical  regulations,  standards  and  conformity  assessment 
procedures related to products or processes and production methods. Consequently, the corresponding 
definition of a standard is also limited to products or processes and production methods. Furthermore, 
standards as defined by ISO/IEC Guide 2 may be mandatory or voluntary. For the purpose of the TBT 
Agreement,  standards  are  defined  as  voluntary  and  technical  regulations  as  mandatory  documents. 
Standards  prepared  by  the  international  standardization  EU  are  based  on  consensus.  The  TBT 
Agreement covers also documents that are not based on consensus. 
For example, ISO (International Organisation for Standardisation), IEC (International Electrotechnical 
Commission),  ITU  (International  Telecommunications  Union),  UNECE  (United  Nations  Economic 
Commission for Europe), OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), OIML 
(Organisation  Internationale  de  la  Métrologie  Légale),  Codex  Alimentarius  (a  unit  of  the  FAO),  OIE 
(Office International des Epizoöties), IPPC (International Plant Protection Convention - also a unit of 
the  FAO),  International  Pharmacopoeia  (World  Health  Organisation  ),  ICH  (International  Conference 
on Harmonisation), IMO (International Maritime Organisation), ICAO, Central Office for International 
Carriage by Rail. 
See Annex 7. 

EN 

120 

   EN 

 
                                                 
or  endorsed  as  a  formal  standard  by  an  international  standardisation 
organisation,  a  European  Standardisation  Organisation  (ESO)  or  a  National 
Standardisation Body (NSB).  

Basic reference for the principles of standardisation is the “Code of good practice 
for  the  preparation,  adoption  and  application  of  standards”  (hereinafter  “Code  of 
good practice”), which constitutes, as its Annex 3, an integral part of Agreement on 
technical barriers to trade (hereinafter “TBT Agreement”)93.  

The  Code  of  good  practice  is  open  to  acceptance  by  any  standardising  body within 
the territory of a Member of WTO94. The three ESO have accepted the Code of good 
practice.  Nevertheless,  under  Article  4.1  of  the  TBT  Agreement,  the  obligations  of 
WTO Members (including the European Union and its Member States) with respect 
to  compliance  of  standardising  bodies  with  the  provisions  of  the  Code  of  good 
practice  continue  to  apply  irrespective  of  whether  or  not  a  standardising  body  has 
accepted the Code of good practice.  

9.3.2.  General overview of the European Standardisation Organisations 

The  European  Standardisation  Organisations  for  the  purposes  of  this  impact 
assessment  are  the  European  Standardisation  Bodies  as  referred  to  in  Annex  I  of 
Directive 98/34/EC95, namely: 

–  CEN (European Committee for Standardisation),  

–  CENELEC (European Committee for Electrotechnical Standards) and  

–  ETSI (European Telecommunication Standards Institute). 

CEN and CENELEC are not-for-profit international associations under Belgian law, 
gathering  exclusively  the  National  Standards  Bodies  (NSBs)  of  the  EU  and  EFTA 
countries and of Croatia. CEN and CENELEC decision making processes are based 
on consensus.  

Preparatory  documents  and  draft  European  standards  are  developed  in  Technical 
Committees to which every NSB can send a delegation, whilst the Secretariat of the 
Committee is managed by one of them (the decision of allocation of the secretariat is 
also  made  by  consensus).  National  Delegations  generally  include  1  to  5  delegates, 
appointed by the national mirror committees where all national stakeholders can be 
represented. Each national delegation presents a consensual national position within 
the European Technical Committee. Once a stable draft European standard has been 
developed  by  the  Technical  Committee,  it  is  approved  by  weighted  votes  of  the 
NSBs. 

93 
94 

95 

EN 

a 

detailed 

http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/17-tbt_e.htm#annexIII.  
For 
consult 
http://www.standardsinfo.net/info/livelink/fetch/2000/148478/6301438/docs_wto/TbtList_13.09.2010.p
df.  
Directive  98/34/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22  June  1998  laying  down  a 
procedure  for  the  provision  of  information  in  the  field  of  technical  standards  and  regulations  and  of 
rules on Information Society services (OJ L 204 of 21 July 1998) as amended. 

please 

list, 

121 

   EN 

 
                                                 
All approved European Standards must be implemented as national standards by all 
CEN  and  CENELEC  Members,  and  conflicting  national  standards  must  be 
withdrawn, thus allowing the creation of a coherent system of standards throughout 
the EU. 

ETSI’s governance is based on direct membership of companies  and  organisations, 
including  NSBs.  ETSI  develops  European  standards  (EN)  according  to  the  same 
procedure  as  CEN  and  CENELEC.  However,  its  main  task  is  the  publication  of 
technical specifications, developed directly by expert committees and made available 
on ETSI’s web site. 

9.3.3.  Main Deliverables of the ESOs 

9.3.3.1.  CEN/CENELEC 

CEN/CENELEC  deliverables  differ  in  the  levels  of  transparency,  consensus  and 
approval required before issue. These deliverables are: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

the  European  Standard  (EN),  leading  to  full  implementation  as  a  national 
standard Europe-wide, which also serves the European regulatory purposes of 
the New Approach;  

the Technical Specification (TS), that serves as normative document in areas 
where the actual state of the art is not yet sufficiently stable for a European 
Standard;  

the Technical Report (TR) for information and the transfer of knowledge;  

the  Workshop  Agreement  (CWA),  which aims at bringing  about consensual 
agreements  based  on  deliberations  of  open  Workshops  with  unrestricted 
direct representation of interested parties;  

the  Guide  (CEN  or  CENELEC  Guide),  which  gives  information  about 
standardisation principles and policies and guidance to standards writers. 

Apart from the CWA, which has direct industry representation in Workshops, these 
products are worked out among CEN/CENELEC members, who in turn consult their 
interested parties, usually by means of national mirror committees. 

9.3.3.2.  European Standard (EN)  

The European Standard is a normative document made available by CEN/CENELEC 
in  three  official  languages.  The  development  of  a  European  Standard  includes  a 
public enquiry, followed by an approval by weighted vote of national members and 
final ratification. The European Standard is announced at national level, published or 
endorsed as an identical national standard and every conflicting national standard is 
withdrawn. 

The  content  of  a  European  Standard  does  not  conflict  with  any  other 
CEN/CENELEC Standard. 

EN 

122 

   EN 

 
A  European  Standard  is  periodically  reviewed.  During  the  elaboration  and  whole 
lifetime of the European Standard, standstill applies. 

The  EN  is  the  appropriate  deliverable  where  there  is  a  need  for  national 
implementation and withdrawal of conflicting national standards. The values that the 
EN derives from the characteristics of its development process are: 

–  Consensus:  General  agreement,  characterized  by  the  absence  of  sustained 
opposition to substantial issues by any important interest parties concerned and by 
a  process  that  involves  seeking  to  take  into  account  the  view  of  all  parties 
concerned  and  to  reconcile  any  conflicting  argument.  Consensus  does  not  imply 
unanimity. It makes sure that the standard is wanted by the parties concerned and 
prepared with voluntary commitment to their use. 

–  Openness  (open  to  all  stakeholders):  all  interested  parties  have  the  right  to 
participate  in  (via  national  delegations)  and  contribute  to  the  development  of  an 
EN. 

–  Transparency:  At 

the 

initiation  phase, 

is  made  public  (via 
announcement  in  standards  bulletins,  etc.).  If  it  may  have  an  impact  on 
international trade it is also notified to a defined body (Code of Good Practice for 
Standardization  of  the  WTO  TBT  agreement).  The  CEN  programme  of  work  is 
available  as  public  information  and  everybody  may  react  during  the  obligatory 
public comment phase (the CEN enquiry).  

the  project 

–  National  Commitment:  the  formal  adoption  of  EN  is  decided  by  a  weighted 
majority vote of all CEN National Members and is binding on all of them (Formal 
vote).  The  standstill  principle  applies,  i.e.  National  Members  agree  that  no 
national individual action, during the preparation or after the approval of an EN, 
that  would  prejudice  the  European  work,  is  taken  and  that  no  publication  or 
revision  of  national  standard,  not  in  line  with  an  existing  EN,  shall  take  place. 
Moreover,  National  Members  must  implement  the  European  Standard  which 
includes the withdrawal of any conflicting national standards. 

–  Technical  Coherence:  the  European  standards  form  a  collection  which  should 
ensure  continuity  and  consistency  of  technical  content  for  the  benefit  of  users, 
both at European and national levels. 

An  EN  is  reviewed  at  least  within  five  years  from  its  publication  or  earlier  when 
requested. 

9.3.3.3.  Technical Specification (TS)  

A  Technical  Specification 
CEN/CENELEC in at least one of the three official languages. 

is  a  normative  document  made  available  by 

A  Technical  Specification  is  established  and  approved  by  a  technical  body 
(Technical  Committee  or  BTTF)  by  a  weighted  vote  of  National  Members.  The 
Technical  Specification  is  announced  and  made  available  at  national  level,  but 
conflicting national standards may continue to exist. 

EN 

123 

   EN 

 
A Technical Specification may compete against another Technical Specification with 
the  same  scope,  but  a  Technical  Specification  may  not  conflict  with  a  European 
Standard. This means that an existing Technical Specification should be withdrawn if 
the  publication  of  a  subsequent  EN  brings  the  Technical  Specification  into  conflict 
with that EN. 

During  the  preparation  of  a  Technical  Specification,  or  after  its  approval,  no 
standstill obligation exists except if the Technical Board has specifically so decided. 

The  maximum  lifetime  of  a  Technical  Specification  is  6  years  (i.e.  one  three-year 
period and one confirmation). 

CEN/CENELEC  introduced  the  Technical  Specification  to  provide  an  appropriate 
consensus/transparency solution to a market need where there is no immediate need 
for national implementation and withdrawal of conflicting national standards. 

through 

'pre-standard'.  This  pre-standardisation  role 

A Technical Specification can be transformed into a European Standard (EN) and so 
it  also  serves  as  a 
is  further 
acknowledged 
'competing'  Technical 
the  possibility  of  allowing 
Specifications  which  permits  CEN  to  test  two  (or  more)  solutions  to  a  specific 
market need: with experience, the preferred solution could then be transformed into a 
European Standard. The Technical Specification can act as a pre-standard but it can 
also  be  accepted  that  the  'appropriate  consensus'  represented  by  the  Technical 
Specification could continue to meet a market need without eventual conversion into 
an EN. 

A Technical Specification may be established with a view to serving for instance the 
purpose of: 

–  publishing aspects of a subject which may support the development and progress 
of the European market but where a European standard is not feasible or not yet 
feasible;  

–  giving guidance to the market on or by specifications and related test methods;  

–  providing  specifications 

in  experimental  circumstances  and/or  evolving 

technologies. 

Furthermore, a CEN Technical Committee may decide to publish an EN work item 
as a Technical Specification where: 

–  there  had  been  insufficient  support  at  the  CEN  Enquiry  for  the  work  item  to 

progress to an EN;  

–  no consensus can be reached on the submission of the work item to Formal Vote 

within the given target date. 

It  may  also  be  preferable  to  publish  two  or  more  Technical  Specifications  if,  for 
instance,  the  draft  EN  had  dealt  with  more  than  one  class  of  product,  or  included 
alternative  methods  of  test.  Technical  Specifications  may,  therefore,  compete  with 
each other. 

EN 

124 

   EN 

 
9.3.3.4.  Technical Report (TR)  

A Technical Report is an informative  document  made  available by CEN  in at  least 
one of the official languages. 

A  Technical  Report  is  established  and  approved  by  a  technical  body  (Technical 
Committee,  Technical  Board  or  BTTF)  by  a  simple  majority  vote  of  national 
members. 

During  the  preparation  of  the  Technical  Report  or  after  its  adoption,  there  is  no 
standstill  obligation.  The  obligation  at  national  level  is  limited  to  announcement  of 
the existence of the TR and conflicting national standards may continue. Adoption as 
a national deliverable is optional. 

A  Technical  Report  gives  information  on  the  technical  content  of  standardisation 
work. 

A Technical Report may be established as an informative document in cases where it 
is considered urgent or advisable to provide information to the national members, the 
European  Commission,  the  EFTA  Secretariat  or  other  governmental  agencies  or 
outside bodies, on the basis of collected data of a different kind from that which is 
normally published as an EN. 

A Technical Report may include, for example, data obtained from a survey carried 
out among the national members, data on work in other organizations, or data on the 
"state-of-the-art" in relation to national standards on a particular subject. 

No  time  limit  is  specified  for  the  lifetime  of  Technical  Reports,  but  it  is 
recommended  that  Technical  Reports  be  regularly  reviewed  by  the  responsible 
technical body to ensure that they remain valid. 

9.3.3.5.  Workshop Agreement (CWA)  

A  Workshop  Agreement  is  a  document  made  available  by  CEN/CENELEC  in  at 
least one of the official languages. 

A Workshop Agreement is a technical agreement developed in an open structure, the 
CEN or CENELEC Workshop (WS), and not in a Technical Committee. 

A  Workshop  Agreement  is  adopted  through  consensus,  which  is  reached  by  the 
Workshop  participants  who  are  responsible  for  its  contents.  The  main  activity  of  a 
Workshop is the development and publication of a Workshop Agreement. In addition 
to this main activity, a Workshop may be used as a forum to organise other project 
activities within CEN/CENELEC, such as  the exchange of experiences with regard 
to implementing a specification, exchange of views with regard to new technologies 
and  their  business  opportunities  (conferences  and  seminars),  creation  of  common 
web-sites, etc. For all Workshops, an approved business plan indicating the voluntary 
contributions of the participants to support these activities is essential. 

During  the  preparation  of  a  Workshop  Agreement  or  after  its  adoption,  there  is  no 
standstill obligation. 

EN 

125 

   EN 

 
The  Workshop  Agreement  is  announced  and  possibly  made  available  at  national 
level, and conflicting national normative documents may continue to exist. 

A  Workshop  Agreement  may  not  conflict  with  any  European  normative  document, 
but  may  compete  with  any  European  normative  document.  This  means  that  an 
existing CWA must be withdrawn if the publication of a subsequent EN brings the 
CWA into conflict with that EN. 

A Workshop Agreement should be valid for a limited duration of 3 years or until its 
transformation into another deliverable. When 3 years have passed, the CMC should 
consult the former Workshop participants to see whether a renewal of the publication 
for a further 3 years is appropriate; if not, the CWA should be withdrawn. 

9.3.4.  ETSI 

9.3.4.1.  European Standards 

ETSI  adopts  and  publishes  European  Standards  (ENs)  in  the  telecommunications 
series. 

Before  a  draft  EN  (telecommunications  series)  is  submitted  for  ETSI  approval,  a 
Public  Enquiry  should  have  been  carried  out  for  the  draft  by  the  NSOs.  Any 
comments received during the time set shall be given due consideration by ETSI. 

A draft EN (telecommunications series) is approved by the weighted national voting 
procedure. 

The  NSOs  shall  ensure  the  visibility  of EN  (telecommunications  series)  at  national 
level,  either  by  publication  of  an  identical  text,  or  by  endorsement  (that  is,  by 
publication  of  an  endorsement  sheet  or  by  announcement  in  an  official  journal) 
within a short time of their adoption. ENs (telecommunications series) thus published 
or endorsed have the status of national standards. When an EN (telecommunications 
series) has been approved and adopted on a specific  matter,  the  NSOs  must  ensure 
that all conflicting national standards on that specific matter are withdrawn. 

9.3.4.2.  ETSI Standards and ETSI Guides 

ETSI  also  publishes  ETSI  Standards  (ESs)  and  ETSI  Guides  (EGs).  These 
documents  are  drawn  up  by  Technical  Committees,  ETSI  Projects  or  ETSI 
Partnership Projects, or be received from other sources, and are, following approval 
at that level, submitted to the membership approval process. 

All  full  members  and  all  associate  members  have  the  right  to  vote  for  adoption  of 
ETSI Guides (EGs) and ETSI Standards (ESs). If the deliverable is not adopted as a 
result  of  the  vote,  an  analysis  of  the  distribution  of  the  votes  among  associate 
members and full members shall be conducted. The deliverable shall be adopted for 
use  within  Europe  if  at  least  71  %  of  the  weighted  votes  cast  by  full  members  are 
positive. 

EN 

126 

   EN 

 
9.3.5.  The Mandates to the ESOs 

Through  a  mandate,  the  public  authorities  ask  the  ESOs  to  draw  up  technical 
specifications of a normative nature that meet "their" requirements96. The concept of 
a mandate is based on the principle of partnership, cooperation and the clear division 
of tasks between the public authorities and the ESOs. 

9.3.5.1.  The process 

The  mandate  is  normally  drawn  up  on  the  initiative  of  a  Commission  department. 
However,  Article  6(3)  of  Directive  98/34  stipulates  that  the  98/34/EC  Committee 
may  ask  the  Commission  to  invite  the  ESOs  to  draw  up  a  European  standard.  The 
initiative for a mandate stems from the public authorities. This does not prevent the 
various players on the market, such as consumers, from contacting these authorities 
to demonstrate the value of having a mandate, and so of having European standards, 
in a particular area. 

The  draft  mandate,  after  informal  consultation  of  various  interested  parties,  is 
submitted  to  Committee  98/34/EC  for  formal  consultation,  as  stipulated  in  Article 
6(4)(d) of Directive 98/34/EC. This consultation is required for mandates under the 
New  Approach  directives,  but  also  for  any  other  request  for  standardisation  to  the 
ESOs. 

When  the  mandate  has  received  a  favourable  opinion  by  Committee  98/34/EC,  the 
Commission forward the final version of the mandate in English, French and German 
to  the  ESOs  by  official  letter.  The  mandates  can  be  addressed  to  any  one  of  the 
ESOs, or any combination of them, as the work envisaged requires.  

Mandates are accepted or refused by the ESOs according to their own internal rules, 
through the CEN and CENELEC Technical Boards and the ETSI Board.  

The  acceptance  of  the  standardisation  mandate  begins  the  standstill  period,  as 
specified  in  Article  7.1  of  Directive  98/34/EC.  From  this  moment  the  national 
standardisation  bodies  do  not  take  "any  action  which  could  prejudice  the 
harmonisation intended". 

In the event of refusal, it will, in the first instance, be for the Commission's services, 
together with the European standardisation body concerned, to analyse the situation 
and find a solution. In a second step, the 98/34/EC-Committee should be consulted. 

The withdrawal of a mandate by the Commission must be subject to a consultation 
with the 98/34/EC-Committee.  

A  mandate  also  specifies  the  dates  of  adoption  of  the  standards  and  if  possible  the 
dates on which these documents must be ready for public survey. 

96 

Vademecum on European Standardisation of 21 November 2008 see: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/european-standards/documents/vademecum/index_en.htm. 

EN 

127 

   EN 

 
                                                 
It is common for the ESOs to request co-funding for the mandated work following 
acceptance – by means of action grants – although the issuance of the mandate itself 
does not mean funding will necessarily be available and the request for funding must 
undergo a thorough evaluation process by the Commission services.  

A mandate can be issued on the basis of: 

•  Either legislation (e.g. a New Approach directive), 

•  Or  policy  (e.g.  to  support  the  creation  of  lead  markets  or  to  promote  policy 

objectives such as accessibility). 

It can also be a combination of these two elements. 

Types of EC mandated EN Cen/Cenelec
end of the year excluding corrigenda 

7.000

6.000

5.000

r
a
e
Y

4.000

3.000

2.000

1.000

0

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

Source: CEN/CENELEC

Number

Non harmonised

Harmonised EN

EN 

128 

   EN 

 
 
During the period 2006-2009, for example, a total of 86 mandates were issued to the 
ESOs.  The  number  of  mandates  concerning  New  Approach  Directives  has  fallen 
compared to previous years.  

Mandates 2006-2009 – total 

Type 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010  Total 

After formal objection (New 
Approach) 

Amendments (New Approach) 

New Approach mandates 

Mandates under other legislation 

Mandates under EU policy 

4 

4 

5 

7 

4 

2 

0 

7 

5 

6 

0 

1 

2 

9 

6 

0 

4 

7 

8 

2 

Total 

24 

20 

18 

21 

0 

0 

4 

10 

6 

20 

6 

9 

25 

39 

24 

103 

9.3.5.2.  Areas in which mandates can be used 

indicate 

Mandates  specify  the  public  authorities’  expectations  towards  the  European 
Standardisation  Organisations.  They 
the 
standardisation  work,  as  regards  a  given  European  policy  and/or  the  legislation 
concerned. It is a unilateral act inviting the ESOs to draw up standards, responding to 
certain  conditions  -  such  as  the  risks  to  be  covered  -  and  assuming  certain  tasks. 
Mandates  must  be  regarded  as  the  framework  which  refers  to  the  public  interest 
requirements  and  which  enables  the  standards  bodies  to  develop  quality  standards 
that meet these requirements. 

the  general  context  of 

In  principle,  there  are  three  types  of  mandates:  study  mandates,  programming 
mandates and standardisation mandates. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

The study mandate aims to determine if European standardisation is relevant 
and feasible in a specific field or for a certain subject. This type of mandate is 
most common in non-regulatory fields or for new sectors. 

The programming mandate asks the European Standardisation Organisations 
to draw up a standardisation programme in a given time. This programme has 
to  contain  inter  alia  the  subjects  to  be  standardised,  the  relevant  technical 
organisations as well as the completion dates laid down. It can also include an 
inventory  of  the  existing  standards  to  be  revised  in  order  to  meet  the  set 
requirements. 

A  standardisation  mandate  calls  on  those  drawing  up  standards  or  other 
alternative  standardisation  deliverables  to  prepare  and  adopt  within  a  given 
time  European  standards  in  a  specific  field,  possibly  on  specific  subjects.  It 
can  also  include  the  verification,  and,  if  necessary,  the  revision  of  existing 
standards. 

Apart  from  these  three  types  of  mandates,  there  are  also  so-called  "combined" 
mandates.  This  involves  mandates  asking  the  ESOs  to  prepare  in  a  first  phase  a 

EN 

129 

   EN 

 
work programme and in a second phase the implementation of this programme. This 
normally happens in the case of major standardisation work where several families of 
products and/or several issues (safety, for instance) need to be dealt with.  

In  principle,  any  type  of  publication  by  the  ESOs  may  be  the  subject  of  a 
standardisation mandate. However, in practice, and a fortiori for the directives under 
the  New  Approach,  it  is  mostly  limited  to  EN  standards  in  order  to  ensure  that  the 
various  principles  of  European  standardisation  (such  as  identical  transposition  at 
national level) are applied. 

Mandates 2006-2010 by subject area 

Subject 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

Total 

Services 

ICT 

Energy 

Transport 

Environment 

Consumer protection 

Other 

New Approach 

Total 

1 

0 

2 

3 

2 

4 

0 

12 

24 

0 

1 

1 

1 

2 

0 

6 

9 

0 

1 

1 

1 

3 

4 

5 

3 

20 

18 

0 

3 

3 

1 

2 

1 

0 

11 

21 

0 

0 

7 

1 

2 

4 

2 

4 

1 

5 

14 

7 

11 

13 

13 

39 

20 

103 

9.3.6.  EC financial support to ESOs 

The financing decision 1673/2006/EC establishes rules concerning the Commission's 
contribution  to  the  financing  of  European  standardisation  in  order  to  support  the 
implementation of specific policies, measures, actions and legislation. 

The Commission provides financial support to the Central Secretariats of European 
standardisation bodies with the aim of improving the quality of harmonised standards 
and  promoting  European  standardisation  at  international  level.  The  European 
Commission  and  EFTA  establish  Framework  Partnership  Agreements  (FPAs)  with 
each ESO, under which proposals for financing can be addressed to the Commission. 
The  FPAs  fix  the  administrative  and  financial  rules  concerning  the  financing  of 
standardisation  activities  and  set  out  the  general  context  and  terms  under  which 
financial support can be allocated. The current FPA entered into force on the 1st of 
January  2009  and  was  concluded  for  a  period  of  3  years  with  the  possibilty  of 
renewal for the maximum of 2 years. 

The table below shows the number of specific grant agreements signed between the 
ESOs and the Commission between 2004 and 2009: 

EN 

130 

   EN 

 
Numbers of standardisation grant agreements – (2004-2010) 

Year 
2004 
2005 
2006 
2007 
2008 
2009 
2010 
Total 

CEN 

27 
9 
20 
10 
15 
11 
18 
110 

CENELEC 
6 
5 
2 
2 
2 
2 
1 
20 

ETSI 

12 
13 
7 
6 
11 
10 
11 
70 

Total
45
27
29
18
28
23
30
200

There are six main areas or forms of activity that can receive financial support from 
EC/EFTA under the FPAs, as follows: 

•  Operating Grants (OGs), previously Annual Performance Contracts (APCs) – to 
support the existence and functioning of the Central Secretariats (or Management 
Centres) of the three ESOs 

•  Standardisation  Work  –  financing  provided  to  support  the  production  and 
revision  of  standards  and  other  standardisation  products  in  support  of  European 
legislation and policies 

•  Visibility  Actions  -  programmes  of  technical  assistance,  cooperation  with  third 
countries  and  the  promotion  and  enhancement  of  the  European  standardisation 
system 

•  Preliminary  studies  –  the  performance  of  work  in  connection  with  European 
standardisation  (studies,  programmes,  evaluations,  comparative  analysis,  and 
other supporting actions) 

•  Translation  -  of  European  standards  or  other  standardisation  products  into 

community languages other than the official languages of the ESOs 

•  Quality Assessment - the verification of the quality and conformity of European 
standards, or any other standardisation products, to the corresponding Community 
legislation, carried out by New Approach Consultants. 

The  table  below  shows  the  EC  contribution  to  the  European  standadisation  by  the 
categories of activity supported. 

EN 

131 

   EN 

 
 
Commission Financial Support to Standardisation 

Support to Central 
Secretariats of ESO / 
Operating Grants  
M€ 

% 

New Approach 
Consultants 
% 
M€ 

Translation 
% 
M€ 

IT 
Standardisation  

Non-IT 
Standardisation  

Visibility of 
European 
Standard System 

Other  

M€ 

% 

M€ 

% 

M€ 

% 

M€ 

% 

4,96

5,80

6,32

7,83

6,37

6,30

29,7 

35,9 

39,6 

52,9 

42,2 

63,3 

2,01

1,47

2,11

1,73

1,72

1,80

6,73 

9,85 

10,40 

10,40 

10,17 

12,0

9,1

13,2

11,7

11,4

18,1

38,5

56,7

57,8

49,1

42,5

1,54

1,81

1,72

1,05

1,49

0,00

1,19

0,00

0,00

1,20

1,20

9,2

11,2

10,8

7,1

9,9

0,0

6,8

0,0

0,0

5,7

5,0

5,07

4,25

2,79

2,26

3,05

1,04

2,88

4,91

4,00

2,50

4,47

30,3

26,3

17,5

15,3

20,2

10,4

16,5

28,3

22,2

11,8

18,7

3,03

2,55

2,96

1,53

2,24

0,07

6,51

1,58

3,30

5,20

7,86

18,1

15,8

18,6

10,3

14,8

0,7

37,3

9,1

18,4

24,5

32,8

0,04

0,00

0,04

0,31

0,22

0,59

0,08

0,20

0,08

1,55

0,20

0,2

0,0

0,3

2,1

1,5

6,0

0,5

1,2

0,4

7,4

0,8

0,06

0,26

0,00

0,10

0,01

0,16

0,08

0,82

0,20

0,35

0,05

0,4 

1,6 

0,0 

0,7 

0,1 

1,6 

0,5 

4,7 

1,1 

1,7 

0,2 

Total 
M€ 

16,71 

16,14 

15,94 

14,81 

15,10 

9,96 

17,47 

17,36 

17,98 

21,20 

23,94 

Year 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

% of total budget 

EN 

132 

EN 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9.3.7.  Costs and financing of the European Standardisation system 

Data  provided  by  the  European  Standardisation  Organisations,  and  a  study  carried 
out by Roland Berger (200097) and own estimations (methodology below) indicate an 
estimated cost of the creation of standards of the European Standardisation System of 
around €3 000 million in 2009 . According to th e study, this cost results mainly from 
the expense of industry experts’ participation in the system (around 82%), followed 
by the costs of National Standardisation Bodies and other national institutions (16%) 
and the costs of the management centres of European Standardisation bodies (around 
2%).On the basis of the related costs of experts, organisation of meetings, travel etc, 
we estimate an approximate cost for creation of a standard of around €1m.  

The  study  argues  that  the  system  is  financed  primarily  by  industry  [93-95%], 
followed by national governments [around 3-5%] and European Commission/EFTA 
contributions  [around  2%].  The  fact  that  industry  bears  the  bulk  of  the  cost  of  the 
system, together with the voluntary character of standards, seem to indicate that, for 
industry, the benefit outweighs the cost. Therefore, any initiative taken to reform the 
system should not discourage industry participation. 

Sources and methodology 

a) 

Costs  

The  report  “Future  financing  of  the  CEN  system”  prepared  by  Roland  Berger  for 
CEN in December 2000 estimated the cost of the CEN system at that point in time. It 
was  concluded  that  the  total  cost  of  the  system  amounted  to  704  million  euro  with 
three  main  expenditure  components:  National  Standardisation  Bodies  and  other 
national  organisations,  Common  Management  Centre  and 
industry  experts’ 
participation.  On  the  basis  of  this  figures,  estimation  was  made  for  the  three 
European  Standardisation  Organisations,  CEN,  CENELEC  and  ETSI  updated  to 
2009.  

From the CEN data we extrapolated the costs for CENELEC and ETSI for 2000 and 
projected  them  for  2009.  The  cost  for  the  management  centres  of  the  CEN, 
CENELEC  and  ETSI  was  based  on  the  figures  contained  in  the  annual  reports  of 
these institutions. The costs for experts participation was estimated in relation to the 
evolution  of  the  annual  deliverables  of  each  organisation.  The  costs  for  National 
Standardisation  Bodies  were  estimated  on  the  basis  of  figures  related  to  income 
provided by NSB to the Commission in a survey carried out in 2008.  

Figures were also compared with results obtained from EC financial data in relation 
to number of meetings carried out within the standardisation process and the related 
costs of experts. 

Data from 2000 were adjusted to inflation (data Eurostat).  

b) 

Financing 

97 

The future financing of the CEN system (Roland Berger, December 2000) 

EN 

133 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2009  data  on  financing  from  industry  and  Member  States  were  extrapolated  on  the 
basis of the Roland Berger report (2000) and data from ESOs. 

EN 

134 

   EN 

 
Estimated cost of European 
Standardisation system (euros) 

2000 CEN 

CENELEC  ETSI 

Total 

2009 CEN  

CENELEC  ETSI 

Total  

National Standardisation Bodies and other 
national organisations (Roland Berger 2000 
and Commission survey on revenues of 
NSB 2008) 

European Standardisation Organisations 
Management Centers (annual reports)  

Experts participation (estimated in relation to 
annual standards and adjusted to inflation)  

183.000.000  

367.816.868  

446.875.123 

11.000.000

3.253.000

20.213.000

34.466.000  

15.574.000

4.981.000

24.107.000

44.662.000 

510.000.000 172.850.299 1.053.592.814 1.736.443.114  

307.212.285 129.860.265 1.840.305.476 2.277.378.026 

Total  

2.138.725.982  

2.768.915.150 

Deliverables  
All deliverables portfolio (Cen/Cenelec/ETSI) 

Annual production all deliverables 
(Cen/Cenelec/ETSI) 

EU inflation (Eurostat) 

6.389

4.145

6.132

16.666  

13.744

6.170

23.822

835

2001 

0,02
1,02

283

2002 

0,02
1,02

1.725

2003 

0,02
1,02

2.843  

2004  2005  2006 

0,02 0,022  0,022 
1,02
1,02
1,02

414

2007 

0,023 
1,02

175

2008 

0,037 
1,04

43.736 

3.069 

Accumulated 
inflation 2001-
2009 

2.480

2.009

0,01   
1,01

1,21 

Revenue NSBs 2000 (data 2008 adjusted to 
inflation) 
367.816.868  
Revenues NSBs 2008 (Commission survey)  442.450.617   

EN 

135 

EN 

 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
9.3.8.  Other Statistics 

9.3.8.1.  Breakdown 

of 

new 

national 

standardisation 

activities 

from 

notifications (CEN and CENELEC) 2006-2009 by state 

Country 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

Total 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CH 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
ES 
FI 
FR 
GR 
HU 
IE 
IS 
IT 
LU 
LT 
LV  
MT 
NL 
NO 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
UK  

CEN 
CENELEC 
From EU-
15 

From EU-
12 

From 
EFTA 

TOTAL 

EN 

357 
6 
na 
27 
na 
23 
503 
8 
16 
190 
10 
238 
3 
11 
3 
0 
107 
0 
19 
14 
1 
64 
20 
69 
13 
32 
9 
6 
45 
127 

1905 
16 

1638 

236 

47 
1921 

219 
50 
25 
34 
0 
55 
450 
9 
10 
131 
11 
243 
2 
11 
1 
0 
132 
0 
18 
18 
0 
56 
19 
65 
1 
150 
14 
28 
19 
153 

1904 
20 

1472 

399 

53 
1924 

196 
30 
12 
38 
2 
70 
424 
8 
9 
208 
3 
277 
0 
7 
4 
0 
123 
0 
3 
33 
0 
59 
17 
14 
0 
45 
21 
11 
29 
159 

1769 
99 

1512 

235 

55 
1802 

219 
50 
25 
14 
0 
56 
448 
9 
10 
129 
11 
242 
0 
11 
1 
0 
133 
0 
18 
18 
0 
56 
19 
65 
1 
150 
14 
28 
19 
145 

1835 
56 

1458 

400 

33 
1891 

136 

991 
136 
50 
113 
0 
204 
1825 
34 
45 
658 
35 
1000 
5 
40 
9 
0 
495 
0 
58 
83 
1 
235 
75 
213 
15 
377 
58 
73 
112 
584 

5644 
191 
4568 

1035 

133 

5736 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9.3.8.2.  New  national  standardisation  activities  from  notifications  (CEN  and  CENELEC) 

2006-2009  

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

EU-15  1305 

1383 

1511 

1380 

1168 

1227 

1512 

1638 

1472 

1458 

1512 

EU-10 

EU-2 

2000

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

28 

62 

55 

135 

287 

261 

204 

224 

225 

178 

32

175 

175

57

From EU-2

From EU-10

From EU-15

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

EN 

137 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
9.3.8.3.  Breakdown  of  new  national  standardisation  activities  from  notifications  (CEN  and 

CENELEC) 1999-2008 by group of countries 

National Notifications

2000

1500

1000

500

0

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

EU-15 EU-10 EU-2

EN 

138 

   EN 

 
 
9.3.8.4.  Evolution of number and type of standards over time 

Data provided by the ESOs, indicate that the portfolio of total deliverables (European 
standards and other deliverables) from CEN and CENELEC together have increased 
significantly since the beginning of the 1990s from 1,735 in 1990 to 19,914 in 2009. 
Annual  production  of  all  deliverables  shows  an  increasing  trend  until  2001  and  a 
decreasing one since then.  

Most of the deliverables produced by CEN and CENELEC are European standards 
(EN)  (92%  in  2009).  Therefore,  their  trend  is  similar  to  that  described  for  the 
portfolio of all deliverables. The portfolio of European standards (EN) developed by 
CEN/CENELEC has increased significantly  from 1,280  in 1990 to 18,286  in 2009. 
This  shows  the  increasing  role  of  standards  in  the  European  economy.  Annual 
production of EN shows an increasing trend until 2001 with a decrease since then.  

Por tfolio  Eur ope an s tandards (EN)  
end  of  the year exclud ing  co rrigenda

r
e
b
n
m
u
N

20.000
18.000
16.000
14.000
12.000
10.000
8.000
6.000
4.000
2.000
0

Cen

Cenelec

Total 

0
9
9
1

1
9
9
1

2
9
9
1

3
9
9
1

4
9
9
1

5
9
9
1

6
9
9
1

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

So urce: CEN/ CENELEC

Year 

The ETSI portfolio of total deliverables shows a sharp increase from 18 in 1990 to 
23,822  in  2009.  In  2009,  European  Standards  represented  around  18%  of  the  total 
ETSI  portfolio;  the  biggest  percentage,  around  70%,  corresponds  to  technical 
specifications.  Annual  deliverables  from  ETSI  have  shown  a  significant  constant 
increase  until  2002,  with  an  uneven  evolution  since  then  and  an  all-time  high  in 
2009.  

EN 

139 

   EN 

 
 
 
Portfolio all  deliverables ETSI
end of the year 

0
9
9
1

1
9
9
1

2
9
9
1

3
9
9
1

4
9
9
1

5
9
9
1

6
9
9
1

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

Sour ce: ET SI

Year 

Anual deliverables ETSI

25.000

20.000

r
e
b
m
u
N

15.000

10.000

5.000

0

r
e
b
m
u
N

3.000

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.000

500

0

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Source: ETSI

Ye ar

The  percentage  of  the  European  standards  portfolio  mandated  by  the  European 
Commission has increased in the last two decades from 18% in 1999 to 34% in 2009. 
Despite this increase, the large majority of EN remains industry–initiated, indicating 
that  these  instruments  mainly  respond  to  the  needs  of  the  industry  and  are  mainly 
privately driven. 

Some European standards directly support EU directives and confer a presumption of 
conformity with EU law. The percentage of European standards that are harmonised 
standards  has  increased  in  the  last  two  decade  from  3.55%  to  20%  in  2009.  This 
shows  the  increasing  importance  of  standards  as  an  instrument  to  accompany  EU 

EN 

140 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Harmonised EN
end of the year excluding corrigenda

Total EN

Harmonised

legislation.

r
e
b
m
u
N

20.000

18.000

16.000

14.000

12.000

10.000

8.000

6.000

4.000

2.000

0

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

Year 

9.3.8.5.  Evolution and number of existing standards by sector  

If we analyse European standards from the sectoral perspective, we find a significant 
concentration  in  a  few  areas.  Around  70%  of  European  standards  and  other 
deliverables  produced  by  CEN/CENELEC  focus  on  the  areas  of  transport, 
mechanical  engineering,  building  and  civil  engineering,  ICT,  materials,  electrical 
engineering, household goods, and electronics. This shows that even where standards 
do not derive from EC mandates and/or harmonised legislation the primary focus of 
industry seems to be in those sectors.  

The  areas  in  which  we  find  the  biggest  percentage  of  harmonised  standards  are: 
health  and  safety  (52%),  household,  leisure  and  sports  (51%),  healthcare  (46%), 
heating, ventilation and air conditioning (43%) and electrical engineering (35%). 

EN 

141 

   EN 

 
 
EN 

142 

   EN 

 
9.4. 

ANNEX 4 – SECONDARY EU LAW USING EUROPEAN STANDARDS 

9.4.1.  New Approach directives 

The New Approach is a legislative technique used in the area of free movement of 
goods, particularly for industrial products. It moved away from the “Old Approach” 
of prescriptive detailed technical requirements written into the legislation, to specify 
only  the  essential  public  interest  requirements  with  which  products  must  comply. 
The  result  is  a  technology-neutral  legal  framework.  A  manufacturer  therefore  has 
flexibility  as  to  how  to  comply  with  the  requirements  and  demonstrate  such 
compliance. The final step is the application of the CE marking by the manufacturer 
to signify that the product complies with the law. 

The  New  Approach  was  designed  to  be  fully  complementary  to  the  old  way  of 
legislating and as such many common elements are covered but in a different way. 
Common elements include:  

–  Clear identification of scope;  

–  Use of common expressions, such as “placing on the market” or “manufacturer”; 

–  Requirements which products must comply with in order to achieve the objectives 
of  the  legislation,  expressed  in  terms  of  essential  requirements  or  in  detailed 
technical specifications included in the legislation; 

–  Determination  of  the  technical  means  and  procedures  for  demonstrating 

conformity with these requirements; 

–  Specific requirements for the labelling or marking of products;  

–  A “free movement clause”, prohibiting any national measure from restricting the 
free movement of products which comply with the legislation, to ensure the free 
circulation of products throughout the EU; 

–  Very general market surveillance/enforcement requirements. Member States must 
take appropriate measures to ensure that only compliant products circulate on the 
market;  

–  A  safeguard  mechanism  setting  out  the  EU  procedure  where  a  national  measure 

restricts circulation.  

Instead  of  setting  out  detailed  technical  requirements  in  the  legislation,  New 
Approach directives limit themselves to defining essential requirements in relation to 
issues  such  as  health,  safety,  consumer  protection  and  the  protection  of  the 
environment. The legislation fixes the level of safety which products must meet but 
does  not  pre-determine  the  technical  solutions  used  to  achieve  this  level  of  safety. 
The  choice  of  various  solutions  leading  to  the  same  result  is  therefore  left  to 
manufacturers. 

Technical  specifications,  in  the  form  of  European  “harmonised”  standards,  coming 
under  the  framework  of  the  New  Approach  directives,  allow  products  to  meet  the 

EN 

143 

   EN 

 
essential  requirements  and  may  be  considered  as  an  ‘easy’  way  to  achieve 
compliance with the legislation (presumption of conformity). The use of harmonised 
standards guarantees the required level of safety of products, but this is voluntary and 
a  manufacturer  may  use  any  other  technical  solution  which  demonstrates  that  his 
product meets the essential requirements.  

The directives also set out requirements for conformity assessment which, depending 
on  the  product,  must  be  done  either  by  third  party  testing,  an  inspection  or 
certification  body  or  the  manufacturer  himself.  Certain  directives  require  the 
intervention of third party conformity assessment bodies, known as notified bodies. 
These  bodies  are  chosen  (“designated”)  by  Member  States  on  the  basis  of  certain 
minimum  criteria  (competence,  impartiality,  integrity,  etc)  which  are  set  out  in  the 
directives.  They  are  then  “notified”  to  the  Commission,  after  which  they  are 
authorised to carry out conformity assessment activities according to the procedures 
set out in the directives. 

The  New  Approach  also  introduced  a  common  marking  of  conformity,  which  has 
become  its  most  visible  and  well  known  element.  The  CE  marking  is  in  effect  a 
declaration  by  the  manufacturer  that  the  product  conforms  to  all  the  essential 
requirements of the relevant legislation and that it has been subject to the applicable 
conformity  assessment  procedures.  Since  products  bearing  the  CE  marking  are 
presumed to be in compliance with all applicable directives and hence benefit from 
free circulation, the CE marking operates as a “passport” to the whole EU market. 

9.4.2.  New Approach Directives 

•  Simple  Pressure  Vessels  Directive:  Directive  2009/105/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to simple pressure 
vessels ;  

•  Toys Safety Directive: Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of 

the Council of 18 June 2009 on the safety of toys ;  

•  Construction  Products  Directive:  Council  Directive  89/106/EEC  on  the 
approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member 
States relating to construction products; 

•  Electromagnetic  Compatibility  Directive:  Directive  2004/108/EC  of 

the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  December  2004  on  the 
approximation  of  the  laws  of  the  Member  States  relating  to  electromagnetic 
compatibility and repealing Directive 89/336/EEC ;  

•  Personal  Protective  Equipment  Directive:  Council  Directive  89/686/EEC  on 
the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective 
equipment;  

•  Non-automatic  Weighing  Instruments  Directive:  Directive  2009/23/EC  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  April  2009  on  non-automatic 
weighing instruments; 

EN 

144 

   EN 

 
•  Active Implantable  Medical  Devices Directive: Council Directive 90/385/EEC 
on  the  approximation  of  the  laws  of  the  Member  States  relating  to  active 
implantable medical devices; 

•  Gas Appliances Directive: Council Directive 90/396/EEC on the approximation 
of the laws of the Member States relating to appliances burning gaseous fuels;  

•  Hot  Water  Boilers  Directive:  Council  Directive  92/42/EEC  on  efficiency 

requirements for new hot-water boilers fired with liquid or gaseous fuels; 

•  Civil  Explosives  Directive:  Council  Directive  93/15/EEC  on  the  harmonisation 
of  the  provisions  relating  to  the  placing  on  the  market  and  supervision  of 
explosives for civil uses;  

•  Medical  Devices  Directive:  Council  Directive  93/42/EEC  concerning  medical 

devices; 

•  ATEX Directive: Directive 94/9/EC of the European Parliament and the Council 
on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning equipment and 
protective systems intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres; 

•  Recreational  Craft  Directive:  Directive  94/25/EC  of  the  European  Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  on  the  approximation  of  the  laws,  regulations  and 
administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational craft;  

•  Lifts  Directive:  European  Parliament  and  Council  Directive  95/16/EC  on  the 

approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts; 

•  Pressure Equipment Directive: Directive 97/23/EC of the European Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  on  the  approximation  of  the  laws  of  the  Member  States 
concerning pressure equipment;  

•  Machinery Directive:  Directive  2006/42/EC  of  the European  Parliament  and  of 
the  Council  of  17  May  2006  on  machinery,  and  amending  Directive  95/16/EC 
(recast) ; 

•  In-vitro  Diagnostic  Medical  Devices  Directive:  Directive  98/79/EC  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council on in vitro diagnostic medical devices; 

•  R&TTE Directive: Directive 1999/5/EC of  the European Parliament and  of  the 
Council on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the 
mutual recognition of their conformity; 

•  Cableway Directive: Directive 2000/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the 

Council relating to cableway installations designed to carry persons;  

•  Measuring  Instruments  Directive:  Directive  2004/22/EC  of  the  European 

Parliament and of the Council on measuring instruments; 

EN 

145 

   EN 

 
•  EUP Directive: Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of and of 
the  Council  establishing  a  framework  for  the  setting  of  eco-design  requirements 
for energy using products. 

9.4.3.  List of directives which are based on certain elements of the New Approach 

•  Low Voltage Directive: Directive 2006/95/EC of the European Parliament and of 
the  Council  of  12  December  2006  on  the  harmonisation  of  the  laws  of  Member 
States  relating  to  electrical  equipment  designed  for  use  within  certain  voltage 
limits;  

•  Packaging  and  Packaging  Waste  Directive:  European  Parliament  and  Council 

Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste;  

•  Interoperability  of  Trans-European  High-speed  Rail  System  Directive: 
Council  Directive  96/48/EC  on  the  interoperability  of  the  trans-European  high-
speed rail system;  

•  Marine  Equipment  Directive:  Council  Directive  96/98/EC  on  marine 

equipment;  

•  Interoperability of the Trans-European Conventional Rail System Directive: 
Directive  2001/16/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the 
interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system;  

•  Energy  Efficiency  Requirements  for  Household  Electric  Refrigerators 
Directive: Directive 1996/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
on  energy  efficiency  requirements  for  household  electric  refrigerators,  freezers 
and combinations thereof;  

•  Transportable  Pressure  Equipment  Directive:  Council  Directive  1999/36/EC 

on transportable pressure equipment;  

•  Noise Emission Directive: Directive 2000/14/EC of the European Parliament and 
of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to 
the noise emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors 

•  Energy  Efficiency  Requirements  for  Ballasts  for  Fluorescent  Lighting 
Directive: Directive 2000/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of  18  September  2000  on  energy  efficiency  requirements  for  ballasts  for 
fluorescent lighting. 

EN 

146 

   EN 

 
9.4.4.  Other standards-receptive directives 

•  Airborne  noise  emitted  by  household  appliances:  Council  Directive 
86/594/EEC  of  1  December  1986  on  airborne  noise  emitted  by  household 
appliances; 

•  General  product  safety:  Directive  2001/95/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and 

of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety; 

•  Postal  services:  Directive  97/67/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  of  15  December  1997  on  common  rules  for  the  development  of  the 
internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of 
service; 

•  Restrictions  on  the  marketing  and  use  of  certain  dangerous  substances  and 
preparations:  Council  Directive  76/769/EEC  of  27  July  1976  on 
the 
approximation  of  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative  provisions  of  the 
Member  States  relating  to  restrictions  on  the  marketing  and  use  of  certain 
dangerous substances and preparations; 

•  Energy  labelling  of  household  appliances:  Council  Directive  92/75/EEC  of  22 
September 1992 on the indication by labelling and standard product information 
of the consumption of energy and other resources by household appliances; 

•  Waste  electrical  and  electronic  equipment:  Directive  2002/96/EC  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  27  January  2003  on  waste  electrical 
and electronic equipment (WEEE). 

•  Electronic  communications  networks  and  services:  Directive  2002/21/EC  of 
the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  7  March  2002  on  a  common 
regulatory  framework  for  electronic  communications  networks  and  services 
(Framework Directive). 

9.4.5.  Other standards-receptive EU legislation 

•  Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 
July 2008 setting out requirements for accreditation and market surveillance 
relating to the marketing of products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93.  

9.4.6.  Formal objections 

The  “New  Approach  directives”  contain  safeguards  in  cases  where  a  harmonised 
standard cannot enable products to meet the essential requirements of the directives 
concerned.  When  such  cases  occur,  the  Member  States  or  the  Commission  may 
introduce a formal objection to the standard in question on which the Committee is 
consulted. 

EN 

147 

   EN 

 
 
The  procedure  begins  with  a  formal  objection,  either  received  by  the  Commission 
through  the  Permanent  Representation  or  launched  by  the  Commission  itself.  The 
documents  are  then  circulated  to  the  Committee,  and  normally  a  Member  State 
expert  group  is  also  consulted.  Once  a  draft  Commission  Decision  is  ready,  the 
Committee is consulted on it. On receipt of a positive opinion, the Decision proceeds 
to the next stage. 

The number of objections is fairly low but nevertheless on the rise (sees point 7 of 
this annex) with most occurring in relation to the directives on machinery, toys and 
pressure equipment. 

DIRECTIVE 

PROCEDURE FOR OBJECTIONS TO A HARMONISED STANDARD 

Council  Directive 
86/594/EEC  of  1 
December  1986  on 
noise 
airborne 
emitted 
by 
household 
appliances 

Article 9  

1 

Where  a  Member  State  or  the  Commission  considers  that  the 
harmonised  standards  referred  to  in  Article  8  (1)  (a)  do  not  fully 
satisfy  the  requirements  of  Article  6,  that  Member  State  or  the 
Commission  shall  bring  the  matter  before  the  Standing  Committee 
set  up  by  Directive  83/189/EEC,  hereinafter  referred  to  as  the 
'Committee',  setting  out  its  reasons  for  doing  so.  The  Committee 
shall deliver an opinion as a matter of urgency.  

In the light of the Committee's opinion, the Commission shall notify 
the  Member  States  as  to  whether  or  not  the  standards  concerned 
should  be  withdrawn  from  the  publications  referred  to  in  Article  8 
(1)(a).  

Article 5 

1 

Council  Directive 
89/106/EEC  of  21 
December  1988  on 
the approximation of 
laws, regulations and 
administrative 
provisions  of 
Member 
relating 
construction 
products  

the 
States 
to 

2 

Where a Member State or the Commission is of the opinion that the 
harmonised standards or European technical approvals referred to in 
Article  4  (2),  points  (a)  and  (b),  or  the  mandates  referred  to  in 
Chapter  II,  do  not  satisfy  the  provisions  of  Articles  2  and  3,  that 
Member  State  or  the  Commission  shall  notify  the  committee 
referred to in Article 19, setting out its reasons. The committee shall 
deliver  an  urgent  opinion.  In  the  light  of  the  opinion  of  the 
committee,  and  after  consultation  with  the  committee  set  up  under 
Directive  83/189/EEC  where  it  concerns  harmonised  standards,  the 
Commission  shall  inform  Member  States  if  the  standards  or 
approvals  concerned  should  be  withdrawn  in  the  publications 
referred to in Article 7 (3). 

On reception of the communication referred to in Article 4 (3), the 
Commission shall consult the committee referred to in Article 19. In 
the  light  of  the  opinion  of  the  committee,  the  Commission  shall 
notify Member States whether the technical specification in question 
should  benefit  from  the  presumption  of  conformity  and,  if  so, 
publish  a  reference  to  it  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European 
Communities. If the Commission or a Member State believes that a 
technical specification no longer fulfils the conditions necessary for 
presumption of conformity with the provisions of Articles 2 and 3, 
the  Commission  shall  consult  the  committee  referred  to  in  Article 

EN 

148 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Article 6 

1 

Council  Directive 
89/686/EEC  of  21 
December  1989  on 
the approximation of 
the 
the 
laws  of 
Member 
States 
relating  to  personal 
protective 
equipment 
(89/686/EEC) 

Article 6 

1 

Council  Directive 
90/385/EEC  of  20 
June  1990  on 
the 
approximation of the 
laws  of  the  Member 
relating 
States 
to 
active 
implantable 
medical Devices 

19.  In  the  light  of  the  opinion  of  the  said  committee,  the 
Commission  shall  notify  the  Member  States  whether  the  national 
technical  specification  in  question  should  continue  to  benefit  from 
presumption  of  conformity,  and,  if  not,  whether  the  reference  to  it 
referred to in Article 4 (3) should be withdrawn. 

Should  a  Member  State  or  the  Commission  consider  that  the 
harmonised  standards  referred  to  in  Article  5  do  not  completely 
satisfy  the  relevant  basic  requirements  referred  to  in  Article  3,  the 
Commission or the Member State concerned shall refer the matter to 
the committee created pursuant to Directive 83/189/EEC (1), setting 
out  its  reasons.  The  committee  shall  deliver  an  opinion  without 
delay.  

In the light of the committee's opinion, the Commission shall notify 
Member  States  of  whether  or  not  it  is  necessary  to  withdraw  the 
standards concerned from publications made pursuant to Article 5. 

Where  a  Member  State  or  the  Commission  considers  that  the 
harmonised  standards  referred  to  in  Article  5  do  not  entirely  meet 
the  essential  requirements  referred  to  in  Article  3,  the  Commission 
or  the  Member  State  concerned  shall  bring  the  matter  before  the 
Standing Committee set up under Directive 83/189/EEC, giving the 
reasons  therefor.  The  Committee  shall  deliver  an  opinion  without 
delay. 

In the light of the opinion of the Committee, the Commission shall 
inform Member States of the measures to be taken with regard to the 
standards and the publication referred to in Article 5. 

Council  Directive 
92/42/EEC  of  21 
on 
1992 
May 
efficiency 
for 
requirements 
new 
hot-water 
boilers  fired  with 
liquid  or  gaseous 
fuels 

of 

Council  Directive 
93/15/EEC 
5 
April  1993  on  the 
harmonization of the 
provisions relating to 
the  placing  on  the 
and 
market 
supervision 
of 
explosives  for  civil 
uses 

[No procedure for objections] 

Article 5  

Where  a  Member  State  or  the  Commission  considers  that  the  harmonised 
standards referred to in Article 4 do not fully satisfy the essential requirements 
referred to in Article 3, the Commission or the Member State concerned shall 
bring  the  matter  before  the  Standing  Committee  set  up  by  Directive 
83/189/EEC,  giving  its  reasons.  The  Committee  shall  deliver  its  opinion 
without delay.  

In  the  light  of  the  Committee's  opinion  the  Commission  shall  inform  the 

EN 

149 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Member  States  of  the  measures  to  be  taken  regarding  the  standards  and  the 
publication referred to in Article 4.  

Council  Directive 
93/42/EEC  of  14 
June 
1993 
concerning  medical 
devices 

Article 5 

1 

Article 6 

1 

2 

3 

Article 6 

1 

Article 6 

1 

Directive 94/9/EC of 
the 
European 
Parliament  and  the 
Council of 23 March 
the 
on 
1994 
approximation of the 
laws  of  the  Member 
concerning 
States 
and 
equipment 
protective  systems 
intended  for  use  in 
potentially 
explosive 
atmospheres 

Directive  94/25  of 
the 
European 
Parliament  and  the 
Council  of  16  June 
the 
on 
1994 
approximation of the 
laws, regulations and 
administrative 
provisions  of 
Member 
relating 
recreational craft 

the 
States 
to 

If a Member State or the Commission considers that the harmonised 
standards do not entirely meet the essential requirements referred to 
in  Article  3,  the  measures  to  be  taken  by  the  Member  States  with 
regard to these standards and the publication referred to in paragraph 
1 of this Article shall be adopted by the procedure defined in Article 
6 (2). 

The  Commission  shall  be  assisted  by  the  Committee  set  up  by 
Article  5  of  Directive  83/189/EEC,  hereinafter  referred  to  as  ‘the 
Committee’. 

Where reference is made to this Article, Articles 3 and 7 of Decision 
1999/468/EC  (1)  shall  apply,  having  regard  to  the  provisions  of 
Article 8 thereof. 

The Committee shall adopt its rules of procedure.  

Where  a  Member  State  or  the  Commission  considers  that  the 
harmonised  standards  referred  to  in  Article  5  (2)  do  not  entirely 
satisfy the relevant essential health and safety requirements referred 
to in Article 3, the Commission or the Member State concerned shall 
bring  the  matter  before  the  Committee  set  up  under  Directive 
83/189/EEC,  hereinafter  referred  to  as  'the  Committee',  giving 
reasons  therefor.  The  Committee  shall  deliver  an  opinion  without 
delay. 

Upon  receipt  of  the  Committee's  opinion,  the  Commission  shall 
inform the Member States whether or not it is necessary to withdraw 
those standards from the published information referred to in Article 
5 (2). 

Where a Member State or the Commission is of the opinion that the 
harmonised standards referred to in Article 5 do not fully meet the 
essential  requirements  referred  to  in  Article  3,  the  Commission  or 
the Member State shall notify the committee set up under Directive 
83/189/EEC 

In  the  light  of  the  opinion  of  the  committee,  the  Commission  shall 
inform  Member  States  if  the  standards  concerned  should  be 
withdrawn from the publications referred to in Article 5. 

European Parliament  Article 6 

EN 

150 

   EN 

 
 
 
1 

Council 
and 
Directive  95/16/EC 
of  29  June  1995  on 
the approximation of 
the 
laws  of 
the 
Member 
States 
relating to lifts 

Where  a  Member  State  or  the  Commission  considers  that  the 
harmonised  standards  referred  to  in  Article  5  (2)  do  not  entirely 
satisfy  the  essential  requirements  referred  to  in  Article  3,  the 
Commission  or  the  Member  State  concerned  shall  bring  the  matter 
before the Committee set up under Directive 83/189/EEC, giving the 
reasons  therefor.  The  Committee  shall  deliver  an  opinion  without 
delay. 

Upon  receipt  of  the  Committee's  opinion,  the  Commission  shall 
inform the Member States whether or not it is necessary to withdraw 
those standards from the published information referred to in Article 
5 (2). 

Council  Directive 
96/48/EC  of  23  July 
1996 
the 
on 
interoperability  of 
the  trans-European 
high-speed 
rail 
system 

Council  Directive 
20 
96/98/EC 
December  1996  on 
marine equipment 

of 

Directive  97/23/EC 
of 
the  European 
Parliament  and  of 
the  Council  of  29 
the 
May  1997  on 
approximation of the 
laws  of  the  Member 
States 
concerning 
pressure equipment 

Directive  97/67/EC 
of 
the  European 
Parliament  and  of 
the  Council  of  15 
December  1997  on 
common 
for 
the  development  of 
the  internal  market 
of 
Community 
postal  services  and 

rules 

Article 11 

Where  it  appears  to  a  Member  State  or  the  Commission  that  European 
specifications used directly or indirectly for the purposes of this Directive do 
not  meet  the  essential  requirements,  partial  or  total  withdrawal  of  the 
specifications  concerned  from  the  publications  containing  them,  or  their 
amendment, may be decided upon in accordance with the procedure set out in 
Article  21(2)  after  consultation  of  the  Committee  set  up  under  Directive 
98/34/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22  June  1998 
laying  down  a  procedure  for  the  provision  of  information  in  the  field  of 
technical  standards  and  regulations  and  of  rules  on  information  society 
services. 

[No procedure for objections] 

Article 6 

Where  a  Member  State  or  the  Commission  considers  that  the  standards 
referred  to  in  Article  5  (2)  do  not  entirely  meet  the  essential  requirements 
referred to in Article 3, the Member State concerned or the Commission shall 
inform the Standing Committee set up by Article 5 of Directive 83/189/EEC 
giving the reasons therefor. The Committee shall issue an opinion as a matter 
of urgency. 

Taking into account the Committee's opinion, the Commission shall notify the 
Member States as to whether or not those standards should be withdrawn from 
the publications referred to in Article 5 (2). 

Article 20 

The  harmonisation  of  technical  standards  shall  be  continued,  taking  into 
account in particular the interests of users. 

The European Committee for Standardisation shall be entrusted with drawing 
up technical standards applicable in the postal sector on the basis of remits to 
it  pursuant  to  the  principles  set  out  in  Council  Directive  83/189/EEC  of  28 
March1983  laying  down  a  procedure  for  the  provision  of  information  in  the 

EN 

151 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
the  improvement  of 
quality of service 

field of technical standards and regulations.  

This  work  shall  take  account  of  the  harmonisation  measures  adopted  at 
international level  and  in particular those  decided  upon  within  the  Universal 
Postal Union. 

The  standards  applicable  shall  be  published  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the 
European Communities once a year. 

Article 5 

2 

Directive  98/79/EC 
of 
the  European 
Parliament  and  of 
the  Council  of  27 
October  1998  on  in 
vitro 
diagnostic 
medical devices 

If a Member State or the Commission considers that the harmonised 
standards do not entirely meet the essential requirements referred to 
in  Article  3,  the  measures  to  be  taken  by  the  Member  States  with 
regard to these standards and the publication referred to in paragraph 
1 of this Article shall be adopted by the procedure defined in Article 
6(2). 

Article 6 

1 

2 

Article 5 

2. 

3 

Directive  1999/5/EC 
of 
the  European 
Parliament  and  of 
the  Council  of  9 
1999 
March 
on 
radio 
equipment 
and 
telecommunications 
terminal equipment 
and 
the  mutual 
recognition  of  their 
conformity 

The  Commission  shall  be  assisted  by  the  committee  set  up  by 
Article 5 of Directive 98/34/EC. 

The representative of the Commission shall submit to the committee 
a draft of the measures to be taken. The committee shall deliver its 
opinion on the draft within a time limit which the chairman may lay 
down according to the urgency of the matter, if necessary by taking 
a vote. 

The  opinion  shall  be  recorded  in  the  minutes;  in  addition,  each 
Member  State  shall  have  the  right  to  ask  to  have  its  position 
recorded in the minutes. 

The  Commission  shall  take  the  utmost  account  of  the  opinion 
delivered  by  the  committee.  It  shall  inform  the  committee  of  the 
manner in which its opinion has been taken into account. 

Where a Member State or the Commission considers that conformity 
with  a  harmonised  standard  does  not  ensure  compliance  with  the 
essential  requirements  referred  to  in  Article  3  which  the  said 
standard is intended to cover, the Commission or the Member State 
concerned shall bring the matter before the committee. 

In the case of shortcomings of harmonised standards with respect to 
the essential requirements, the Commission may, after consulting the 
committee  and  in  accordance  with  the  procedure  laid  down  in 
Article  14,  publish  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European 
Communities  guidelines  on 
interpretation  of  harmonised 
the 
standards  or  the  conditions  under  which  compliance  with  that 
standard  raises  a  presumption  of  conformity.  After  consultation  of 
the  committee  and  in  accordance  with  the  procedure  laid  down  in 
Article 14, the Commission may withdraw harmonised standards by 
publication  of  a  notice  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European 

EN 

152 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Directive  2000/9/EC 
of 
the  European 
Parliament  and  of 
the  Council  of  20 
March  2000  relating 
to 
cableway 
installations 
designed  to  carry 
persons 

Communities. 

Article 2 

2. 

3 

4 

7 

specification" 

technical 
"European 
specification,  a  European  technical  approval  or  a  national  standard 
transposing a European standard. 

shall  mean  a  common 

The  references  of  European  specifications,  which  may  be  common 
technical  specifications,  European  technical  approvals  within  the 
meaning  of  Directive  93/38/EEC  or  national  standards  used  to 
transpose harmonised European standards, shall be published in the 
Official Journal of the European Communities. 

Member  States  shall  publish  the  references  of  national  standards 
used to transpose harmonised European standards.  

Where  a  Member  State  or  the  Commission  considers  that  a 
European  specification  as  referred  to  in  paragraph  2  does  not 
entirely satisfy the essential requirements referred to in Article 3(1), 
the  Commission  or  the  Member  State  concerned  shall  bring  the 
matter  before  the  committee  referred  to  in  Article  17  giving  the 
reasons  therefor.  The  committee  shall  deliver  an  opinion  without 
delay. 

In  the  light  of  the  committee's  opinion and  following  consultations 
with the committee set up pursuant to Directive 98/34/EC in the case 
of harmonised European standards, the Commission shall inform the 
Member  States  whether  or  not  it  is  necessary  to  withdraw  the 
European specifications in question from the published information 
referred to in paragraph 3. 

Directive 
2001/16/EC  of 
the 
European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
19  March  2001  on 
the  interoperability 
of  the  conventional 
rail system 

Directive 
2001/95/EC  of 
the 
European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
3 December 2001 on 
general 
product 
safety 

Article 11 

Where  it  appears  to  a  Member  State  or  the  Commission  that  European 
specifications  used  directly  or  indirectly  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  this 
Directive do not meet the essential requirements, partial or total withdrawal of 
the  specifications  concerned  from  the  publications  containing  them,  or  their 
amendment, may be decided upon in accordance with the procedure set out in 
Article  21(2)  after  consultation  of  the  committee  set  up  under  Directive 
98/34/EC. 

Article 4 

2. 

The  Commission  shall  publish  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the 
European  Communities  the  references  of  the  European  standards 
adopted  in  this  way  and  drawn  up  in  accordance  with  the 
requirements referred to in paragraph 1. 

If a standard adopted by the European standardisation bodies before 
the  entry  into  force  of  this  Directive  ensures  compliance  with  the 
general safety requirement, the Commission shall decide to publish 
its references in the Official Journal of the European Communities. 

EN 

153 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
If  a  standard  does  not  ensure  compliance  with  the  general  safety 
requirement,  the  Commission  shall  withdraw  reference  to  the 
standard from publication in whole or in part. 

In  the  cases  referred  to  in  the  second  and  third  subparagraphs,  the 
Commission  shall,  on  its  own  initiative  or  at  the  request  of  a 
Member State, decide in accordance with the procedure laid down in 
Article  15(2)  whether  the  standard  in  question  meets  the  general 
safety  requirement.  The  Commission  shall  decide  to  publish  or 
withdraw after consulting the Committee established by Article 5 of 
Directive  98/34/EC.  The  Commission  shall  notify  the  Member 
States of its decision. 

Directive 
2004/22/EC  of 
the 
European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
31  March  2004  on 
measuring 
instruments 

Article 14 

Where  a  Member  State  or  the  Commission  considers  that  a  European 
harmonised  standard  as  referred  to  in  Article  13(1)  does  not  fully  meet  the 
essential requirements referred to in Annex I and in the relevant instrument-
specific Annexes, the Member State or the Commission shall bring the matter 
before the Standing Committee set up under Article 5 of Directive 98/34/EC, 
giving  its  reasons  for  doing  so.  The  Committee  shall  deliver  an  opinion 
without delay. 

In  the  light  of  the  Committee's  opinion,  the  Commission  shall  inform  the 
Member States whether or not it is necessary to withdraw the references to the 
national standards from the publication referred to in the third subparagraph of 
Article 13(1). 

Directive 
2004/108/EC  of  the 
European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
15  December  2004 
on 
the 
approximation of the 
laws  of  the  Member 
States 
to 
relating 
electromagnetic 
compatibility 
and 
repealing  Directive 
89/336/EEC  

Article 6 

1 

2 

3 

"Harmonised standard" means a technical specification adopted by a 
recognised European standardisation body under a mandate from the 
Commission  in  conformity  with  the  procedures  laid  down  in 
Directive  98/34/EC  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  a  European 
requirement.  Compliance  with  a  "harmonised  standard"  is  not 
compulsory. 

The  compliance  of  equipment  with  the  relevant  harmonised 
standards  whose  references  have  been  published  in  the  Official 
Journal of the European Union shall raise a presumption, on the part 
of the Member States, of conformity with the essential requirements 
referred  to  in  Annex  I  to  which  such  standards  relate.  This 
presumption of conformity is limited to the scope of the harmonised 
standard(s)  applied  and  the  relevant  essential  requirements  covered 
by such harmonised standard(s). 

Where  a  Member  State  or  the  Commission  considers  that  a 
the  essential 
harmonised  standard  does  not  entirely  satisfy 
requirements referred to in Annex I, it shall bring the matter before 
the  Standing  Committee  set  up  by  Directive  98/34/EC  (hereinafter 
"the  Committee"),  stating  its  reasons.  The  Committee  shall  deliver 
an opinion without delay. 

4 

Upon receipt of the Committee's opinion, the Commission shall take 

EN 

154 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
one  of  the  following  decisions  with  regard  to  the  references  to  the 
harmonised standard concerned: 

(a) not to publish; 

(b) to publish with restrictions; 

(c) to maintain the reference in the Official Journal of the European 

Union; 

(d) to withdraw the reference from the Official Journal of the 

European Union. 

The  Commission  shall  inform  the  Member  States  of  its  decision 

without delay 

Directive 
2006/42/EC  of 
the 
European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
17  May  2006  on 
machinery, 
and 
amending  Directive 
95/16/EC  

Article 10 

Where  a  Member  State  or  the  Commission  considers  that  a  harmonised 
standard does not entirely satisfy the essential health and safety requirements 
which  it  covers  and  which  are  set  out  in  Annex  I,  the  Commission  or  the 
Member State shall bring the matter before the committee set up by Directive 
98/34/EC,  setting  out  the  reasons  therefor.  The  committee  shall  deliver  an 
opinion  without  delay.  In  the  light  of  the  committee's  opinion,  the 
Commission shall decide to publish, not to publish, to publish with restriction, 
to maintain, to maintain with restriction or to withdraw the references to the 
harmonised standard concerned in the Official Journal of the European Union. 

[No procedure for objections] 

Directive 
2006/95/EC  of 
the 
European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
12  December  2006 
on the harmonisation 
of 
of 
the 
Member 
States 
relating  to  electrical 
equipment 
designed 
within 
voltage 
(codified version) 

for  use 
certain 
limits 

laws 

Directive 
the 
2007/23/EC  of 
European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
23  May  2007  on  the 
the 
placing 
market 
of 
pyrotechnic articles  

on 

Article 8 

4.  Where  a  Member  State  or  the  Commission  considers  that  the  harmonised 
standards  referred  to  in  paragraph  2  of  this  Article  do  not  fully  satisfy  the 
essential  safety  requirements  set  out  in  Annex  I,  the  Commission  or  the 
Member State concerned shall refer the matter to the Standing Committee set 
up by Directive 98/34/EC, giving its reasons. The Standing Committee shall 
deliver  its  opinion  within  six  months  of  such  referral.  In  the  light  of  the 
Standing  Committee's  opinion  the  Commission  shall  inform  the  Member 
States of the measures to be taken regarding the harmonised standards and the 
publication referred to in paragraph 2. 

EN 

155 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Directive 
2009/23/EC  of 
the 
European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
23  April  2009  on 
non-automatic 
weighing 
instruments 

Directive 
the 
2009/48/EC  of 
European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
18  June  2009  on  the 
safety of toys 

Directive 
2009/105/EC  of  the 
European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
16  September  2009 
relating 
to  simple 
pressure vessels 

Article 7 

Where  a  Member  State  or  the  Commission  considers  that  the  harmonised 
standards  referred  to  in  Article  6(1)  do  not  fully  meet  the  essential 
requirements  set  out  in  Annex  I,  the  Commission  or  the  Member  State 
concerned shall bring the matter before the Standing Committee set up under 
Article  5  of  Directive  98/34/EC,  hereinafter  referred  to  as  "the  Committee", 
giving its reasons for doing so. 

The Committee shall deliver an opinion without delay. 

In  the  light  of  the  Committee’s  opinion,  the  Commission  shall  inform  the 
Member  States  whether  or  not  it  is  necessary  to  withdraw  those  standards 
from the publications referred to in Article 6(2). 

Article 14 

1 

2 

3 

When  a  Member  State  or  the  Commission  considers  that  a 
harmonised  standard  does  not  entirely  satisfy  the  requirements 
which it covers and which are set out in Article 10 and Annex II, the 
Commission  or  the  Member  State  concerned  shall  bring  the  matter 
before  the  Committee  set  up  by  Article  5  of  Directive  98/34/EC, 
giving  its  arguments.  The  Committee  shall,  having  consulted  the 
relevant European standardisation bodies, deliver its opinion without 
delay. 

In the light of the Committee's opinion, the Commission shall decide 
to publish, not to publish, to publish with restriction, to maintain, to 
maintain  with  restriction  or  to  withdraw  the  references  to  the 
harmonised standard concerned in or from the Official Journal of the 
European Union. 

The  Commission  shall  inform  the  European  standardisation  body 
concerned and, if necessary, request the revision of the harmonised 
standards concerned. 

Article 6 

Where  a  Member  State  or  the  Commission  considers  that  the  harmonised 
standards referred to in Article 5(1) do not entirely meet the essential safety 
requirements  set  out  in  Annex  I,  the  Commission  or  the  Member  State 
concerned shall bring the matter before the standing committee set up under 
Article  5  of  Directive  98/34/EC,  hereinafter  referred  to  as  "the  committee", 
giving the reasons therefor. 

The committee shall deliver an opinion without delay. 

In  the  light  of  the  committee’s  opinion,  the  Commission  shall  inform  the 
Member States whether it is necessary to withdraw those standards from the 
publications referred to in Article 5(1). 

Directive 
2009/142/EC  of  the 
European Parliament 

Article 6 

1. 

Where a Member State or the Commission considers that 
the standards referred to in Article 5(1) do not entirely meet 

EN 

156 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
and of the Council of 
30  November  2009 
relating 
to 
appliances  burning 
gaseous fuels  

the essential requirements set out in Annex I, the 
Commission or the Member State concerned shall bring the 
matter before the standing committee established under 
Article 5 of Directive 98/34/EC, hereinafter referred to as 
"the committee", giving the reasons therefor. 

The committee shall deliver an opinion without delay. 

In the light of the committee’s opinion, the Commission 
shall inform the Member States whether or not it is 
necessary to withdraw those standards from the publications 
referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 5(2). 

2. 

After receipt of the communication referred to in the second 
subparagraph of Article 5(2), the Commission shall consult 
the committee. 

Upon receipt of the committee’s opinion, the Commission 
shall, within one month, inform the Member States whether 
the national standard(s) in question are to enjoy the 
presumption of conformity. If they are, the Member States 
shall publish the reference numbers of those standards. 

The Commission shall also publish them in the Official 
Journal of the European Union. 

EN 

157 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
FORMAL OBJECTIONS (2002-2010) 

Standard 

Directive  

Decision 

Date 

Decision 
number 

O.J. Reference 

1  EN  848-3  "Safety  of  woodworking  machines  — 
One-side moulding machines with rotating tool — 
Part  3:  Numerical  control  boring  machines  and 
routing machines 
EN 613:2000 ‘Independent gas-fired convection 

2 

heaters’ 

3 

4 

5 

‘Specifications 

for  dedicated 

EN  521:1998 
liquefied 
petroleum  gas  appliances  —  Portable  vapour 
pressure liquefied petroleum gas appliances’, 
EN  1495:1997 
climbing 
work platforms’ 

‘Lifting  platforms  —  mast 

relating 

30  standards 
products, geotextiles,  
fixed fire-fighting equipment and gypsum blocks  

thermal 

insulation 

to 

6 

EN 1970:2000 ‘Adjustable beds for disabled 

persons — Requirements and test methods’ 

7 

EN 12180:2000 ‘Non-active surgical implants — 

Body 
requirements for mammary implants’ 

implants  — 

contouring 

Specific 

98/37/EC 
machinery 

Presumption of conformity 
not withdrawn 

17/12/2002 

2002/1002/EC   L 349/103 

24/12/2002  

90/396/EEC 
appliances burning 
gaseous fuels 
90/396/EEC 
appliances burning 
gaseous fuels 

Presumption of conformity 
not withdrawn 

Presumption of conformity 
not withdrawn 

18/03/2003 

2003/189/EC   L 74/26 

20/03/2003  

18/03/2003 

2003/190/EC   L 74/28 

20/03/2003 

98/37/EC 
machinery 

Partial withdrawal of 
presumption of conformity

21/03/2003 

2003/224/EC  L 83/70 

01/04/2003  

89/106/EEC 
construction 
products 

Presumption of conformity 
not withdrawn 

9/04/2003 

2003/312/EC   L 114/50 

08/05/2003  

93/42/EEC medical 
devices 

Presumption of conformity 
not withdrawn 

20/04/2004 

2004/376/EC   L 118/76 

23/04/2004  

93/42/EEC medical 
devices 

Presumption of conformity 
withdrawn 

20/04/2004 

2004/389/EC   L 120/48 

24/4/2004  

8  EN  71-1:1998  “Safety  of  Toys  –  Part  1: 

88/378/EEC toys 

mechanical and physical properties 

Partial withdrawal of 
presumption of conformity 

9/03/2005 

2005/195/EC  L 63/27 

10/03/2005 

EN 

158 

EN 

 
  
 
  
9  EN  143:2000  -“Respiratory  protective  device  – 

Particle filters - Requirements, testing, marking” 

10  EN 13000 - Cranes 

11  EN 13683 :2003 - Garden equipment - Integrally 

powered shredders/chippers 

89/686/EEC 
Personal 
Protective 
Equipment  

98/37/CE 
Machinery 

98/37/CE 
Machinery 

12  EN  ISO  14122-4  -  Safety  of  machinery  - 
Permanent means of access to machinery - Part 4: 
Fixed ladders (ISO 14122-4:2004) 

98/37/CE 
Machinery 

Presumption of conformity 
partially withdrawn 

16.03.2006 

2006/216/EC 

L 080/76 
17.03.2006 

Presumption of conformity 
partialy withdrawn 

24.11.2005 

2006/731/EC 

Non  publication  of 
reference on the OJ 

Non  publication  of 
reference on the OJ 

the 

24.11.2005 

2006/732/EC 

the 

24.11.2005 

2006/733/EC 

13  EN  848-3  -  Safety  of  woodworking  machines  - 
One side moulding machines with rotating tool - 
Part  3  :  numerical  control  boring  machines  and 
routing machines 

98/37/CE 
Machinery 

Presumption of conformity 
partially withdrawn 

02.03.2006 

2006/704/EC 

14  EN  10080:2005  –  Steel  for  the  reinforcement  of 

concrete 

89/106 
Construction 
Products 

Presumption of conformity 
withdrawn 

15.09.2006 

2006/893/EC 

15  EN  71-1:2005  -  Hemispheric  toys  -  5.12  first 

88/378/EEC Toys 

indent (former A 10) 

Presumption of conformity 
partially withdrawn 

25.09.2006 

2007/184/EC 

16  EN 71-1:2005 - Suction cups - 8.4.2.3 (former A 

88/378/EEC Toys 

11) 

Presumption of conformity 
partially withdrawn 

25.09.2006 

2007/224/EC 

L 299/26 
28.10.2006 

L 299/29 
28.10.2006 

L 299/30 
28.10.2006 

L 343/102 
08.12.2006 

L 291/35 
21.10.2007 

L 85/7 
27.03.2007 

L 96/18 
11.04.2007 

EN 

159 

EN 

 
  
17  EN  12929-2:2004  -  Safety  requirements  for 
cableway  installations  designed  to  carry  persons 
—  General  requirements  —  Part  2:  Additional 
requirements 
reversible  bicable  aerial 
ropeways without carrier truck brakes 

for 

2000/9/EC 
cableway 
installations 
designed  to  carry 
persons 

Presumption of conformity 
non withdrawn 

26.11.2008  Decision in the 
communication 
C(2008)7289  

Not published 

18  EN  3-8:2006  -  Portable  fire  extinguishers  -  Part 
8:  Additional  requirements  to  EN  3-7  for  the 
construction; 
and 
mechanical 
for  extinguishers  with  a 
maximum  allowable  pressure  equal  to  or  lower 
than 30 bar 

resistance 

pressure 

tests 

to 

97/23/EC  Pressure 
Equipment 

Publication 
of 
reference on the OJ 

the 

13.11.2008 

2009/111/EC 

L 48/13 
19.02.2009 

19  EN 3-9:2006 - Portable fire extinguishers — Part 
9: Additional requirements to EN 3-7 for pressure 
resistance of CO2 extinguishers 

97/23/EC  Pressure 
Equipment 

Non  publication  of 
reference on the OJ 

the 

13.11.2009 

2009/140/EC 

L 40/33 
11.02.2010 

EN 

160 

EN 

 
  
9.5. 

ANNEX 5 – DISCARDED OPTIONS 

During the public consultation, stakeholders commented on several possible options 
which, mainly on the basis of the comments made by stakeholders, were not retained 
for further analysis in this impact assessment report for the reasons set out below.  

9.5.1.  Fundamental changes to the EU financing of European standardisation 

An external evaluation of the financial support allocated to the ESOs by EC/EFTA 
through  operating  and  action  grants  signed  between  1  January  2004  and  31 
December 200798 shows, inter alia, that the financing of European standardisation by 
EC/EFTA  is  both  appropriate  and  necessary,  and  widely  supported  by  all 
stakeholders.  The  evaluation  indicates  that  this  financing  is  very  useful  to  the 
European  standardisation  system,  providing  additional  management  capacity  and 
expertise  and  helping  to  offset  the  costs  to  industry  of  standard  development.  The 
evaluation suggests that, under improved conditions, there would be a strong case for 
an increased budgetary allocation due to the significant benefit the support delivers. 

While  the  Commission  has  a  strong  policy  interest  in  ensuring  that  standardisation 
work goes ahead, EU/EFTA financing is not so high as to motivate stakeholders, in 
particular  businesses,  to  carry  out  unnecessary  standard  development  work  that 
ultimately  will  not  be  taken  up.  As  a  result,  business  input  into  the  process  is  not 
financed by the EU. Instead, the financing is concentrated on the infrastructure that 
coordinates  and  administrates  the  work,  and  then  only  to  share  the  cost  of  this 
activity.  The  financing  does  not  support  the  national  mirror  committees  or  national 
delegations through which most industry and other stakeholder input is provided. As 
such,  the  financing  of  standardisation  does  not  follow  a  traditional  ‘market  failure’ 
logic  wherein  public  money  is  used  to  support  economically  or  socially  useful 
activity  that  industry  will  not  finance  itself  (except  as  regards  the  participation  of 
SMEs  and  societal  stakeholders).  In  fact,  if  businesses  are  not  willing  to  put  their 
own resources into standardisation work, then nor should the Commission or EFTA, 
as this would foster the development of redundant standards. Instead, the financing 
follows more of a cost-sharing model, where it is recognised that common interests 
are  being  pursued  and  that  it  is  therefore  appropriate  that  some  level  of  support  is 
provided through public financing. 

9.5.2.  Making European standards available free of charge 

CEN  and  CENELEC  adopt  European  standards  which  are  transposed  into  national 
standards  which  are  then  sold  by  NSBs.  Some  stakeholders  argue  that  if  the 
Commission pays a financial contribution to the development of European standards, 
those standards should be made freely available, rather than being sold by the NSBs. 
This  is  considered  particularly  important  for  SMEs  who  may  struggle  to  afford  the 
purchase price of the standards they need to use.  

98 

EN 

Evaluation of the Contribution of Community Financing of Standardisation to the Fulfilment of Policy 
Objectives  of 
June  2009. 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/dg/files/evaluation/2009-06-30__final_report_and_appendices_en.pdf.  

submitted  by  GHK/Technopolis  on  30 

the  Commission, 

161 

   EN 

 
                                                 
At first glance, the idea of making all European standards freely available seems an 
attractive  concept.  However,  there  are  also  strong  arguments  against  making  all 
European standards freely available: 

(1) 

(2) 

The  Commission  does  not  pay  the  entire  cost  of  development  of  European 
standards. The vast majority of the costs are borne by industry. The financial 
contribution of the EU relates only to a share of certain specific elements of 
the overall input.  

There would be very significant financial implications to the adoption of this 
option,  with  losses  at  NSB  level  running  into  many  tens  and  possibly  more 
than a hundred million euros annually (across all European NSBs). The total 
operating budget in 2008 for the 32 NSBs was €437m, an average of just over 
€13.6m  each.  The  budgets  ranged  between   less  than  €200k  and  over  €70m, 
but  were  skewed  towards  the  lower  end  of  this  range.  Nearly  half  (47%)  of 
the NSBs had an operating budget in 2008 of less than €2.5m, while less than 
a  third  (29%)  had  a  budget  of  more  than  €10m.  The  total  revenue  from  the 
sale of standards for the 32 NSBs was €113m, an average of just over €3.5m 
each. As with overall budgets, the revenue from the sale of standards varied 
considerably  between  NSBs,  ranging  from  €25k  to  €25m.  Over  one  third 
(34%) of NSBs received less than €500k 
in sales, while another third (34%) 
received more than €3m. Based on the  figures provided for the 32 NSBs, just 
over  one  quarter  (26%)  of  the  operating  budgets  of  these  NSBs  in  2008  (in 
total) was made up from the sale of standards. For the individual NSBs, this 
proportion  varied  between  2%  and  62%,  with  a  reasonably  even  spread 
between  the  two  extremes.  There  is  no  obvious  correlation  between  the 
overall size of an NSB’s operating budget and the proportion of sales that are 
accounted for by the sale of standards. 

(3) 

Purchasing  a  standard  is  a  legitimate  business  cost  or  investment.  There  are 
many things that businesses need to buy in order to operate effectively, and 
within  the  overall  scheme  of  things  the  purchase  price  of  standards  is  a 
relatively modest element.  

(4)  Making standards freely available implies that large sections of industry that 
have made no contribution to their development would gain the same rights 
of  free  access  as  those  that  have  contributed  significantly  to  their 
development.  

(5) 

The  public  sector  would  have  to  take  over  a  substantial  element  of  the 
financing  of  the  NSBs  and  may  also  have  to  increase  the  extent  to  which  it 
supports the wider costs of development of standards, reducing the extent to 
which standard development is industry-driven as opposed to publicly-driven. 
The  principles  of  the  New  Approach  strongly  suggest  that  standard 
development should be left to the market, and this principle arguably extends 
to questions about how development costs are financed/recouped. The danger 
is that a push for free standards would involve a shift towards a model where 
the public sector pays a much higher share of development costs, potentially 
leading  to  a  situation  where  the  public  sector  exercises  greater  control  over 
how  and  where  standards  are  developed,  who  participates,  etc.  This  would 

EN 

162 

   EN 

 
inevitably mark a shift away from the principles of the New Approach, with 
unclear  and  possibly  unwelcome  consequences  for  the  functioning  of  the 
system as a whole.  

Consequently, this option was not further analysed.  

9.5.3.  Making harmonised standards available free of charge 

The vast majority of NSBs were unable to provide an  estimate of the income from 
the  sale  of  European  Harmonised  Standards  separately  from  the  sales  of  all 
standards.  Many  NSBs  also  provided  supporting  arguments  (see  below)  as  to  why 
such  an  estimate  is  in  any  case  not  a  sound  basis  for  estimating  the  losses  to  the 
NSBs and the system more widely. 

Four of the NSBs did provide an estimate of the income from sales of Harmonised 
standards, but in one case only one year’s data could be provided and in another the 
figures did not include sales of harmonised standards that are based on ISO or IEC 
standards. The income data for the sale of European harmonised standards provided 
by  the  four  NSBs  totalled  €1.46  million  acro ss  the  five  year  period,  an  average  of 
€365.4k for each NSB across the five year period. This equates to an average annual 
loss per NSB of €73k each. It should be noted, however, that where an NSB could 
not provide estimates for each of the last five years an ‘average amount per year’ has 
been calculated from the data provided in order to give a full five year total. It should 
also be noted that in one case the sales of European HS based on ISO/IEC data has 
not been included in the figures. Because data only covers four out of 40 NSBs it is 
not possible to gross these figures up to identify total income from sale of European 
HS in any reliable way.  

Most NSBs stated that it was not possible to provide income data for European HS 
separately from other European standards and / or sales of other publications such as 
national  standards because their information systems do not record separate figures 
for these different revenue streams. Some of these NSBs pointed out that due to the 
various  access  models  and  charging  arrangements,  often  linked  to  membership  and 
other  products  developed  for  customers,  it  would  be  a  very  complex  and  time-
consuming  (in  some  cases  impossible)  task  to  provide  a  realistic  estimate.  Several 
NSBs rejected the idea that the purchase price of European HS is a significant barrier 
to  their  use  by  SMEs.  Some  pointed  to  information  contained  in  ‘SME  access’ 
studies carried out either by the Commission or by CEN /CLC that shows that lack of 
awareness of the benefits of standards, lack of understanding of which standards to 
use,  lack  of  information  on  standards  and  the  costs  of  implementing  standards  are 
more  significant  barriers.  Several  NSBs  also  pointed  out  that  they  are  constantly 
striving  to  improve  access  to  standards  in  general  and  harmonised  standards  in 
particular,  and  that  they  are  providing  more  information  about  standards  and  more 
competitive (i.e. lower priced) products, often tailored to SMEs, in order to improve 
access and take-up. 

During  the  consultation  of  January-February  2010,  only  10  provided  a  quantitative 
estimate  of  the  losses  average  annual  losses,  in  EUR,  to  the  NSB  if  harmonised 
standards would be made freely available. The other 30 NSBs reaffirmed their earlier 
comments, stating that it is not possible to provide an estimate of the annual loss of 

EN 

163 

   EN 

 
revenue  as  the  sale  of  European  harmonised  standards  cannot  be  identified 
separately.  Of  the  ten  NSBs  providing  quantitative  information,  eight  provided  an 
estimate of the annual losses arising were European HS to be made freely available. 
Among these eight NSBs the estimated total annual losses would be €11.37 million, 
equivalent  to  just  over  €1.42  million  per  NSB.   This  is  close  to  (~95%  of)  the  total 
income  from  sales  of  all  products  containing  standards  for  these  eight  NSBs, 
although the ratios varied significantly, from a low of ~20% of all income from sales 
of  standards  to  ~120%  of  the  income  from  sales  of  standards.  The  reasons  for  the 
variations  and  the  high  overall  estimate  of  losses  as  a  proportion  of  sales  of  (all) 
standards  can  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  different  NSBs  have  used  different 
methods  for  calculating  potential  losses.  Three  NSBs  that  did  not  provide  a  € 
estimate of the losses nonetheless stated that they would lose between 20% and 30% 
of their total revenues if the ability to sell European HS would be withdrawn. If these 
estimates  of  the  share  of  total  income  lost  are  correct  then  the  total  losses  to  all 
European NSBs would be in the order of between €100-150 m illion per annum. 

Due to the lack of accurate data on NSB income from sales from European HS and 
due to uncertainties surrounding the ‘knock-on’ effects to other revenue streams it is 
not possible to provide a robust estimate of the financial impact of this provision on 
NSBs. However, a ‘lower’ estimate might be that NSBs would lose 40% of their total 
income from sales of standards, equivalent to ~10% of their total operating budgets. 
This would equate to roughly €50 million pe r annum across all European NSBs. An 
‘upper’ estimate might be that NSBs would lose 20% of their total operating costs, 
equivalent to around €100 million per annum in total across all European NSBs.  

In any event, there would be very significant practical implications to the adoption of 
this option, including disruption to the established business models of standardisation 
at national, European and International levels, and contravention of legal agreements 
and  frameworks  outside  the  scope  of  Directive  98/34/EC.  Moreover,  the  specific 
consultation of January-February 2010 shows significant opposition to the adoption 
of  this  option  at  ESO,  NSB  and  MSA  levels,  although  it  has  some  backing  ‘in 
principle’ by some MSAs. 

9.5.4.  Member  States  to  compensate  losses  generated  for  the  budget  of  NSBs  due  to  free 

access to Harmonised Standards 

83%  of  MSAs  responding  to  the  specific  consultation  of  January-February  2010 
stated  that  they  would  not  be  willing  and  /  or  able  to  compensate  for  losses.  They 
pointed to issues of funding (the scale of losses to NSBs and the inability of public 
funds to compensate) and the potential lack of benefits as reasons for this response. 
Four MSAs highlighted  the potential scale of the compensation package necessary, 
quoting  figures  of  between  €180,000  and  €6  mill
ion  as  estimates  of  the  potential 
losses  to  NSBs.  They  reported  that  a  large  proportion  of  national  standardisation 
activities  are  already  being  funded  by  the  state,  and  that  the  real  scale  of  any 
potential  financing  need  may  be  equivalent  to  a  significant  proportion  of  these 
existing  levels  of  financing.  Two  MSAs  also  raised  their  concerns  as  to  how  the 
compensation system would work and whether the financing package would increase 
with the number of standards distributed. They suggested that free access to HS may 
increase demand and therefore the necessary compensation costs further.  

EN 

164 

   EN 

 
The most commonly reported reason given by MSAs was that the necessary budget 
would  not  be  available  to  compensate  the  NSBs  for  loss  of  income  (mentioned  by 
eleven MSAs). It was reported that the provision would require a substantial increase 
in  the  demands  on  state  budgets,  and  that  this  was  unlikely  to  be  acceptable, 
particularly in the current financial climate when public spending is being tightened. 
Other  individual  MSAs  highlighted  related  concerns,  namely  (i)  the  risk  of 
inconsistency  in  the  annual  approval  of  state  funding  in  the  future,  (ii)  the  need  to 
consider not only the loss of income, but also the cost to the whole HS development 
process and the costs arising from changing the financing model, and (iii) the lack of 
a  suitable  mechanism  to  allow  such  a  compensation  package  to  be  provided.  Other 
MSAs  (six  in  total)  reported  that  they  are  not  convinced  that  there  is  sufficient 
justification  for  the  provision  and  for  the  additional  state  financial  support. 
Specifically,  they  reported  that  (i)  it  is  not  clear  that  the  price  of  standards  is  a 
significant barrier to access, or that free access would substantially increase uptake, 
and  that  (ii)  an  important  aspect  of  the  ESS  is  that  it  ensures  orientation  to  market 
needs and avoids misuse of funds, which may be damaged by the provision. 

CEN/CLC reported that as it does not sell standards itself, any compensation package 
should  be  directed  to  the  NSBs  and  NC  members  of  CEN/CLC.  However,  the 
majority  of  these  NSBs/NCs  are  (semi)  private  independent  organisations,  whose 
legal status is recognised as important by industry and the majority of stakeholders in 
order to preserve independence in the standardisation process. CEN/CLC believe that 
if  these  organisations  were  to  accept  receipt  of  EC/MSA  financial  support  to 
compensate their financial loss, it would result in an increased dependency on these 
bodies, which may in turn have repercussions on the attitude of other actors. Such an 
approach  also  raises  concerns  for  CEN/CLC  as  to  the  long-term  sustainability 
commitment of all Member States and the need for a wide coordination to ensure that 
the same activities are supported similarly and fairly in all countries. CEN/CLC also 
highlighted that, given that no more than 2% of standardisation work is co-financed 
and the fact that NSBs are not keen to participate in co-financed mandated work (due 
to the heavy administrative workload), it may be unrealistic to believe that any loss 
of income could be compensated through use of additional co-financed mandates. 

There does not at present appear to be any clear basis for compensating NSBs for the 
losses  that  would  be  incurred  from  making  harmonised  European  standards  freely 
available,  with  the  majority  of  MSAs  currently  unable  or  unwilling  to  be  able  to 
confirm that they would be in a position to provide a compensation package. There is 
little  consensus  as  to  how  any  compensation  package  should  be  organised,  largely 
due  to  widespread  rejection  of  the  related  option  that  gives  rise  to  the  need  for 
compensation  measures.  However,  it  appears  most  likely  that  the  package  would 
have to be based on the full costs incurred by NSBs in supporting the development, 
implementation, dissemination and distribution of European HS. 

Even  if  an  appropriate  compensation  package  could  be  implemented,  fundamental 
issues relating in particular to the use of ISO/IEC standards as the basis for European 
standards would still have to be overcome. 

EN 

165 

   EN 

 
9.5.5.  NSBs  to  provide  free  access  to  national  committees  for  SMEs,  NGOs,  consumer 

organisations and trade unions  

During the consultation of January-February 2010, 21 NSBs (57%) stated that they 
do  not  levy  any  charges  for  participation  in  standardisation  committees,  although 
several  pointed  out  that  this  position  is  only  possible  due  to  the  income  generated 
from  the  sale  of  standards.  There  were  a  small  number  of  caveats  to  this  general 
position. In two cases participation is only granted to members, for which an annual 
fee is charged (€1,500 in one case, €500 in th e other). One other NSB noted that it is 
considering  moving  to  a  compulsory  membership  model  in  future  (but  doesn’t 
operate one presently). One other NSB stated that it expects to begin charging a fixed 
rate  for  committee  membership  (€500  per  committee  per  year).  It  should  be  noted 
that  in  some  cases  it  is  not  clear  whether  the  ‘free  access’  to  committees  is  only 
available  for  members.  One  NSB  operates  a  system  with  different  charging 
mechanisms  in  different  sectors.  Detailed  information  could  therefore  not  be 
provided. One NSB operates a system where the members of each committee decide 
who will contribute and in what proportion. Two NSBs operate a form of ‘fixed rate’ 
charging.  In  one  of  these  cases  the  rate  is  fixed  at  €50  for  all  types  of  participant 
apart from public authorities where no charge is made. In the other case the rate is 
fixed at between €200 and €700 depending on th e project workload in the relevant 
EU or International committees. Two NSBs charge a one-off ‘entry’ fee (€420 in one 
case, €360 in the other) for each expert, i rrespective of how many committees they 
participate  in  or  for  how  long.  The  entry  fee  includes  a  one  day  training  course  in 
standardisation. Ten NSBs operate some kind of tiered system of charges (different 
levels of fees to different types of participant). 

Across the ten NSBs that provided data, the average number of organisations paying 
fees  for  participation  in  standardisation  committees  each  year  from  2005-9  was 
10,045. This equates to an average of just over 1,000 organisations paying fees per 
NSB per year. Due to differences in the extent to which certain groups are or are not 
charged, and the numbers of committees operating at national level, there was a very 
broad range in the numbers of organisations paying fees, from a low of 34 to a high 
of almost 6,000.  

For the six NSBs providing financial data on revenues generated, the total volume of 
fees  generated  between  them  per  year  was  calculated  to  be  just  over  €3.5  million. 
This equates to an average revenue of just over €580k pe r NSB per year. Once again 
there was a broad range in the data, with one NSB generating only €44k in fees each 
year on average, while at the other end of the spectrum one NSB generated just over 
€1.4 million in fees. In some cases these reve nues relate to membership fees rather 
than revenues specifically relating to participation in committees. In all cases the data 
provided  did  not  allow  us  to  assess  the  revenues  generated  by  different  types  of 
organisation. 

The  three  NSBs  that  provided  data  on  the  share  of  revenues  derived  from  each 
category  of  organisation  paying  contributions  for  participation  in  committees 
employed different categories so it was not possible to combine these two data sets 
into an overall result. However, broadly speaking public authorities and state bodies 
accounted  for  between  12%  and  36%;  enterprises  and  professional  bodies  between 
50% and 80%; research organisations between 7% and 9%, and ‘others’ around 10%.  

EN 

166 

   EN 

 
Because  the  charging  models  are  very  different  it  is  not  possible  to  provide  a 
breakdown by type of committee or types of organisation. In most cases the charging 
models  are  not  based  around  the  type  of  committee  and  in  only  around  half  of  the 
cases  are  different  levels  of  fees  charged  to  different  types  of  organisation.  The 
categories  used  to  organise  different  types  of  participant  are  different  in  each  case, 
making any kind of aggregation of the data by organisation type impossible. 

Most NSBs would not be affected by the option as they do not currently charge for 
access  to  national  committees.  A  small  number  of  NSBs  and  MSAs  clearly  do  not 
support this option, others appear to support the idea of free access in principle but 
most have not provided an indication either way. 

Nevertheless, it is uncertain that there would be a legal basis for pursuing this option 
and that it would meet the subsidiarity test. A more detailed investigation would be 
necessary,  including  of  the  costs  associated  with  providing  free  access  to  certain 
groups  in  those  countries  where  such  charges  are  applied  appears  warranted  as  a 
basis for further understanding the costs and implications of this option. 

9.5.6.  Member States to ensure  that  minority stakeholders are represented in all national 
for 

including  by  providing 

financial  support 

standardisation  committees, 
representative groups at national level 

Support  to  enable  MSG  participation  in  standardisation  at  national  level  appears  to 
be in place in around a third of the countries covered by the consultation. The nature 
of  support  provided  varies,  as  does  its  scale,  the  groups  it  is  directed  to,  how  it  is 
administered  and  so  on.  Most  of  the  NSBs  stated  that  the  principle  of  open  and 
equitable access applies, meaning that all groups have equal rights as regards access 
to standardisation committees and there is no ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ discrimination. 
In most of these cases participation in standardisation is free to all groups, and in the 
remaining  cases  the  same  fee  is  charged  regardless  of  the  type  of  participating 
organisation.  Therefore,  in  these  countries  the  principle  followed  is  that  all  groups 
are treated equally and all have equal access. In a small number of cases funding for 
MSGs enables free or reduced cost access to standardisation committees. Regardless 
of the financing situation, many NSBs indicated that they relay information on new 
work items and new committees to MSGs to ensure that they are kept informed about 
new opportunities to participate. Some also proactively target information on specific 
opportunities  to  specific  groups.  In  several  cases  the  NSBs  operate  dedicated 
committees  to  facilitate  coordination  of  MSG  involvement  in  standardisation  at 
national level. One NSB stated that IT tools have been developed that enable MSGs 
to participate remotely via tele- or video-conferencing. 

NSBs and MSAs were asked to estimate the cost to install and maintain a system of 
support  for  MSGs  at  national  level  (cost  per  stakeholder  group  per  country  per 
annum). 29 of the 40 NSBs (73%) provided a response to this question, but only 6 
felt able to provide an estimate of costs. The six NSBs providing an estimate of costs 
each came up with very different estimates, varying from €2,400 per annum (based 
on two person days support per month), €10,32 0 per annum (based on 10 participants 
in  an  average  of  8  committees  for  1  day  per  year),  €44,345  per  annum  (costs  not 
explained),  €55,000  per  annum  (based  on  curre nt  support  to  three  MSGs,  totalling 
basis  not  clear)  to  €600,000  (costs 
€165,000  per  annum),  €83,600  per  annum  (cost 

EN 

167 

   EN 

 
not explained). Only one NSB provided an estimate of the ‘installation costs’ (€217, 
360, basis unclear).  

Several  NSBs  indicated  that  ‘free  access’  to  standardisation  committees  is  not 
sufficient to ensure stakeholder participation, as many of the MSGs lack the human 
resources  and  expertise  to  become  involved.  Several  mentioned  that  MSGs  would 
need (or indeed would ‘expect’) to be paid to participate, and installing such a system 
of  financial  support  may  prove  to  be  rather  costly,  and  not  something  the  MSAs 
would  necessarily  be  able  to  afford.  Even  if  such  a  funding  system  could  be 
established, some of the MSGs would still have difficulty in finding people with the 
necessary  expertise  to  participate,  although  the  assurance  of  a  fee  would  certainly 
help boost participation rates.  

However, some other NSBs do not agree that a system of financial support along the 
lines  envisaged  would  be  appropriate.  One  of  the  core  principles  is  that 
standardisation  should  be  open  and  transparent  and  that  it  should  provide  equal 
access to all interested stakeholders. There is a danger that the introduction of strong 
financial  incentives  for  participation  by  certain  groups  would  run  counter  to  these 
principles.  In  addition,  stakeholder  participation  should  be  based  around  awareness 
of the benefits that participation will bring, rather than as a means to obtain funding. 
There  is  accordingly  a  risk  that  participation  by  MSGs  will  not  be  effective  as  it 
could be because the wrong drivers are in place. 

One  final  issue  that  was  mentioned  is  that  some  of  the  groups  lack  the  necessary 
human  resources  and  networks  to  consult  their  members  effectively,  and  so 
providing  funding  for  participation  on  standardisation  committees  would  only 
address part of the problem. If the MSGs are not equipped with sufficient levels of 
human  resources  and  expertise  to  understand  developments  in  standardisation, 
consult on those developments, and reach agreed positions it is unclear what role the 
MSG ‘experts’ would be able to play in the standardisation meetings.  

The 12 MSAs (44% of those responding) providing quantitative figures estimated a 
cost  of  €200,000  per  stakeholder  per  annum   on  average.  However,  individual 
estimates  varied  greatly  (between  €2,400  and  €1.1  million),  as  did  the  systems 
envisaged  and  the  tasks  required.  Each  of  the  estimates  provided  and  any 
supplementary  information  on  the  methodology  used  to  calculate  these  costs  are 
summarised in the table below. 

EN 

168 

   EN 

 
Estimated cost 
€ 2,400 
€ 2,500 
€ 5,000 

€ 10,320 

€ 25,000 
€ 75,000 

€ 100,000 

Comments 

Based on 2 person-days per month 
(No further explanation) 
(No further explanation) 

Based on 10 stakeholders in 8 TCs each, requiring one person-day of 
support per year 

Development of a new structural unit, with 5 employees 
Average - costs will vary per group 

Includes the costs of personnel dedicated to the administration and 
operation of MSGs as well as the participation of up to ten 
representatives from those MSGs 

€ 100,000 

Based on current Government  support for consumer travel/expenses 

€ 190,000 

€ 210,000 

Based on the costs of translation/interpretation of English documents, 
covering mandated standards (1 employee), all other European 
standards of interest to MSG (2 employees), and all other relevant 
normative documents (2 employees) at ~€40,000 per employee 
Based on current experience of funding trade unions, covering 
participation in ~50 national TCs (particularly those relating to 
Ergonomic and Social responsibility) 

€ 577,000 

(No further explanation) 

€ 1,100,000 

Based on experience of co-financing SME participation. Covers (i) 
the co-financed costs of SME-commissioned experts representing 
them in European/international standardisation work (€1 million), and 
(ii) the management of the MSG group, involving identifying the 
professions concerned, highlighting the standardisation issues they 
face, selecting the most interesting projects and monitoring work in 
progress (1 FTE at €100k per year) 

One MSA reported that the possibility of developing a national system for supporting 
the  representation  of  MSG  interests  in  national  TCs  using  public  funds  could  be 
considered  in  cases  where  there  was  real  interest  from  the  MSG  in  an  activity  and 
where  the  support  materialised  in  participation  in  relevant  committees.  However, 
they reported that actions aimed at improving MSG awareness of the importance of 
participation in standardisation activities and the implementation of standards should 
be increased and diversified first. Another MSA stated that they would not support 
this  provision  as  financial  support  to  MSGs  might  lead  to  a  distortion  of  the 
behaviour of those parties in the standardisation process. 

In order to obtain a more reliable understanding of the costs and implications of this 
option one would need to make clear whether the objectives are to ensure that MSGs 
have  free  access  to  standardisation  committees  only  or  whether  the  costs  of 
participation  are  also  to  be  covered  (fees,  travel,  subsistence).  It  would  also  be 
necessary to specify what level of involvement is envisaged (i.e. participation in all 
committees or only some) and whether other activities of the MSG/NSB to support 
MSG  participation  are  envisaged.  Nevertheless,  the  legal  basis  for  pursuing  this 
option is uncertain and more information is needed to perform the subsidiarity test.  

EN 

169 

   EN 

 
9.5.7.  Member  States  to  be  obliged  to  send  official  experts  to  take  part  in  all  national 
mirror committees mirroring European TCs dealing with mandated standards under 
Directive 98/34/EC 

No  information  has  been  provided  to  support  a  link  between  MSA  official 
involvement in mandated European standards development and the raising of formal 
objections.  MSA  officials  are  involved  in  at  least  66%  of  the  national  mirror 
committees  and  their  involvement  in  committees  dealing  with  mandated  standards 
under 98/34/EC may be much higher. The average costs of MSA involvement cannot 
be reliably established based on the data provided as it is not clear what costs should 
be included or what role they would be expected to play. 

The specific consultation of January-February 2010 indicates that there appears to be 
little  support  for  the placing of an obligation on all MSAs to place an expert in all 
national committees mirroring mandated standards under 98/34/EC. 

The  principle  of  voluntary  participation  as  and  where  appropriate  and  where 
resources  allow  would  appear  to  hold  in  the  absence  of  any  firm  evidence  that  the 
current  level  of  participation  weakens  the  resulting  standards  or  leads  to  formal 
objections. 

Therefore, this option was not examined in detail. 

9.5.8.  European  Commission  to  be  able  to  finance  mirror  committees  in  all  EU  Member 

States 

Most  NSBs  currently  have  a  full  or  nearly  full  complement  of  national  mirror 
committees in place. Even so, the number of ‘missing’ national mirror committees is 
estimated to be >1,500 across the countries involved in the specific consultation of 
January-February  2010.  Costs  of  secretariat  functions  to  support  national  mirror 
committees,  national  enquiries  and  national  implementations  cannot  be  reliably 
determined  but  based  on  the  estimates  provided  it  would  cost  in  excess  of  €20 
million per annum to fill all of the identified gaps, implying the need for any support 
to be targeted in specific areas or countries. 

It does not appear appropriate or necessary for national mirror committees to be in 
place  in  all  areas  in  all  countries,  as  some  ESO  TCs  are  developing  standards  that 
have  little  or  no  relevance  at  national  level  and  there  would  not  be  sufficient 
participation  by  stakeholders  to  justify  the  costs.  While  NSBs  and  MSAs  would 
welcome  additional  financial  support  from  the  Commission  at  national  level, 
stakeholders  argue  that  it  may  be  more  appropriate  to  allocate  any  additional 
financing  to  (i)  measures  to  improve  the  involvement  of  MSGs  in  national 
standardisation, and /or (ii) measures to improve the level of translation of European 
standards into national languages. 

Consequently, this option was not examined in further detail. 

EN 

170 

   EN 

 
9.5.9.  ESOs  to  systematically  use  IT  harmonised  tools  to  support  the  participation  of 

stakeholders in the European standardisation process 

During  the  specific  consultation  of  January-February  2010,  ETSI  reported  that  it  is 
recognised  as  a  worldwide  leader  in  the  use  of  IT  tools  to  support  its  members 
activities in standardisation. Although the issue of mirror committees is not relevant 
to ETSI, its NSOs work electronically with ETSI and use the ETSI platform in their 
daily collaboration with the ESO. 

Similarly,  CEN/CLC  report  that  they  have  developed  tools  and  applications  to 
support  the  whole  standards  development  process  electronically,  from  inception 
through  to  national  implementation,  monitoring  and  decision-making.  They  report 
that  many  sub-processes  are  already  fully  electronic  and  that  planned/ongoing 
projects  aim  to  further  increase  the  level  of  automation  available.  In  addition, 
CEN/CLC note that the high investments made by CEN and CENELEC in modern 
technologies  have  contributed  considerably  to  reducing  the  delivery  time  of 
standards over the last years and increasing transparency. 

CEN/CLC provided  further details  about the various IT tools available to and used 
by  existing  ESO  TCs  and  NSB  MCs  involved  in  developing  EU  standards.  These 
points are summarised below: 

•  The  work  of  CEN/CLC  TCs  is  supported  by  electronic  collaborative  platforms. 
Different  tools  are  available  according  to  sector  and/or  which  national  member 
holds the secretariat, but all European TCs can benefit from similar facilities and 
their participants can access their working documents at any time, from anywhere 
in the world. 

•  CEN/CLC provides electronic templates to TC secretaries to guide the drafting of 
standards, and all standards documents are exchanged electronically between the 
parties involved. 

•  CEN has set up an exchange platform to support the standards preparation process 

between TC secretaries, translators and CCMC. 

•  The  CEN  and  CENELEC  Work  Programmes  are  available  on-line  (CEN 
PROJEX-ONLINE and password-protected access on the CENELEC web site) to 
the  players  directly  involved  in  the  standardisation  process,  providing  high 
transparency  on  all  the  CEN  and  CENELEC  projects  and  standards’  details, 
planning, interactions and legislative aspects as well as monitoring tools. 

•  For a wider audience, the CEN and CENELEC Work Programmes are available 
on  the  CEN  and  CENELEC  Web  Sites  respectively  with  powerful  search 
facilities. 

•  CEN/CLC  Technical  Body  documents  can  also  be  made  available  automatically 

to national MCs, with or without human intervention: 

– 

CEN provides an NMC environment and web services that can be used 
by  national  members  to  provide  access  to  CEN  documents  to  their 

EN 

171 

   EN 

 
NMCs, in a similar way to ISO. It does not, however, currently provide 
a centralised environment to support purely national work; 

– 

CLC provides access to CENELEC/TC documents via a joint IEC/CLC 
platform. The IEC/CLC  Collaboration Tool also provides platforms to 
support purely national work to interested national members. 

•  CEN  and  CENELEC  electronic  platforms  and  distribution  channels  are  also 
available  to  make  draft  standards  and  standards  available  to  Members  and 
Affiliates (specific CEN and CENELEC systems). The documents are available in 
a few seconds and only to authorised users 

•  A significant data flow between CCMC and National Members is also supported 

electronically:  

– 

– 

From  CCMC  to  National  Members,  Affiliates  and  other  authorised 
partners: A similar file delivery service (with identical data structure) is 
ensured by CEN and CENELEC, allowing the National Committees to 
feed their local Information systems with project data and start national 
workflows (CEN PROJEXDATA & CENELEC PROJEXDATA) 

From  National  Members  and  Affiliates  to  CCMC:  On  the  CEN  side 
bulk  data  update  of  the  CCMC  database  by  CEN  Members’  and 
Affiliates’  data,  such  as  National  Implementations  and  titles,  data 
delivered  in  the  framework  of  Directive  98/34  is  fully  electronic  (i-
Projex).  CENELEC  supports  automatic  or  semi-automatic  electronic 
delivery according to the type of information 

•  The  standards  acceptance  process  is  managed  electronically  via  the  CEN  and 
CENELEC  electronic  voting  systems.  National  votes  are  registered  on-line  and 
balloting results are available immediately at closure. In CEN, eBalloting facilities 
are also available to support the Governance Bodies’ decisions. 

•  The  access  to  the  collaborative  platforms  and  electronic  voting  systems  is 
managed via the centralised repository of users and roles, allowing a decentralised 
management  by  responsible  National  Members  (CEN/Global  Directory  and 
CENELEC Expert Management System). 

•  The electronic working platforms (including NMC), electronic voting applications 
and users directories are collaborative projects with ISO and IEC respectively. 

Further details on planned/ongoing projects within CEN/CLC to further increase the 
level of automation available were provided, as follows: 

•  Virtual  meeting  facilities  (tele-  and  web-conferencing)  will  be  available  as  of 
2010 to CEN and CENELEC technical committees (ensured by CCMC) and will 
allow the organisation of more and faster working meetings, participation of team 
members who cannot attend physically, reducing travelling time and costs 

•  A common CEN/CLC bulk data delivery interface is under consideration 

EN 

172 

   EN 

 
•  On the CEN side, mutual visibility on results of parallel ballots to CEN and ISO 
technical  committees  involved  via  the  eBalloting  application  is  currently  under 
development 

During  this  consultation,  stakeholders  said  that  there  has  been  considerable 
investment into modern technology and IT systems are now available to and used by 
ESO  and  NSB  committees  throughout  the  standards  development  process  that  are 
considered  to  be  functioning  well  in  the  vast  majority  of  cases.  Most  organisations 
report that there are no ‘missing’ IT tools at ESO or NSB levels that would need to 
be  put  in  place  and  there  are  no  significant  requirements  for  any  additional 
developments. 

While  IT  tools  have  undoubtedly  helped  to  improve  the  speed  and  efficiency  of 
European standardisation over recent years, these tools (or a lack of them) are not the 
main driver of the time that it takes to develop standards. 

Therefore, this option was discarded for further analysis. 

9.5.10.  ESOs  to  be  obliged  to  develop  European  standards  requested  by  the  EC  in  TCs 

managed directly by the Central Secretariats and not by the NSBs 

The ESOs reported in the consultation of January-February 2010 that there are 352 
TCs currently developing European standards under mandates issued by the EC (334 
CEN/CLC  and  18  ETSI).  ETSI  and  its  stakeholders  are  already  operating  under 
European-level  representation  principles  and  so  no  change  would  be  necessary  for 
this  option.  However,  if  more  TBs  were  required  in  response  to  specific  mandates, 
there  may  be  a  need  to  increase  the  size  of  the  secretariat  support.  CEN/CLC,  by 
comparison, are currently coherent with the national delegation principle and believe 
a  move  to  European-representation  would  require  modification  of  all  internal 
regulations  and  dramatically  change  the  way  the  ESO  works.  There  would  be 
fundamental  issues  to  be  solved  around  new  processes  and  procedures  and  such  a 
radical change would incur heavy costs.  

CEN/CLC  also  noted  that  the  option  may  have  implications  for  balanced  TC 
representation and may encourage members to look more to International Standards 
processes  where  possible.  ETSI  does  not  participate  in  ISO/IEC,  but  CEN/CLC 
reported  that  a  move  away  from  the  national-delegation  principle  might  undermine 
the  weight  of  the  European  NSBs  in  the  approval  processes  and  result  in  a  loss  of 
influence. None of the ESOs were able to give a figure for the number of cases where 
European interests would have been outvoted at ISO/IEC in the last two years if EU 
NSBs had only one vote. However, CEN/CLC noted that while the option of being 
outvoted  is  a  serious  issue,  the  biggest  impact  would  be  the  loss  of  influence  (e.g. 
seats  at  the  Council,  Board,  TMB/SMB,  etc.).  During  the  specific  consultation  of 
January-February  2010,  ISO/IEC  reported  that  moving  away  from  the  national 
delegation principle would have substantial impacts and would place the future of the 
Vienna  and  Dresden  Agreements  in  doubt.  The  four  main  concerns  set  out  by 
ISO/IEC  were  (i)  that  the  quality  of  the  secretariat  work  of  committees  (expertise, 
resources  and  support)  would  need  to  be  assured,  (ii)  that  the  representativeness  of 
national  votes  would  be  brought  into  question,  (iii)  that  the  national  connection  to 
stakeholders  would  be  jeopardised,  and  (iv)  that  it  is  uncertain  whether  individual 

EN 

173 

   EN 

 
European participation in ISO/IEC would need to be revised to reflect the new single 
consolidated European representation and standards development process. 

Therefore, it is not clear to any of those consulted what the benefits, if any, of this 
option would be. There is no evidence that the option would accelerate the standards 
development  process  or  improve  the  balance  of  representation  of  stakeholders 
(indeed  the  opposite  may  be  true).  Stakeholders  argue  that  there  would  be  a  very 
significant cost and disruption associated with the change in procedures necessary in 
Europe,  with  many  negative  implications  and  few  if  any  benefits.  They  also  claim 
that  this  option  would  negatively  impact  on  the  influence  of  European  countries  in 
international  standardisation,  with  negative  consequences  for  European  industry  in 
the global markets. According to the results of the specific consultation of January-
February 2010, this option would place the future of the Vienna/Dresden Agreements 
in  doubt,  might  seriously  undermine  European  involvement  in  ISO/IEC,  jeopardise 
its interests, increase the number of cases where European interests are outvoted and 
cause a significant loss of influence. 

Consequently, this option was not analysed any further. 

9.5.11.  ESOs to open the option to approve documents developed by forums and consortiums 
as European Standards following a simplified procedure, provided those F&C have 
developed the documents according to the WTO/TBT standardisation principles 

During  the  specific  consultation  of  January-February  2010,  all  of  the  responding 
F&C reported that they already adhered to and operated according to the WTO/TBT 
principles and / or would be prepared to sign up to and abide by the code of conduct. 
They  also  all  reported  that  they  would  in  principle  cooperate  with  the  proposed 
system, although most indicated some concerns, potential challenges and issues that 
would need addressing, namely the possible confusion caused (and costs incurred) by 
two  different  documents  (ESO  and  F&C  version)  being  available  and  implemented 
separately and referenced in different ways, the additional burden of keeping track of 
modifications,  extensions  and  updates  made  by  either  party  and  any  confusion 
caused  by  one  version  lagging  behind  the  other,  issues  of  maintenance  and  change 
control,  and  whether  either  party  could  create  derivative  works  and  diverging 
subsequent versions of the specification, issues related to transposition into another 
IPR regime, with a need to assess the terms and conditions under which a standard 
can  be  used,  implemented  and  accessed,  questions  regarding  who  would  receive 
recognition/payment for transposed specifications and other issues relating to patent 
policy, disclosure obligations and royalty charges. 

All  three  ESOs  reported  that  they  already  have  procedures  in  place  to  adopt 
specifications  from  other  SDOs,  however  these  are  not  currently  used  for  this 
purpose  at  all  (ETSI)  or  to  any  great  extent  (CEN/CLC)  and  there  are  likely  to  be 
cost  implications  to  increased  approval  activity.  ETSI  estimated  the  process  would 
cost  €18,000  per  SDO  document  (although  this  would  vary).  All  three  ESOs  also 
highlighted  that  there  may  be  issues  with  ownership  and  IPR  to  be  overcome.  The 
main point raised by NSBs in the specific consultation of January-February 2010 was 
that  it  is  already  possible  to  use  the  CEN/UAP  and  PQ  procedures  for  the 
specifications  drafted  by  SDOs  and  to  adopt  them  as  ENs,  and  it  is  unclear  why 
another procedure would be necessary. 

EN 

174 

   EN 

 
There  is  evidently  some  interest  and  willingness  from  both  the  ESOs  and  F&C  to 
build  on  existing  cooperative  activity  and  to  have  a  formalised  process  for 
referencing  other  SDO  specifications.  However,  there  are  a  number  of  important 
concerns and questions about the practicalities of the option and there is likely to be 
considerable  resistance  to  any  requirement  to  transfer  ownership  or  control  of 
specifications to the ESOs. Consequently, this option was discarded at an early stage. 

9.5.12.  Extend the list of recognised ESOs beyond CEN, CENELEC and ETSI and make it 
possible to allocate standardisation requests (mandates) to these other organisations 

The F&C consulted in January-February 2010 appear to be interested in the option 
and  generally  willing  to  explore  further  the  possibilities  of  recognition  for  their 
organisations and receiving EC mandates.  

Other  respondents  appear  to  be  considerably  less  supportive  of  the  idea.  There  is 
some  evident  interest  in  being  able  to  recognise  and  reference  certain  activities 
already undertaken by other SDOs, but expansion of the ESS to include these other 
organisations as more integral players in that system raises numerous concerns and 
fundamental  objections  from  most  respondents,  who  suggest  that  the  negative 
implications may far outweigh, or even counteract, any benefits sought. The option is 
widely  expected  to  damage  the  infrastructure  and  financial  stability  of  the  current 
ESOs, lead to greater fragmentation of the ESS and a consequent loss of coherence 
and clarity in the development of standards in response to market needs. The option 
is  expected  to  lead  to  more  scattered,  less  effective  stakeholder  participation  and 
result  in  standards  being  developed  without  sufficient  involvement  or  input  from 
relevant  stakeholders  and  therefore  less  legitimacy  within  the  market.  The  scale  of 
the negative implications would depend on the likely number of SDOs involved, the 
number  of  mandates  envisaged  and  the  specific  cases  that  might  require  such  an 
approach.  

Nevertheless,  the  option  would  appear,  on  a  fundamental  level  (and  regardless  of 
scale)  to  go  against  New  Approach  and  national  delegation  principles  and  run 
counter  to  ongoing  efforts  to  improve  the  current  ESS,  with  a  move  away  from 
further integration of standardisation processes and activities, reduced coherence and 
increased  risks  of  duplication  of  effort,  barriers  to  trade  and  confusion  within  the 
market,  and  consequently  risks  reducing  the  credibility  of  the  ESS.  It  is  clear  that 
most  would  expect  any  newly  recognised  SDOs  to  have  the  same  rules, 
responsibilities  and  obligations  placed  on  them  as  with  the  current  ESOs  and  that 
they would match the principles, processes and procedures that are currently in use. 
Greater  alignment  between  new  and  old  ESOs  would  allay  some  of  the  concerns 
raised,  but  achieving  this  may  be  complex,  time  consuming  and  costly,  and  may 
ultimately reduce any benefits (e.g. speed of standards development) that might have 
led  to  option  being  suggested  in  the  first  place.  Therefore,  this  option  was  not 
examined in greater detail. 

EN 

175 

   EN 

 
9.5.13.  Commission to be able to request development of standards to any organisation via 
call  for  tenders  to  all  Standards  Developing  Organisations  meeting  the  WTO/TBT 
requirements 

The  specific  consultation  of  January-February  2010  shows  that  there  is  little  or  no 
support for this option. Similar arguments are made as in previous options regarding 
the expected fragmentation of the ESS, loss of coherence and transparency and issues 
of  weaker  consensus  being  achieved  as  a  result  of  the  option.  Some  NSBs  also 
suggest that there may be potential issues with national implementation of standards 
developed by other bodies. 

ESOs and NSBs expect the option to lead to a reduction in the operating budgets of 
the ESOs and a consequent reduction and refocusing of activities undertaken by the 
ESOs  and  their  members.  There  would  also  be  less  interest  and  ability  to  work  in 
areas of high social, public or regulatory benefit (but low commercial return) than is 
currently the case. 

It  is  not  clear  that  the  benefits  of  F&C  (speed,  price  and  simplicity)  outweigh  the 
drawbacks  (lower  quality  and  utility).  It  would  be  necessary  for  other  SDOs  to 
comply  and  adhere  to  various  principles  and  processes  associated  with  the  current 
ESS if the option is to gain additional support amongst the various stakeholders, but 
achieving  these  standards  will  remove  much  of  the  benefit  offered  by  the  use  of 
F&C. 

Consequently, this option was not examined any further. 

9.5.14.  Commission and ESO to establish an accreditation system of Standards developing 

organisations in the EU 

(openness, 

This option was developed in the light of the system established by ANSI, the body 
facilitating  the  development  of  American  National  Standards  (ANS)  by  accrediting 
the  procedures  of  SDOs,  who  work  cooperatively  to  develop  voluntary  national 
consensus standards. Accredited SDOs must have procedures compliant with ANSI 
essential requirements for due process, which are ten principles related to developing 
ANS 
lack  of  dominance,  balance,  coordination/harmonisation, 
notification, consideration of views / objections, consensus voting, appeals processes, 
written  procedures  and  compliance  with  other  policies).  Those  SDOs  seeking 
accreditation  must  apply  with  satisfactory  evidence  of  compliance  with  these 
essential  requirements  and  criteria.  They  must  continue  to  adhere  to  updated 
requirements  and  are  audited  by  ANSI  at  selected  intervals  to  confirm  adherence. 
Total  annual  expenditure  by  ANSI  on  its  accreditation  services  was  €3  million  in 
2009. However, this figure covers various activities and organisation types (not just 
standards  development)  and  includes  the  ongoing  accreditation  of  over  220  SDOs. 
An  EU-level  accreditation  system  would  be  unlikely  to  operate  at  the  same  scale. 
ANSI  operates  on  a  cost-recovery  basis,  with  accredited  SDOs  paying  fees  and 
charges  approximately  equivalent  to  the  costs  of  the  system.  They  each  contribute 
between  €2,400  and  €46,000  per  annum  de pending  on  circumstances  (including 
accreditation maintenance fees and fees based on scale of standards development and 
national/international participation activity). 

EN 

176 

   EN 

 
Indeed, most NSBs responding during the specific consultation of January-February 
2010 questioned why such a proposal was being considered when the existing system 
is  effective,  well-functioning  and  the  preferred  model  for  the  majority  of 
stakeholders. The need for, purpose and benefits of a new accreditation agency were 
unclear  to  them.  Based  on  the  information  available,  there  were  concerns  that  the 
option  would  lead  to  two  parallel  systems  (unworkable,  duplicative,  costly  and 
complex,  with  little  added  value),  that  it  would  increase  bureaucracy,  reduce 
transparency/coherence and ultimately be a regressive step. 

The basic idea of an accreditation system as set out in the option has already raised 
concerns  about  duplication  and  complexity  and  led  to  several  respondents  of  the 
specific  consultation  of  January-February  2010  questioning  the  justification  and 
potential  benefits  of  such  a  system.  It  is  clear  from  this  information  that  the 
requirements on SDOs within the ANSI system are similar to those already required 
of  actors  within  the  existing  ESS  and  that  similar  processes  for  maintaining 
adherence to principles exist. The annual costs of an ANSI-style accreditation system 
in Europe are likely to be below €3 m illion in the longer term, although the set-up 
costs may be considerable. Therefore, there were not sufficient arguments to examine 
this option in greater detail. 

9.5.15.  Request  Member  States  to  monitor  and  report  on  the  balance  of  representation  of 

stakeholders in NSB mirror committees 

For  the  20  NSBs  providing  estimated  cost  data  during  the  consultation  of  January-
February 2010, the total costs for the set up of the monitoring and reporting system is 
estimated  to  be  €2.24  million,  or  an  aver age  cost  of  €112k  per  NSB.  The  range  of 
estimated set up costs run from €0 to  €500k per NSB. The ongoing implementation 
costs for the 20 NSBs are estimated to total €1.49 million per year, or €75k per NSB 
per year. The lowest estimate provided by a single NSB was €2,000 per annum and 
the  NSBs  provided  an  explanation  / 
the  highest  was  €650,000.  Roughly  a  third  of 
justification for their cost calculations in order to show how the estimates have been 
arrived at. For example, set up costs of 200 NMCs x 3 days per committee + IT tool 
and database development x 50 days = 650 days @ €770 per day  = €500k. (Note this 
is not a real example). However, a similar number explained that their cost estimates 
were  very  rough  or  subject  to  a  high  degree  of  uncertainty  because  the  monitoring 
and reporting system has not yet been defined. 

Comments  received  from  NSBs  in  relation  to  the  cost  estimates  mainly  revolved 
around the difficulties in working out the costs accurately (or even estimating them) 
in  the  absence  of  any  detailed  ‘specification’.  These  comments  were  made  both  by 
NSBs that did provide cost estimates and also by those that could not. NSBs seem to 
be  in  agreement  that  the  specification  for  the  monitoring  would  have  to  be  defined 
and  agreed  at  European  level  before  being  implemented  at  national  level.  A  small 
number  of  NSBs  pointed  out  that  the  costs  could  be  relatively  low  if  the  agreed 
system  is  close  to  the  one  already  implemented  at  national  level.  However,  most 
NSBs  expect  the  costs  to  be  significant,  either  because  no  monitoring  system 
currently  exists  or  because  it  is  envisaged  that  the  new  system  would  require  a 
complete overhaul of the existing monitoring activity. 

EN 

177 

   EN 

 
93% of the 30 MSAs that contributed to the consultation of January-February 2010 
provided some kind of response to this question. However, the vast majority of these 
MSAs stated that they were unable to provide an actual estimate of the costs to the 
MSA of a system to monitor and report on the balance of representation in national 
mirror committees. Instead, many MSAs provided other comments (see ‘comments’ 
below) concerning the provision more broadly. The estimates provided by ten MSAs 
for the cost of the set-up of a monitoring and reporting system total €1.5 million, an 
average of €149.9k each. However, it should be  noted that the individual estimates 
varied  considerably,  between  €0  and  €1  million,  with  the  highest  estimate  being 
considerably  above  the  next  highest  estimate  of  €250k.  Removing  this  ‘outlier’ 
would reduce the average estimated set-up cost considerably, to €55.5k per MSA. 

The estimates provided by ten MSAs for the cost of the annual implementation of a 
monitoring and reporting system total €396.3k, an average of €39.6k each. However, 
again it should be noted that the individual estimates varied considerably, from €0 to 
€200k, with the highest estimate being consid erably above the next highest of €100k. 
Removing this ‘outlier’ would reduce the average estimated annual implementation 
cost considerably, to €21.8k per MSA. Only  four MSAs provided further details to 
explain the methodology behind the estimates they provided. These are summarised 
in the table below and show the variety of systems and necessary costs envisaged by 
the different MSAs when responding to this question. 

Set-up 

Implementation 

€2k 

€1.5k 

€18.1k 

€25k 

€2.6k 

€17k 

€250k 

€100k 

Notes on estimates 
Set-up covers launch of web-application and 
registration of chairmen. 
Implementation covers annual extraction of 
information from the database and finalisation of 
a report. 
Set-up costs cover 140 person days (at €129) for 
10 mirror committees.  
Implementation costs cover 20 person-days. 

Costs cover extra staff members 

Set-up covers: (i) European definition and 
mapping of stakeholder types, (ii) classification 
of existing MC members, (iii) set up of ICT 
systems to monitor/report, and (iv) completion of 
initial databases. 
Implementation covers updating the classification 
system and list of participants to include changes 
to MC formation and changes in member 
classifications (e.g. company growth), plus 
reporting. 

There  was  general  agreement  between  the  15  MSAs  that  provided  additional 
qualitative information that: (i) Member States should be vigilant with regards to the 
balance  of  participation  within  standardisation  committees,  (ii)  that  it  is  in  each 
Member State’s interest to organise itself to best promote balanced representation at 
a  national  level,  and  that  (iii)  NSBs  should  be  transparent  and  provide  information 
publicly  to  demonstrate  their  openness  to  all  participants.  Indeed,  three  MSAs 
specifically reported that balanced representation within their national TCs is a key 
issue stipulated in existing MoUs, standards, agreements and other documents, and a 

EN 

178 

   EN 

 
further two MSAs reported that their national standardisation systems were already 
open to participation by all stakeholders. 

The  general  conclusion  of  this  part  of  the  consultation  is  that  there  would  be  very 
substantial costs associated with the set-up and ongoing implementation of a national 
monitoring  and  reporting  system  concerning  the  balance  of  representation  of  a 
defined  set  of  stakeholder  groups  in  national  mirror  committees.  Such  a  system 
would  have  to  be  defined  centrally  and  in  significant  detail  in  order  to  ensure  a 
consistency  of  approach  across  the  NSBs  /  MSAs  in  different  countries.  The 
difference between, on the one hand, open access systems that allow all stakeholders 
to  participate  and  on  the  other,  ‘controlled’  systems  that  enforce  a  pre-defined 
idealised  balance  are  particularly  salient  here.  The  former  is  currently  in  place  and 
the latter cannot be put into place, because what is an appropriate (and hence ideal) 
balance  will  vary  from  committee  to  committee  and  from  country  to  country  and 
cannot always be ensured. 

The  specific  consultation  of  January-February  2010  did  not  reveal  any  significant 
objections  to  the  option,  although  some  respondents  believe  that  the  resulting 
information  would  be  of  limited  practical  utility  and  that  therefore  the  resources 
could be better spent on more direct support to under-represented stakeholder groups. 
Balanced  representation  (however  defined)  may  be  less  achievable  in  smaller 
countries where expertise and resources are limited. 

EN 

179 

   EN 

 
9.6. 

ANNEX 6 – EXISTING STUDIES ON PROBLEMS OF SMEs IN EUROPEAN 
STANDARDISATION 

The  quotations,  data  and  other  information  shown  below  have  been  extracted  from 
the  following  documentation  that  reports  on  the  problems  faced  by  SMEs.  The 
findings are presented under each of the main identified issues, and the numbers in 
parenthesis refer to the list of source documents. 

Documents / sources 

–  I  ‘SMEs  and  Standardisation  in  Europe  –  23  good  practices  to  promote  the 
participation  of  craft  and  SME  enterprises  in  standardisation  and  the  use  of 
standards’  (2006,  EIM  Business  and  Policy  Research,  for  DG  Enterprise  and 
Industry).  

–  II  ‘Efficiency  and  accountability  in  European  standardisation  under  the  new 
approach’  (1998,  Report  by  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  European 
Parliament COM (1998) 291 Final).  

–  III.  ‘Action  plan:  the  European  agenda  for  entrepreneurship  policy’  (2004, 

Commission Communication COM (2004) 70 Final).  

–  IV  ‘Information  on  occupational  health  and  safety  and  standardisation  for  small 
(2001, 

and  medium-sized  enterprises  – 
Commission for Occupational Health and Safety and Standardisation – KAN).  

requirements  and  availability’ 

–  V  ‘Observatory  of  European  SMEs’  (2002,  EIM  in  cooperation  with  ENSR 
partners). A survey of circa 8,000 SMEs, which paid attention to standardisation 
among some of the questions put to organisations. 

–  VI  ‘Observatory  of  European  SMEs  –  analytical  report’  (2007,  Gallup 

Organisation Hungary, for DG Enterprise and Industry).  

–  VII ‘Study to evaluate the internal market and competitiveness effects of council 

directive 89/106/EEC construction products directive’ (2007, PRC). 

–  VIII  ‘Towards  an  increased  contribution  from  standardisation  to  innovation  in 

Europe – discussion paper’ (2007, DG Enterprise and Industry, Unit I.3).  

–  IX  ‘Towards  and  increased  contribution  from  standardisation  to  innovation  in 
Europe – Commission communication’ (2008, Commission communication COM 
(2008) 133 Final).  

Lack of understanding of the benefits of standardisation 

•  Only 60% of SMEs consider standards important issues to their business and the 
figure was lower for micro enterprises than for medium-sized enterprises (v); 

•  When managers were asked about the relative importance of the major features of 
including 

the 
harmonised technical standards', as important or very important. (vi); 

internal  market,  38%  regarded 

'single  market 

legislation, 

EN 

180 

   EN 

 
•  52% of SMEs reported that they do not see any benefits in EU standards replacing 
national regulations'. By comparison 29% claimed that the process was beneficial 
for them (vi); 

•  The results of the EUROMANAGEMENT pilot action (1994) showed that there 
was  a  lack  of  information  among  SMEs  on  the  basic  mechanisms  of  the  Single 
Market and the benefits to be gained from harmonised standards (x); 

Lack of understanding of which standards can or should be applied 

•  SMEs and craft enterprises feel, to a large extent, that standards are something for 
the  large  corporate  sector  and  think  they  are  not  involved.  Consequently  the 
participation  of  such  enterprises  in  standardisation  is  rather  low  in  terms  of 
accessing  relevant  information  and  actually  using  standards  in  their  own 
enterprises (ix); 

•  To  improve  awareness:  It  is  necessary  to  bring  standardisation  and  standards  to 

the attention of market participants, in particular SMEs (ii); 

•  SMEs frequently lack an inexpensive and easily accessible source for information 

on standards (iv); 

•  Practically all SMEs expect a service centre that helps them procure information 
on  standards  to  provide  up-to-date  and  precise  information  on  applicable 
standards;  more  than  90  %  would  like  to  be  able  to  make  an  almost  unlimited 
number of follow-up inquiries and low costs; and almost the same number would 
like  the  information  to  be  converted  more  to  their  needs.  They  would  also  like 
better search possibilities regarding the actual contents of standards, information 
about standards that have been withdrawn, and information on the interpretation 
of product-related standards for specific industries (iv); 

•  55%  of  SMEs  said  they  did  not  receive  relevant  information  on  standards  and 

standardisation (v); 

•  In response to the question 'which problems do you face regarding standards and 
standardisation?’  23%  said  'lack  of  information  on  which  standards  have  to  be 
met’ and 26% said 'lack of information on new standards' (v); 

•  Potential  users  of  standards,  in  particular  SMEs,  may  have  difficulty  identifying 
the  standards  relevant  to  them.  The  reasons  for  this  include  the  existence  of 
several standards, possibly with different status, addressing similar needs (viii); 

•  Regarding  access  to  standards,  other  issues  relate  to  the  difficulty  in  identifying 

the group of standards relevant for a product or process (ix). 

The cost of purchasing standards 

•  The  cost  of  obtaining  relevant  standards  may  be  relatively  high  for  SMEs  and 
other  users,  especially  if  the  standards  contain  many  cross-references  to  other 
standards (viii); 

EN 

181 

   EN 

 
•  Regarding  access  to  standards,  the  cost  of  purchasing  standards  is  increasingly 

cited as a problem by SMEs and other stakeholders (ix); 

Complexity of standards / cost of implementation 

•  The technical aspects of standards are very similar for SMEs, craft enterprises and 
large  enterprises,  but  more  attention  should  be  paid  to  simplicity  of  form  and 
wording. Presently parties feel the need to ‘downsize’ existing standards in order 
to make them more easy to digest for smaller enterprises (ix); 

•  SMEs  would  advise  that  standards  should:  be  comprehensible  and  clearly 
arranged;  contain  instructions  for  their  implementation  and  concrete  technical 
solutions  (instead  of  general  concepts);  repeat  excerpts  from  other  standards 
instead of merely referring to them (iv); 

•  The  contents  of  the  standards  used  frequently  meet  the  requirements  of 
companies. 88% rated the comprehensibility and arrangement of the standards as 
good or very good (iv); 

•  To  the  question 

'which  problems  do  you  face  regarding  standards  and 

standardisation?’ 21% said 'difficulties in applying standards correctly' (v); 

•  Potential  users  of  standards,  in  particular  SMEs,  may  have  difficulty  identifying 
the standards relevant to them. The reasons for this include the complexity of the 
technical  specifications.  Even  if  the  right  standards  have  been  identified  and  are 
available,  implementing  and  using  them  may  still  be  very  complex  without 
adapted support (viii); 

•  Standardisation is a powerful tool for the dissemination of the state of the art to 
SMEs  and  facilitates  the  uptake  of  innovation  by  the  market.  However,  this 
potential  is  often  not  realised  because  of  barriers  such  as  the  complexity  of  the 
language  of  standards  and  the  cost  of  deliverables.  Other  issues  relate  to  the 
excessive number of cross-references between standards (ix). 

Lack of understanding / cost of conformity testing and certification 

•  The  majority  of  companies  indicate  that  they  find  it  expensive  or  difficult  to 
evaluate  the  applicability  of  standards  and  to  conduct  external  tests  determining 
conformity. 75% of companies would like to verify whether they actually fulfil all 
the standards relevant to their manufacturing process (iv); 

•  To  the  question 

'which  problems  do  you  face  regarding  standards  and 
standardisation?’  16%  said  'difficulties  in  obtaining  certification  of  compliance 
with standards’ (v); 

•  The report considers the cost and burden of CE-Marking for SMEs. It notes that 
the  perceived  problem  is  that,  whereas  CE-marking  should  bring  savings  in  the 
overall  testing  and  certification  process  for  larger  firms  or  firms  close  to  state 
borders which sell in more than one Member State, many small firms will suffer 
either  (ix)  because  they  are  in  Member  States  where  no  3rd  party  certification 

EN 

182 

   EN 

 
requirement existed previously, so they have to do something for the first time, or 
(ii)  because  the  product  evaluation  or  conformity  procedures  are  now  more 
difficult,  because  of  harmonisation.  However,  the  report  finds  that  whilst  SME 
concerns  need  to  be  taken  very  seriously,  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  the 
problem is not as serious as previously thought. Also, the dominant industry view 
of CE-marking seems to have shifted from concern that it is a burden and would 
drive  some  SMEs  out  of  business,  to  acceptance  that  it  is  a  good  protective 
measure against low-quality non-EEA imports (with the caveat that it is not strict 
enough and not adequately enforced). A large number of companies and nearly all 
SMEs do not carry more than one national mark. The yearly cost of CE-marking 
will  be  less  than  the  cost  of  previous  national  conformity  marks  for  these 
companies (vii). 

Lack of participation / representation in the standards development process 

•  SME and craft enterprises feel, to a large extent, that standards are something for 
the  large  corporate  sector  and  think  they  are  not  involved.  Consequently  the 
participation  of  such  enterprises  in  standardisation  is  rather  low  in  terms  of 
participation  in  Technical  Committees  where  standards  are  actually  developed 
(ix); 

•  The  majority  of  measures  found  [by  the  study]  at  national  level  are  aimed  at 
raising  awareness  and  providing  information.  Relatively  little  is  done  to  support 
the participation of SME and craft enterprises in standardisation, or to defend their 
interests (ix); 

•  Specific  constraints  of  SMEs  in  terms  of  human  resources  and  finance,  lead  to 
relatively low active participation of SMEs in the standardisation process (ix); 

•  The  Internal  Market  has  made  the  lives  of  businesses,  particularly  SMEs,  much 
easier.  But  the  Internal  Market  is  not  complete.  There  are  still  obstacles.  The 
Commission  will  also  continue  to  promote  the  involvement  of  SMEs  in 
standardisation (iii); 

•  40%  of  the  companies  surveyed  would  be  interested  in  participating  in 
standardisation  work;  however,  at  present,  only  12  %  are  actively  involved. 
Considerable  obstacles  prevent  SMEs  from  exerting  a  greater  influence  on 
standardization, especially the lack of free resources (iv); 

•  To  the  question 

'which  problems  do  you  face  regarding  standards  and 
standardisation?’ 16% said 'lack of possibility of participation in development of 
new standards’ (v); 

•  SMEs  and  other  economic  operators  have  great  difficulty  participating  in  the 
standard-making  process  as  it  is  currently  established:  SMEs  have  problems 
allocating their limited human and financial assets to the resource-heavy and time-
consuming process of standardisation, which includes many face-to-face meetings 
and  often  demands  a  membership  fee.  This  is  especially  critical  for  micro-
enterprises;  it  is  necessary  to  address  the  concerns  of  SME  representatives  that 
standardisation  processes  are  often  dominated  by  large  industry  and  do  not  take 

EN 

183 

   EN 

 
SMEs’  interests  sufficiently  into  account.  The  need  to  attend  standardisation 
meetings physically is probably the most significant barrier to SME participation. 
(viii); 

•  Standardisation is a powerful tool for the dissemination of the state of the art to 
SMEs  and  to  facilitate  the  uptake  of  innovation  by  the  market.  However,  this 
potential  is  often  not  realised  because  of  barriers  such  as  the  time  required  to 
participate in standard-making (ix). 

Lack of availability of standards in native language 

•  The technical aspects of standards are very similar for SMEs, craft enterprises and 
large  enterprises,  but  more  attention  should  be  paid  to  simplicity  of  form  and 
wording. Presently parties feel the need to ‘translate’ existing standards in order to 
make them easier to digest for smaller enterprises (ix); 

•  Potential  users  of  standards,  in  particular  SMEs,  may  have  difficulty  identifying 
the standards relevant to them. The reasons for this include the lack of standards 
in their own language (viii); 

•  Regarding  access  to  standards,  other  issues  relate  to  the  lack  of  standards  in 

national languages (ix). 

EN 

184 

   EN 

 
9.7. 

ANNEX 7 – GLOBAL FORA AND CONSORTIA IN THE FIELD OF ICT 

9.7.1. 

Introduction 

The technological foundations of the Third Industrial Revolution are innovations in 
computing and electronics, including the invention of transistors, integrated circuits, 
digital computers and networks, and wireless technologies. These innovations can be 
described as modular innovations whereby system coordination became embedded in 
standardised  interfaces,  so  that  a  variety  of  products  could  work  within  the 
same  system  architecture.  Once  multiple  firms  contributed  components  to  the 
system, new strategies beyond horizontal and vertical integration became necessary 
to  coordinate  the  system  architecture  and  to  make  sure  it  functioned  properly.  This 
shift  towards  greater  modularity  was  due  in  part  to  the  increasing  complexity  of 
technology:  in  many  cases,  a  single  firm  did  not  have  the  technological  or 
organizational capabilities to produce all of the components necessary for an entire 
system.  The  most  striking  example  of  a  network  industry  that  needs  standardised 
interfaces is the ICT sector in which standards play an essential role in ensuring 
compatibility. Such standards can serve to increase network effects and that in turn 
supports  innovation99.  In  a  digitally  driven  society,  ICT  solutions  are  used  in  any 
economic sector as well as in our daily lives. To fully exploit the potential provided 
by  the  digital  society,  ICT  solutions,  applications  and  services  have  to  be  able  to 
communicate with each other; they should be interoperable. Interoperability requires 
standards and specifications.  

The  regulatory  framework  and  the  underlying  ESO  governance  mechanisms  that 
have proven very successful in tackling the harmonisation of national standards for 
internal  market  purposes  have  not  proved  as  adequate  to  cope  with  the 
interoperability requirements of ICT policy. The issue is related to the proliferation 
of  relevant  ICT  standards  more  or  less  informally  created  by  global  fora  and 
consortia.  Nowadays  it  can  be  roughly  estimated  that  some  80%  of  the  global  ICT 
standardisation work of interest to the European ICT market is carried out outside the 
formal European standardisation system. 

The  phenomenon  affects  the  IT  and  telecom  industries  differently,  because  formal 
standardisation  in  the  latter  is  more  protected  by  the  need  to  have  interoperability 
ensured  over  a  relatively  longer  period  of  time  (infrastructural  investments  have  a 
pay-off  period  of  decades)  and  by  a  stronger  regulatory  framework  for  standard 
referencing.  But  evolution  in  the  IT  industry  and  software  and  internet-related 
applications has been very fast and the disintermediation of the formal process much 
more advanced. 

9.7.2.  Global fora and consortia 

The  ICT  standardisation  landscape  has  dramatically  changed  over  the  last  decade. 
Alongside  the  traditional  standard  stetting  organisations,  specialised  and  mostly 
global  fora  and  consortia  have  become  more  active  and  several  have  emerged  as 

99 

Swann  G.M.P.,  “The  Economics  of  Standardization:  An  Update’,  Report  for  the  UK  Department  of 
Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), 2010. 

EN 

185 

   EN 

 
                                                 
world-leading  ICT  standards development  bodies,  such  as  those  responsible  for  the 
standards covering the internet and the world wide web. 

These fora and consortia include, for example, the following bodies: 

(1) 

(2) 

The  Internet  Engineering  Task  Force  (IETF)  is  a  large  open  international 
community  of  network  designers,  operators,  vendors,  and  researchers 
concerned  with  the  evolution  of  internet  architecture  and  the  smooth 
operation  of  the  internet.  It  is  open  to  any  interested  individual.  The  actual 
technical  work  of  the  IETF  is  done  in  its  working  groups,  which  are 
organized by topic into several areas (e.g.,  routing,  transport,  security, etc.). 
Much of the work is handled via mailing lists. The IETF holds meetings three 
times per year. The IETF's official products are documents, published free of 
charge as Requests for Comments (RFCs) which are frequently updated. As 
well  as  producing  RFCs,  the  IETF  is  a  forum  where  network  operators, 
hardware and software implementers and researchers discuss future protocols, 
standards  and  products.  It  is  also  the  forum  where  the  basic  technical 
standards  for  internet  protocols  are  set  and  maintained.  The  IETF  does  not 
standardise transmission hardware nor specialized application layer protocols. 
However, the IETF standardises all the protocol layers in between.  

The  World  Wide  Web  Consortium  (W3C)  is  an  international  community 
where Member organisations, a full-time staff, and the public work together 
to  develop  Web  standards.  Its  membership  is  open  to  all  types  of 
organisations  (including commercial,  educational and governmental  entities) 
and  individuals.  Any  entity  that  can  sign  the  Membership  Agreement  can 
become  a  Member.  Members  may  be  either  for-profit  or  not-for-profit 
organizations. Most Members are specialised in web technologies and/or are 
developing  web-based  products,  using  web  technologies  as  an  enabling 
medium, conducting research on the Web, or developing specifications based 
on W3C work. W3C develops technical specifications and guidelines through 
a process designed to obtain consensus about the content of a technical report, 
to ensure appropriate technical and editorial quality, and to earn endorsement 
by  W3C  and  the  broader  community.  These  specifications  and  guidelines 
cover,  inter  alia,  web  design  and  applications  (i.e.  the  specifications  for 
building and rendering Web pages, including HTML5, CSS, SVG, Ajax, and 
other  technologies  for  Web  Applications,  the  so-called  “WebApps”),  Web 
architecture  (i.e.  focusing  on  the  foundation  technologies  and  principles 
which  sustain  the  Web,  including  URIs  and  HTTP),  XML  Technologies 
including  XML,  XQuery,  XML  Schema,  XSLT,  XSL-FO,  Efficient  XML 
Interchange  (EXI),  technologies  to  enable  Web  access  anywhere,  anytime, 
and using any device, browsers and authoring tools. 

(3) 

OASIS  (Organization  for  the  Advancement  of  Structured  Information 
Standards)  is  a  not-for-profit  consortium  that  drives  the  development, 
convergence  and  adoption  of  open  standards  for  the  global  information 
society. It was founded in 1993 under the name SGML Open as a consortium 
of  vendors  and  users  devoted  to  developing  guidelines  for  interoperability 
among  products  that  support  the  Standard  Generalized  Markup  Language 
(SGML).  The  name  changed  in  1998  to  reflect  an  expanded  scope  of 

EN 

186 

   EN 

 
technical work, including the Extensible Markup Language (XML) and other 
related  standards.  Companies,  government  agencies,  non-profit  associations, 
and  academic  and  research 
institutions  may  become  members.  The 
Consortium hosts two of the widely known information portals on XML and 
Web services standards, namely Cover Pages and XML.org.  

(4) 

IEEE  (Institute  of  Electrical  and  Electronics  Engineers)  is  a  large  technical 
professional  society.  It  is  designed  to  help  professionals  involved  in  all 
aspects of the electrical, electronic and computing fields and related areas of 
science and technology. There are more than 395,000 IEEE members in over 
160 countries around the world. IEEE members are engineers, scientists and 
allied  professionals  whose  technical  interests  are  rooted  in  electrical  and 
computer  sciences,  engineering  and  related  disciplines.  The  IEEE-SA 
standards program produces standards for a broad range of technologies and 
industries.  It  has  an  active  portfolio  of  nearly  1,300  standards  with  many 
more projects currently under development. 

Overall,  there  are  uncertainties  as  to  the  total  number  of  standardisation  consortia, 
especially in the field of ICT. CEN makes a periodical survey of these entities in the 
area of ICT and currently counts some 238, but makes a subjective screening not to 
include  what  they  consider  the  most  patently  commercially-motivated  ones.  Other 
private sources that do not do any such screening list a total of 534100. The Japanese 
Government routinely monitors for its own ICT strategic development purposes the 
activities  of  some  120-130.  Many  fora  and  consortia  work  at  different  levels  in 
numerous overlapping technology areas relevant to ICT and networks. Over 500 are 
listed  in  web-based  catalogues  of  fora  and  consortia  and,  at  one  time  (before  the 
collapse  of  the  dot  com  bubble),  new  fora  and  consortia  were  being  created  at  the 
rate of at least one a week. It is impossible for service providers to keep track of all 
of  these,  and  it  is  not  clear  to  a  service provider  (or  even  to  an  equipment  vendor) 
which group to work with for the standards they need. Vendors often create new fora 
to obtain a significant influence in the marketplace and to ensure that any resulting 
technical standards are based on their own product specifications. During the internet 
boom, consortia emerged at a very high rate and, contrary to expectations, in the last 
few years they have proved quite resilient to the end of that boom and have survived 
the consequent decline in their membership base and any possible reduction in total 
private  investment  in  standardisation.  It  is  not  uncommon  for  European  ICT 
multinationals  anecdotally  to  report  attendance  at  works  of  over  150  different 
standardisation entities.  

100 

www.consortiuminfo.org/links 

EN 

187 

   EN 

 
                                                 
9.7.3.  Comparison of C&F Management Features with those of ESO and JTC1 

OASIS 

OMG 

W3C 

ETSI 

JTC1 

RF  
FRAND  
RF Open Source 

RF 

RF 

FRAND 

FRAND 

Numerous 
(including e.g. 
ISO, JTC1, ISSS, 
W3C) 

Crossmembersh
ip 
(OASIS, W3C, 
NIST 

Numerous 
(including e.g. 
ETSI, IETF, 
ITU, 
JTC1 

Numerous 
(including e.g. 
ISO, JTC1, ITU, 
national/regional 
SDO many 
consortia) 

Ca. 800 

Over 400 

700+  

Over 16 liasons 

67 (member 
states at JTC1 
level) 

2: 
(P)articipating 
(may vote) 
(O)bserving 

2: 
Full, 
Affiliate 
(both have same 
rights) 

4: 
Full, Associate, 
(may vote) 
Observer, 
Counsellor 

IPR policy 

Liaisons 

Overall # of 
members 

Membership 
levels 

Membership 
Fees 

Individuals’ 
capacity 

To establish 
new activity 

5 (three main): 
Contributing 
Domain 
Platform 
Influencing 
Residual: Test 
and Analyst 

Membership 
fees according 
to the annual 
gross revenue;  
only 
contributing 
members have 
full voting 
capacity. 
Fees range from 
75,000 USD for 
contributing 
members to 550 
USD for 
university 
members. 

Ca. 400 
organizations 
Ca. 200 
individuals 
4: 
Foundational 
sponsors 
Sponsors, 
Contributors, 
Individual (may 
not vote 
Foundational 
sponsors: from 
50,000 to 44,000 
USD according to 
the type of 
organization and 
the number of 
employees; 
Sponsors: from 
16,000 to 9,500 
USD according to 
the type of 
organization and 
the number of 
people employed; 
Contributors: 
from 8,000 to 
1,100 USD 
according to the 
type of 
organization and 
the number of 
people employed; 
Individuals: 
US$300 
member 
representative 
(but individual 
vote at TC level) 
3 ‘eligible 
persons; 
business plan; 
decision after 15 
days, BoD may 
veto 

Depends on the 
country and on 
the annual 
revenue; the fee 
can be 
calculated via 
the website and 
may vary from 
68,500 to 953 
USD. 

Based on 
turnover; from 
2000 EUR 
(Universities, 
Non-profit 
organizations 
etc.) to 154,720 
EUR. 

Based on GNP 

member 
representative 

WG: member 
representative; 
AB: individual 

(member) 
representative 

individual 

RFP: initiated in 
TC (also SIG), 
TF 
elaborate RFP, 
approved by 
AB. 

Initiated by 
W3C 
staff, general 
review at least 4 
weeks; decided 
upon by 

4 supporting 
Members 
prepared to 
contribute; 
decision after one 
month 

No time frame 
specified 

EN 

188 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Director 

Accepted by TC 
(vote). 
RFC: bypasses 
RFP 

Average time 
until 
finalisation 

16 – 24 months 

Openness 
technical 
activities 

Every ‘eligible 
person’ may 
participate 

Transparency 

description of 
process and 
voting procedure 
publicly available 

Required level 
of consensus 

Balloting 
mechanism at TC 
and OASIS level; 
BoD may keep 
proposal from 
balloting 

Implementations 
required? 

Yes (three 
interoperable 
implementations 

12-15 months 
from RFP: 
shorter for RFC 
Eligible 
members 
may submit 
proposed 
solutions 
Information 
(RFI) 
may be invited 
from outside 

Ability to track 
the 
adoption 
process. 
Finalized 
documents are 
publicly 
available 
2/3 majority of 
eligible voters 
on 
finalized 
submission. 
Submitted to 
BoD 
for final 
decision 
A precondition. 
Non-
implemented 
can be ‘retired’ 

Typically 
around 
24 months 

Around 4 years 
for a European 
Standard 

Up to 48 months; 
ca. 12 months for PAS 
process 

Open to all 
members 

Open to Full and 
Assoc. ETSI 
members; 
external experts 
for STF62 

Individual WG 
members must 
be authorised by 
national SDO 

info on process 
and outcome 
publicly 
available; 
public may 
comment; TRs 
undergo public 
review 

Limited (largely 
to 
members) 
transparency 

Limited (largely 
to members) 
transparency 

Consensus 
based, at both 
technical and 
W3C level, but 
W3C director’s 
approval is 
always required 

At TB level: 
consensus/voting 
At ETSI level: 
consensus/weigh 
ted individual 
voting by 
members 

Balloting should 
only take place 
once consensus 
has been 
achieved; Pmembers 
cast 
votes 

Yes (one 
implementation) 

No 

No 

Types of 
‘products’ 

Committee Drafts 
Standards 

OMG 
specification 
(‘adopted 
technology’) 

Working Notes 
Recommendatio
ns 

Output 

17 Committee 
Drafts 
(excluding 
ebXML 
specifications 
prior to 2002) 
71 standards from 
2003 to 2009 

130+ in total 
http://www.omg
.o 
rg/technology/d
oc 
uments/spec_cat 
alog.htm 
since 2002: 
114  

55 
Recommendatio
ns (2005-2009) 

ETSI Standard, 
ES 
European 
Standard, EN 
ETSI Technical 
Specification 
ETSI Technical 
Report, TR 
ETSI Guide, EG 
Special Report, 
SR 
ES ETSI: 381 
standards from 
January 2004 to 
August 2009, 
Total standards 
from January 
2009: 567; 
EN –ES 
Telecommunicati

ISO Standard 
ISO/PAS 
ISO/TS Technical 
Specification 
ISO/TR Technical 
Report 
International 
Workshop 
Agreement (IWA) 

CA 420 technical 
standards modified 
between 2007-2009 
11 Technical 
Standards published 
from 2003 - 2006 

EN 

189 

   EN 

 
 
 
ons: 414 from 
January 2004 to 
August 2009; 
1744 from 1999 
to 2009; 
EG Guide: 66 
from January 
2004 to August 
2009 
167 from 1999 to 
2009 
Yes 
No official 
procedure for 
most 
deliverables; 
reaction to 
comments; 
approval of new 
version follows 
same procedures 
as new 
deliverables 

No 

Regular reviews 
every 5 years (3 
years for PAS 
submissions); 
Amendments are 
also used 

Specs for free 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Standards 
maintenance 

No official 
mechanism, but 
new versions are 
produced 
relatively 
frequently 

Codified 
revision 
process, 
including bug 
page. 

Error tracking is 
part of the 
process; 
dedicated ‘errata 
page’; approval 
of new version 
follows same 
procedures as 
for 
new TR 

EN 

190 

   EN 

 
 
9.8. 

ANNEX 8 – SME TEST 

(1) Consultation with 
SMEs representatives 

(2) Preliminary 
assessment of businesses 
likely to be affected 

One of the objectives of the Small Business Act (SBA) is 
to  help  SMEs  to  benefit  more  from  the  opportunities 
offered  by  the  Single  Market and  third-country  markets. 
For that purpose, the SBA stated that it would increasing 
“EU  financial  support  (to  €1  million  in  2008  and  €  2.1 
million  from  2009)  to  promote  SMEs’  participation  and 
defence  of  their  interests  in  standardisation  and  to 
improve  SMEs’  information  on,  and  use  of,  European 
standards". In its report adopted on 21 October 2010 (see 
section  2.1),  the  European  Parliament  stresses  that  the 
SMEs are not adequately involved in the standardisation 
system.  It  believes  that  it  is  essential  to  increase  their 
system. 
representation 
Consequently,  SMEs  representatives  have  been  widely 
consulted during the preparatory process (see point 9.1.3 
of  Annex  1).  Questions  6  and  13  of  the  general 
consultation related specifically to problems encountered 
by  SMEs.  In  parallel,  specific  studies  were  made  to 
examine the problems of SMEs in standardisation. These 
studies are set out in more detail in Annex 6. 

and  participation 

the 

in 

The  studies  showed  that  SMEs  encounter  a  series  of 
problems  with  respect  to  standards  and  standardisation. 
The  main  problems  and  barriers  are  the  lack  of 
understanding of the benefits of standardisation, the lack 
of  understanding  of  which  standards  can  or  should  be 
applied, the cost of purchasing standards, the complexity 
lack  of 
of  standards/cost  of 
understanding/cost 
and 
certification,  the  lack  of  participation/representation  in 
the  standards  development  process  and  the  lacking 
availability  of  standards  in  the  language  used  by  the 
SME. 

implementation, 
conformity 

the 
testing 

of 

in 

to  apply  standards 

The overall conclusion of these studies is that SMEs are 
enterprises  which  need 
the 
production of goods and services, like larger enterprises. 
However,  due  to  their  size  and  limited  resources,  SMEs 
have  more  difficulties  in  choosing  the  right  standard,  in 
understanding  it  and  it  implementing  it.  Standards  may 
be  drafted  in  an  unnecessary  complex  way,  with  too 
many cross references to other standards, making it more 
difficult to understand and to implement them. The more 
SMEs  participate  in  the  technical  committees,  the  more 
standards will be SME-friendly and the more SMEs will 
use and implement them. 

EN 

191 

   EN 

 
(3) Measurement of the 
impact on SMEs 

Although  SMEs  face  similar  problems  as  societal 
stakeholders, the concerns of SMEs differ since standards 
have  to  be  suitable  for  SMEs  in  terms  of  their  use  and 
application  while  the  broader  societal  interest  lies  in  the 
results of the use of standards. 

are 

adequately 

One of the specific objectives of the initiative is to ensure 
the 
that  SMEs 
standardisation process (point 4.2). The impacts on SMEs 
are measured specifically in all options. The involvement 
of  SMEs  in  the  standardisation  process  is  one  the  three 
main problems examined in this impact assessment. 

represented 

in 

(4) Assess alternative 
options and mitigating 
measures 

At  the  end  of  the  impact  assessment,  there  was  no 
indication  that  the  selected  options  might  result  in  a 
disproportionate burden for SMEs. Consequently, there is 
no element showing the need for SME specific measures 
in  order  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  proportionality 
principle.  

EN 

192 

   EN 

 
 
9.9. 

ANNEX  9  –  CONCLUSIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  OF  THE 
EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF THE CONTRIBUTION OF EU FINANCING 
OF  STANDARDISATION  TO  THE  FULFILMENT  OF  POLICY 
OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMISSION 

A  study  produced  by  the  Enterprise  Evaluation  Consortium  GHK  /  Technopolis101 
draws  the  following  conclusions  and  makes  the  following  recommendations.  The 
views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the 
Commission.  

The  focus  of  the  evaluation  was  the  financial  support  allocated  to  the  ESOs  by 
EC/EFTA through operating and action grants signed in the period 1st Jan 04 – 31st 
Dec 07. The overall aim of the study was to evaluate the extent to which EC/EFTA 
financing  of  European  standardisation  contributes  to  the  implementation  and 
achievement  of  the  policy  objectives  of  the  Commission  as  laid  out  in  relevant 
documentation. In addition, the evaluation has assessed the relevance, effectiveness, 
efficiency  and  utility  of  the  system  of  financing,  including  the  associated 
management  and  administrative  procedures.  Finally,  the  evaluation  has  considered 
whether  the  system  of  financing  is  optimised  and  makes  recommendations  for 
improvements  where  appropriate.  The  assessments  are  based  on  a  review  of  all 
relevant documentation and data relating to the financing, plus extensive consultation 
with  the  European  Commission,  EFTA,  the  European  and  National  Standards 
Bodies, industry and other stakeholders. Over 160 people were consulted during the 
course of the study. 

1. 

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS 

The  overarching  objective  of  the  evaluation  was  to  “assess  to  what  extent  the 
financing  of  European  standardisation  by  the  European  Commission  contributes  to 
the achievement of the objectives of its policy”. It also aimed to determine “whether 
the  current  financing  scheme  and  the  cost/benefit  ratio  are  optimised  to  reach  the 
objectives of the actions”. 

Our overall conclusions are as follows: 

• 

• 

The  financing  of  European  standardisation  by  EC/EFTA  is  both  appropriate 
and  necessary,  and  attracts  strong  support  inside  the  Commission,  from  the 
standardisation bodies at EU and national levels, and from industry and other 
stakeholders 

The  financing  granted  from  2004-7  has  supported  activities  that  are  of  clear 
and high relevance to the policy objectives of the Commission, as set out in the 
financing  agreements  and 
the 
Commission 

in  various  communications 

issued  by 

101 

EN 

Evaluation of the Contribution of Community Financing of Standardisation to the Fulfilment of Policy 
Objectives  of 
June  2009. 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/dg/files/evaluation/2009-06-30__final_report_and_appendices_en.pdf.  

submitted  by  GHK/Technopolis  on  30 

the  Commission, 

193 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The  six  main  areas  of  activity  that  have  attracted  EC/EFTA  financing  each 
contribute  significantly  to  the  achievement  of  multiple  Commission  policy 
objectives,  but  to  different  extents  and  in  different  but  mutually  supporting 
ways 

The main role of the financing is to support and strengthen the ESO platform 
and  to  facilitate  and  support  standards  development  work  in  areas  closely 
linked to Commission policy and legislation 

The system of financing is effective and has delivered a high level of positive 
benefits in its intended areas of influence, but its efficiency has been severely 
hampered  by  administrative  burdens  which  detract  from  the  overall  added 
value of the support 

The  financing  is  of  significant  utility to  the  European  standardisation  system, 
providing additional management capacity and expertise and helping to offset 
the  costs  to  industry  of  standards  development  in  areas  closely  linked  to 
Commission policy 

The  overall  financial  allocation  by  EC/EFTA  is  modest  in  the  context  of  the 
total  costs  of  EU  standardisation  and  in  relation  to  the  benefits  that  the 
financing delivers, but only appears to be under a moderate amount of pressure 
under the current arrangements. The pressure has been alleviated significantly 
by the withdrawal of some ESOs and NSBs from certain lines of support due to 
problems with the detailed, complex and unstable financial rules and the high 
administrative burden 

• 

Under  improved  conditions  there  would  be  a  strong  case  for  an  increased 
budgetary allocation due to the significant benefits that the support can deliver 

The  following  sections  present  more  detailed  conclusions  and  recommendations, 
organised  around  the  issues  that  the  evaluation  was  asked  to  address  and  the 
questions that  it was designed to answer. The main body of this report sets out the 
information  and  data  that  have  been  used  to  arrive  at  these  conclusions  and 
recommendations, and contains further, more detailed information that may be useful 
for strengthening the system of financing in future.  

2. 

RELEVANCE 

2.1. 

Commission policy objectives regarding standardisation 

The terms of reference for the study asked the evaluators to identify and describe the 
policy  objectives  of  the  Commission  regarding  standardisation.  A  review  of  the 
supplied  documentation  has  identified  the  following  objectives  of  the  Commission 
that  are  all  intended,  in  some  way,  to  be  supported  through  the  financing  of 
standardisation: 

Objectives relating primarily to industrial policy 

Objectives relating primarily to public policy / 
societal needs 

• 

To enhance the competitiveness of 

• 

To provide a high level of protection 

EN 

194 

   EN 

 
European Industry 

of health and safety 

• 

• 

• 

To contribute to environmental 
protection and sustainable 
development 

To use standardisation as a tool for 
ensuring accessibility for all 

To support the public interest 
dimension of standards 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

To assist in the completion (and 
improve the functioning) of the single 
market 

To assist European industry to access 
world markets 

To facilitate innovation 

To facilitate and ensure 
interoperability 

To increase the market relevance of 
standards development 

To facilitate the take-up of European 
standards 

To ensure effective use of standards 
by SMEs 

Objectives relating primarily to the existence of a 
strong EU standardisation system 

Objectives relating primarily to the extension of 
the EU standardisation system and the inclusion 
of relevant actors 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

To provide a flexible and transparent 
platform for consensus building 

To strengthen the institutional 
framework and structures of 
European standardisation 

To ensure the financial viability of 
European standardisation 

To increase the efficiency of 
European standardisation 

To improve the synergies between the 
European Standardisation 
Organisations 

To improve the timeliness of 
standards development 

To improve the coherence of 
European standardisation and of its 
institutional framework 

To improve the effectiveness of 
European standardisation 

To improve and extend the European 
key mark system 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

To promote and increase the 
visibility of the European 
standardisation system 

To assist with the integration of 
candidate countries 

To ensure effective participation by 
all relevant actors 

To increase the role of standards in 
support of European policies and 
legislation 

To increase the role of standards in 
the area of security 

To increase the role of standards in 
the area of services 

To strengthen the link between 
research and standards 

To promote the development and use 
of international standards 

These  objectives  relate  to  both  the  positive  benefits  that  standardisation  brings  to 
society  and  the  economy,  which  help  to  explain  why  the  Commission  provides 
financial  support  to  European  standardisation,  and  to  more  purposeful  objectives 
relating to desired improvements in the overall structure and performance of the EU 
standardisation system.  

EN 

195 

   EN 

 
 
2.2. 

The relevance of the financial support to the achievement of these objectives 

The study was asked to assess whether the allocation of financial support is relevant 
to  the  achievement  of  these  objectives.  We  have  found  that  the  financing  of 
standardisation  by  EC/EFTA  is  considered  by  all  stakeholder  groups  to  be  highly 
appropriate  and  necessary  and  that  the  specific  activities  attracting  financing  in  the 
period  2004-7  are  very  strongly  linked  to  and  are  of  clear  relevance  to  the 
achievement of Commission policy objectives.  

The  different  elements  of  the  financing  and  the  different  activities  supported  are 
relevant to different groups of objectives as follows:  

• 

• 

• 

The financial support provided to the central secretariats of the ESOs through 
Operating Grants can be seen to be of clear relevance to the achievement of 
all  of  the  identified  policy  objectives.  The  financing  enables  the  central 
secretariats  to  strengthen  the  EU  standardisation  system  and  platform,  and 
provides  additional  capacity  to  enable  a  timely  and  effective  response  to 
Commission requests for standards development work and related activities in 
support  of  its  policy  and  legislation.  This  includes  standardisation  activities 
designed 
innovation, 
competitiveness, interoperability, single market), public policy objectives (e.g. 
health and safety, environmental protection, accessibility for all) and objectives 
relating to the extension of the EU standardisation system (e.g. into new areas 
of policy and legislation such as services) and the inclusion of relevant actors 
(e.g. SMEs, NGOs, etc.) 

industrial  policy  objectives 

support 

(e.g. 

to 

The  financing  provided  to  support  specific  standards  development  projects 
(actions)  is  relevant  to  the  achievement  of  industrial  policy  objectives,  as  the 
majority  of  the  actions  are  intended  in some way to improve interoperability, 
assist with the completion of the internal market, promote innovation and the 
take-up  of  innovative  solutions,  and  thereby  enhance  the  competitiveness  of 
industry. The majority of the financed standards development projects are also 
of clear relevance to public policy objectives, given that they are often aimed at 
providing  a  high  level  of  protection  of  health  and  safety,  contribute  to 
environmental protection or otherwise support the public interest dimension of 
standards.  The  standards  development  work  is  also  of  relevance  to  the 
extension  of  the  European  standardisation  system,  in  particular  by  increasing 
the role of standards in support of EU policy and legislation 

The financing provided to support visibility projects is of most clear relevance 
to  the  policy  relating  to  the  extension  of  the  system  and  the  inclusion  of 
relevant  actors.  The  activities  that  have  attracted  EC/EFTA  financing  have 
been aimed at increasing the visibility of the European standardisation system 
both inside the EU but particularly internationally, and are of relevance to the 
objectives of helping to integrate candidate countries and ensuring the effective 
participation by all relevant actors. The financing of visibility projects is also 
of  clear  relevance  to  the  industrial  policy  objectives  of  assisting  European 
industry  to  access  world  markets,  assisting  in  the  completion  of  the  internal 
market,  and  facilitating  the  take-up  of  standards  (through,  for  example,  an 

EN 

196 

   EN 

 
• 

• 

• 

increased  awareness  of  European  standardisation  and  increased  participation 
within it) 

The  financing  for  preliminary  work  /  supporting  activities  has  also  been 
found  to  be  of  clear  relevance  to  several  of  the  identified  policy  objectives, 
including in particular by helping to increase the market relevance of standards 
development,  facilitating  the  take-up  of  standards,  and  increasing  the  role  of 
standards in support of EU policy and legislation 

The  financing  for  translation  of  European  standards  is  also  judged  to  be  of 
high relevance to Commission policy objectives, particularly those relating to 
industrial policy, by for example, helping facilitate the take-up of standards and 
ensuring  their  effective  use  by  SMEs,  and  thereby  helping  to  facilitate 
interoperability  and  assist  with  the  completion  of  the  internal  market.  The 
financing of translation is also of clear relevance to the objectives of extending 
the EU standardisation system and inclusion of relevant actors, by for example, 
helping  to  increase  the  visibility  and  use  of  European  standards  in  specific 
countries  and  by  assisting  with  the  integration  of  candidate  countries  to  the 
Community market 

The  financing  of  quality  assessment  work  carried  out  by  New  Approach 
consultants  is  of  relevance  to  a  range  of  policy  objectives,  in  particular  by 
increasing the role of standards in support of European legislation and helping 
to  ensure  a  high  level  of  protection  of  health  and  safety  and  in  some  cases 
environmental  protection,  thereby  assisting  in  the  completion  of  the  internal 
market.  This  line  of  financing  is  also  of  relevance  to  the  objectives  of 
improving  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  European  standardisation  and 
improving the timeliness of standards development 

As indicated above, most of the financed activities have the potential to contribute to 
multiple  different  policy  objectives  of  the  Commission,  though  there  are  clear 
differences between the lines of support, with some contributing in general terms to 
large numbers of objectives while others are of more specific and direct relevance to 
a more limited set of objectives. 

It  is  therefore  concluded  that  there  are  clear  links  between  the  Commission  policy 
objectives 
and  European 
standardisation, particularly in those areas that have attracted EC/EFTA financing.  

environmental,  market, 

regulatory) 

(industrial, 

2.3.  Mechanisms to ensure the relevance of the financial support 

The study terms of reference asked us to assess how the Commission evaluates the 
relevance  of  the  financial  support  requested  by  the  ESOs  with  respect  to  their 
achievement of its policy objectives.  

In  the  case  of  the  Operating  Grant,  the  link  between  the  policy  objectives  and  the 
financed activity is in large measure given or assured through the type of financing 
provided (this holds to some extent for the other areas of support also). The activities 
of  the  Central  Secretariats  are  known  to  support  many  of  the  objectives  of  the 
Commission,  and  the  provision  of  the  Operating  Grant  is  provided  specifically 

EN 

197 

   EN 

 
because of this contribution, and in order to provide additional capacity to deliver on 
those  objectives.  However,  in  addition,  the  ESO  grant  applications,  submitted  each 
year and based around the central secretariats’ annual business plans make clear the 
ways  in  which  the  activities  will  contribute  to  Commission  policy  objectives, 
particularly by strengthening the ESO platforms and activities, and also by ensuring 
an  effective  and  efficient  management  of  requests  issued  by  the  Commission  for 
standardisation work throughout the course of the year.  

The  OG  proposals  submitted  by  the  ESOs  are  evaluated  by  the  Commission  with 
regard  to  their  relevance  to  Commission  policy  objectives.  However,  it  should  be 
noted that the Operating Grants are intended as a subsidy or subvention to the day-to-
day  activities  of  the  central  secretariats  because  of  the  important  role  they  play  in 
supporting the achievement of Commission policy. The intention of the evaluation is 
therefore  to  confirm  that  relevance  rather  than  as  a  mechanism  to  identify  ways  in 
which the ESOs could better support Commission policy.  

However, a range of other mechanisms are used to convey the Commission’s policy 
objectives to the ESOs, and the ESOs can clearly be seen to respond to those signals 
through  revisions  to  their  processes  and  improvements  to  their  functioning.  One 
obvious  example  is  efforts  undertaken  by  CEN  to  speed  up  the  standards 
development  process  in  response  to  signals  from  the  Commission  that  this  was  a 
priority objective. Another example is efforts undertaken by all of the ESOs in recent 
years  to  better  integrate  environmental  aspects  into  standardisation,  which  were 
carried out in response to a 2004 Commission communication on this specific topic. 
In  the  years  following  publication  of  this  communication  the  ESOs,  with  the 
assistance of the Operating Grant, implemented a number of process improvements 
and  developed  specific  tools  to  enhance  the  ways  in  which  their  technical  bodies 
integrate environmental considerations into their work. 

In the case of the more specific action grants issued to the ESOs to support standards 
development  work,  preliminary  studies,  visibility  actions,  etc.  a  formal  proposal 
evaluation process is implemented in order to assess and ensure the relevance of the 
proposed  work  to  the  achievement  of  Commission  policy.  While  the  policy 
objectives themselves are not made explicit in the assessment process, Commission 
officials  with  responsibility  for  standardisation  policy  and  those  responsible  for 
policy  in  specific  sectors  (e.g.  railways,  eHealth,  chemicals,  etc.)  participate  in  the 
evaluation of the proposals and assess their relevance to Commission policy. Based 
on  the  information  available  there  have  been  few  if  any  problems  relating  to  this 
aspect  of  the  process,  largely  because  the  mandates  or  work  programmes  issued  to 
the ESOs and against which the proposals are submitted, reveal the objectives of the 
Commission and serve to ensure that both the proposed actions and the financing are 
closely targeted in policy-relevant areas.  

We  have  not  encountered  any  cases  where  work  supported  from  2004-7  was  of 
limited or unclear relevance to Commission policy, and most actions are relevant to 
the achievement of multiple objectives. Within the current system most of the ESO 
grant applications are evaluated largely on a case by case basis, on their own merits, 
rather than in competition with each other. It is not clear how the Commission might 
use  the  relevance  criterion  to  choose  between  competing  proposals  for  financing, 
although the work supported under the annual ICT standardisation action plans offers 

EN 

198 

   EN 

 
perhaps  the  closest  approximation  to  a  competitive  environment,  with  the  number 
and  value  of  proposals  submitted  exceeding  the  notional  budget  available  for  ICT 
standards  development.  Within  that  system,  work  intended  to  support  directly  the 
implementation  of  EU  legislation  is  afforded  the  highest  priority,  so  could  be 
considered  most  relevant  to  the  achievement  of  policy  objectives.  Work  that  is 
closely  aligned  and  supports  the  implementation  of  ‘flagship’  or  newly  announced 
initiatives of the Commission is judged to be the next most relevant category of work 
to support. As such, there is something of a gradation in the adjudged relevance of 
the  proposals,  based  not  on  the  number  of  objectives  addressed  but  rather  on  the 
adjudged ‘importance’ or ‘priority’ of the policy areas to which they contribute. 

In  addition  to  the  evaluation  process  that  is  implemented  by  the  Commission  to 
ensure the relevance of the proposed work prior to the financing being granted, the 
work is also monitored during its execution and assessed at the end, and there is the 
potential  at  these  points  to  identify  problems  with  the  relevance  of  the  work  to  the 
achievement  of  Commission  policy.  However,  the  major  effort  at  these  stages  is 
devoted to monitoring and assessment from a contractual and financial perspective, 
ensuring  that  workplans  and  timetables  are  being  followed  and  that  financial  rules 
have been observed when submitting claims for payments. There is little or no desire 
on the part of the Commission to actively ‘steer’ the work to ensure or maximise its 
relevance to or fit with Commission policy objectives, other than in isolated cases for 
specific reasons. This seems largely appropriate, as the objective of the Commission 
is  not  to  get  involved  or  ‘interfere’  in  the  work  at  a  technical  level,  but  to  use  its 
financing to support and to some extent to encourage and accelerate the flow of work 
that  is  relevant  to  its  policy  objectives.  The  relevance  test  is  therefore  applied, 
correctly, prior to the initiation of the work.  

Care  is  also  taken  not  to  ‘distort’  the  market  by  pushing  too  strongly  for  standards 
development work in policy areas, or by specifying too precisely what is needed and 
how that work should be carried out. It is considered important by the Commission 
(and other actors) that its role should not extend too far into the technical level, and 
that  it  should  instead  act  as  an  amplifier  of  European  policy  objectives  and  as  an 
enabler  and  supporter  of  actions  that  fit  with  those  priorities  but  which,  crucially, 
have a sufficient level of industry support. The additional resources, in the form of 
financing, are offered in order to strengthen the activities rather than to cause them to 
go ahead, and the level of support offered is not sufficient to drive the work forward 
if there is no industry demand to carry it out. Again, this is an appropriate level of 
intervention under the principles of the New Approach, which sees standardisation as 
an  industry-driven  activity  and  not  something  that  the  public  sector  should  be 
controlling or driving directly. 

2.4. 

Alternative  ways  to  support  standardisation  and  the  achievement  of  its 
objectives 

The study was asked to assess whether there are alternative ways for the Commission 
to  support  standardisation  to  contribute  to its  objectives.  Based  on  our  consultation 
with all of the main groups of actors involved in the financing and the work, there are 
no obvious alternative ways for the Commission to support standardisation, although 
as we will go on to explain progression to a more stable and less complex financial 
support system appears warranted. 

EN 

199 

   EN 

 
industry  policy 

logic,  with  advancement  of 

It should be noted that the support to standardisation comes not just through financial 
means,  but  by  the  development  of  European  legislation  and  policies  that  have 
provided much of the basis for European standardisation over the past 20-30 years. 
Previously  standardisation  was  carried  out  mainly  at  a  national  level,  and  the 
Commission has played a central role in encouraging the creation of a single market 
within  Europe  and  the  removal  of  national  barriers  to  trade.  This  effort  has  been 
underpinned  by  a  strong 
the 
competitiveness  of  EU  industry  at  its  heart.  A  significant  number  of  commentators 
have  highlighted  the  important  role  played  by  the  Commission  in  promoting  this 
‘single  vision’  and  in  arguing  strongly  and  supporting  actively  a  centralised 
European  system  of  standardisation,  albeit  one  that  relies  heavily  on  national-level 
activities  and  inputs.  Reference  is  often  made  to  the  ‘inferior’  US  approach  to 
standardisation,  which  is  described  as  highly  fragmented  and  less  efficient  and 
effective  as  a  result.  Therefore  the  Commission  supports  standardisation  not  just 
through its financing but through its strong lead In promoting the concepts of a single 
Europe,  a  single  market  for  products  and  services,  and  an  EU-level  standardisation 
system based on the principles of the New Approach. These are also seen to be key 
mechanisms through which the Commission has helped to support the achievement 
of its own policy objectives.  

The study was also asked to assess whether there are areas or actions where means 
other than financing could better contribute to the achievement of the objectives. We 
did  not  identify  any  such  area  or  actions,  or  indeed  any  other  means  by  which  the 
Commission  could  support  the  achievement  of  its  objectives.  Therefore  we  have 
concluded that there are no alternative systems or mechanisms that could better serve 
the defined needs than the current one. However, suggestions for improving the basis 
of  the  financial  support  were  readily  identified,  and  therefore  form  the  bulk  of  the 
concrete recommendations that we make in this report.  

2.5.  Ways  to  increase  the  relevance  of  the  financing  to  the  achievement  of 

Commission policy 

As indicated above, all of the activities that have attracted financing from EC/EFTA 
from  2004-7  were  found  to  be  of  clear  and  high  relevance  to  the  achievement  of 
Commission policy objectives, and we therefore have no specific recommendations 
for improving the relevance of the support.  

3. 

EFFECTIVENESS 

3.1. 

Communication of policy objectives to the ESOs 

In  order  to  ensure  the  relevance  of  the  financed  activities  to  the  achievement  of 
Commission policy objectives it is important that those objectives are communicated 
clearly  to  the  standardisation  bodies.  This  is  done  in  a  variety  of  ways  and  at  a 
variety of different levels.  

The  objectives  that  we  have  used  to  guide  the  study  were  identified  from  within 
to  European 
communications,  policy  papers  and  other  documents  relating 
standardisation  and  in  some  cases  relating  specifically  to  the  financing  of 
standardisation  by  EC/EFTA.  These  documents  all,  in  various  ways,  set  out  in 

EN 

200 

   EN 

 
general terms the objectives of the Commission’s standardisation policy, explaining 
both  why  the  Commission  wishes  to  support  standardisation  and  the  kinds  of 
improvements  it  feels  are  necessary  in  order  to  improve  the  performance  of  the 
system as a whole.  

Some of the most important documents among these include: 

• 

• 

• 

General  guidelines  for  the  cooperation  between  CEN,  CENELEC  and  ETSI 
and  the  European  Commission  and  the  European  Free  Trade  Association 
(2003/C 91/04) 

Decision  No  1673/2006/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  - 
On the financing of European standardisation 

Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament  -  on  the  role  of  European  Standardisation  in  the  framework  of 
European Policies and legislation (COM (2004) 674) 

The documents are communicated to the ESOs, and there is good evidence that they 
provide an effective means for conveying the Commission’s standardisation policy to 
the  ESOs  in  general  terms.  The  ESOs  are  aware  of  the  texts  and  have  considered 
them all carefully and make use of them on an ongoing basis. This, therefore, is the 
first level at which the objectives are communicated to the ESOs. 

The second level of communication of policy objectives is through the mandates and 
work  programmes  addressed  to  the  ESOs  and  which  provide  specific  requests  for 
standardisation  work.  The  documents  often  set  out  the  ‘policy  context’  behind  the 
request  for  the  work  and  convey  in  more  detailed  terms  what  the  objectives  of  the 
Commission  are  in  one  or  more  specific  policy  areas  and  how  the  ESOs  are  being 
asked to contribute. These documents vary considerably in terms of how they set out 
to explain or convey the policy objectives that lay behind the requests, and naturally 
tend to focus more on what is required or where it is required rather than why its is 
required. 

Again  there  is  good  evidence  that  the  mandates  and  work  programmes  offer  an 
effective  means  by  which  to  convey  further  information  about  the  Commission’s 
policy objectives, intentions, needs and so on. There is evidence to suggest that some 
of  these  communications  can  also  prove  confusing  to  the  ESOs  but  this  tends  to 
relate  to  uncertainties  about  what  specifically  is  required  rather  than  the  general 
policy objectives that underpin the requests. 

The  third  and  perhaps  most  important  way  in  which  the  Commission’s  policy 
objectives  are  communicated  to  the  ESOs  is  through  the  many  forms  of  dialogue, 
meetings, day to day communications and interactions that guide the relationship on 
an  ongoing  basis.  This  helps  to  ‘fine  tune’  the  communication  of  objectives  at  the 
level of specific actions and also helps to reinforce the importance of certain higher 
level objectives contained in the general policy documents used to guide this study.  

Again,  while  this  third  level  of  communication  is  an  effective  means  by  which  to 
convey  policy  objectives  to  the  ESOs,  it  is  clear  that  too  much  of  the  dialogue 

EN 

201 

   EN 

 
between  the  two  parties  is  taken  up  with  discussions  about  financial  rules  and 
detailed  administrative  issues,  detracting  from  the  amount  of  time  that  can  be 
devoted to explaining the ‘bigger picture’. However, this third layer also supports to 
some extent an improved understanding of the Commission’s policy objectives. 

Overall, then, a largely effective set of mechanisms is in place that allows the ESOs 
to  fully  understand  Commission  policy  at  a  sufficient  level  of  detail  to  ensure  that 
their  activities  fit  with  and  support  those  objectives.  Having  said  this,  there  is  no 
single source or reference for the ESOs to refer to, and the flow of documents that in 
some  way  convey  the  Commission’s  policy  objectives  are  many  and  various.  In 
addition,  while  there  are  many  documents  that  can  be  said  to  contain  Commission 
policy  objectives,  there  is  no  way  to  clearly  discern  their  relative  importance  or 
priority vis-à-vis each other and how this might be changing over time. It is clear to 
us that the 29 policy objectives that we identified and have used in the course of our 
work are not all equally important, and indeed many are inter-related and mutually 
supportive while others ‘stand alone’. As such, while all of the objectives are clear, 
their relative importance or priority at any given point in the policy cycle is far from 
clear.  As  such,  they  provide  only  a  general  indication  of  the  kinds  of  benefits  that 
standardisation is expected to deliver and the kinds of improvements that the ESOs 
are being asked to make.  

As  such  there  is  a  case  for  a  more  organised  regular  annual    process  by  which  the 
Commission  could  convey  its  policy  objectives  to  the  ESOs,  and  which  may  help 
them  to  better  respond  to  new  and  ongoing  priorities.  There  is  also  a  case  for 
describing  the  objectives  in  more  purposeful  terms,  making  them  a  little  more 
specific and a little more actionable on the part of the ESOs.  

We recommend that the Commission seeks to develop a clearer statement of its 
main policy objectives in the area of standardisation, and refreshes this list on 
an  annual  or  multi-annual  basis.  The  objectives  should  be  cast  in  the  form  of 
specific,  purposeful  statements  as  to  the  kinds  of  benefits,  impacts  or  changes 
that it wishes to make 

3.2. 

Establishing the link between the objectives and the financial support 

The policy objectives of the Commission and the financing are linked in a number of 
ways, both in official documents that provide the formal basis for the financing and 
through  the  processes  and  procedures  of  the  Commission  and  the  ESOs  when 
deciding on specific actions.  

At  the  first  of  these  two  levels  the  various  documents  that  relate  to  the  financing, 
including  the  Council  Decision,  the  guidelines  for  cooperation,  and  the  Framework 
Partnership  Agreements  all  establish  a  general  link  between  the  financing  and  the 
objectives.  This  does  not,  however,  go  beyond  general  statements  to  the  effect  that 
the  financing  is  provided  because  of  the  role  played  by  the  ESOs  in  helping  the 
Commission to meet those objectives. 

The more meaningful link is provided through the work programmes and mandates 
that constitute requests for standardisation work and through the proposals submitted 
by  the  ESOs  in  response.  At  this  level  the  Commission’s  needs  in  very  specific  or 

EN 

202 

   EN 

 
more  general  policy  areas  are  set  out  and  the  ESOs  are  invited  to  propose  work  to 
address those needs. The grant applications that are then prepared by the ESOs, with 
inputs from their members and technical bodies, further establish the links between 
the  actions  to  be  financed  and  the  policy  objectives  of  the  Commission.  However, 
this  is  done  within  a  reasonably  open  format,  and  there  is  no  specific  requirement 
(although  a  general  convention)  to  provide  an  explanation  of  how  the  two  fit 
together. 

Based on our analyses the link between the financial support and the objectives are in 
some  respects  not  as  clear  as  they  could  be.  In  particular,  the  extent  to  which  the 
financing  is  (or  should  be)  being  deployed  purposefully  in  pursuit  of  specific 
objectives  is  unclear.  It  can  be  seen  that  there  are  ‘spikes’  in  financial  support 
directed to specific areas of policy (e.g. the environment) following the publication 
of  a  new  communication,  strategy  or  initiative  in  a  particular  policy  area,  but  the 
duration  of  those  spikes  and  how  and  when  it  is  decided  that  enough  attention  and 
financing has been given is rather more difficult to determine.  

At the same time we can identify certain trends, such as the fall off in the number of 
visibility  actions  from  2004-7,  but  have  no  way  to  account  for  these  trends,  other 
than to guess that this objective was more of a policy priority in 2004 than it was in 
2007. There is little to indicate that any kind of assessment is being made to establish 
how much of the financing is being devoted towards each objective or policy area, or 
that any judgements are being made as to whether this is sufficient or not. As such 
we  believe  that  the  connections  between  the  financial  support  and  the  objectives 
being addressed could be more effectively monitored and assessed.  

We  recommend  that  the  Commission  establishes  a  mechanism  to  assess,  on  a 
regular  basis,  the  extent  to  which  its  financing  is  being  deployed  in  pursuit  of 
each of its main policy objectives, in order to more clearly establish the extent to 
which each ‘area’ is receiving sufficient support 

3.3. 

The  extent  to  which  the  financing  has  contributed  to  the  Commission’s  policy 
objectives 

The study was asked to evaluate the extent to which the financing of standardisation 
activities  has  contributed  to  the  Commission’s  objectives  of  its  standardisation 
policy,  especially  towards  SMEs.  We  were  also  asked  to  assess  the  effect  of  the 
actions  financed  by  the  Commission,  in  view  of  the  implementation  of  the  EU 
standardisation policy. 

At  an  overall  level  we  can  state  that  the  financing  of  standardisation  by  EC/EFTA 
has  made  a  significant  positive  contribution  to  the  achievement  of  Commission 
policy objectives: 

•  Most  of  the  financed  actions  are  considered  to  have  contributed  to  the 
achievement of (multiple) Commission policy objectives, or are expected to do 
so in the fullness of time 

EN 

203 

   EN 

 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The financial support has encouraged standardisation activities to become more 
aligned  with  Commission  policy  objectives  and  has  provided  impetus  to 
activities in specific ‘priority’ areas  

The  existence  of  expressed  Commission  policy  need  and  the  availability  of 
financing  in  combination  provide  confidence  and  encourage  commitment  on 
the part of other actors, accelerating the work in those areas  

The  financing  allocated  by  EC/EFTA  strengthens  the  activities  by  expanding 
the  level  of  management  and  coordination  support  available,  the  level  of 
expertise involved in the work, and its overall size and scale  

The financial support has been effective in enabling significant improvements 
in the operations of the Central Secretariats of the ESOs 

There  is  little  overt  focus  on  supporting  SMEs  through  the  financing,  though 
there  are  some  specific  examples  where  actions  have  been  financed  that  are 
directly targeted on SME needs  

The principle that standardisation activity should be an industry-driven venture 
is  broadly  observed,  and  the  financing  is  not  used  to  proactively  ‘direct’  the 
standardisation work (which seems appropriate). However significant influence 
is exerted over time through a range of relatively subtle mechanisms 

While the financing clearly supports the achievement of the policy objectives of the 
Commission  there  are  unfortunately  no  reliable  means  available  to  determine  the 
scale of the impacts or the economic return on investment. The policy objectives are 
stated in terms that are too open (non-specific) to gauge the extent to which they are 
being achieved, and insufficient data and evidence exists to quantify the scale of the 
benefits achieved through the financed activities, either separately or in aggregate. 

Having said this, our evaluation has enabled us to build up something of a profile of 
the  extent  to  which  the  different  actors  involved  believe  that  the  different  policy 
objectives have been supported by the financing in the period 2004-7, and the results 
of these analyses are presented in the main body of the report, organised against each 
element  of  the  financing.  This  is  a  fairly  crude  analysis,  based  on  discussions  and 
ratings  assigned  by  interviewees  as  to  the  contribution  or  expected  contribution  of 
the supported actions to the achievement of Commission policy. This has confirmed 
that most of the policy objectives have been supported by multiple actions and that 
most are addressed by more than one of the forms of activity attracting support. This 
analysis  has  also  demonstrated  that  some  policy  objectives  have  received  little 
attention  and  there  is  little  to  indicate  that  the  financing  will  have  contributed 
significantly to their achievement, at least in comparison to other objectives.  

To summarise this analysis we can say that the financing has had the strongest and 
most positive impact on the following objectives: 

Industrial policy 

– 

– 

Facilitating interoperability  

Assisting completion of the internal market  

EN 

204 

   EN 

 
Public policy 

Strengthening European 

standardisation 

Extending the system and 

increasing 
inclusion 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Supporting technological innovation within EU industry 

Advancing the competitiveness of European industry 

Providing a high level of protection of health and safety 

Supporting the public interest dimension of standards 

Providing a mechanism for consensus building on identified issues 

Improving the effectiveness of European standardisation  

Improving the timeliness of standards development 

Increasing the role of standards in support of EU policy / legislation 

Increasing the visibility of the European standardisation system 

Assisting the integration of candidate countries  

Ensuring effective participation by all relevant actors 

The  study was specifically  asked to assess how the Commission’s financing  policy 
and  practices  have  contributed  to  the  integration  of  new  Member  States.  Our 
conclusion  is  that  the  financing  of  standardisation  by  EC/EFTA  has  effectively 
contributed  to  this  objective  both  through  support  for  a  small  number  of  specific 
actions  targeted  in  this  direction  (visibility  actions,  training  programmes,  etc.)  and 
through  more  general  improvements  (simplification,  information)  effected  through 
the provision of Operating Grants to the ESOs.  

This question and answer provides an opportunity to consider how the Commission 
actually uses its financing to address specific objectives of its standardisation policy, 
and  whether  there  is  a  case  for  a  more  organised  and  concerted  effort  in  specific 
areas.  What  this  means  is  that  when  the  Commission  decides  that  one  of  the 
objectives  of  its  standardisation  policy  is  to  assist  with  the  integration  of  new 
member states, should there be an explanation as to how it intends to do this and an 
indication  of  the  level  of  resource  it  feels  is  appropriate  to  devote  towards  that 
objective?  This  would  certainly  help  to  ensure  that  specific  objectives  are  given  a 
certain  status  through  clear  statements  about  what  the  Commission  is  hoping  to 
achieve, which in turn would help to encourage proposals from the ESOs as to how 
EU standardisation could help to meet those objectives. In this way there could be a 
clearer communication of specific objectives, better targeting of resources on those 
objectives,  and  the  basis  for  a  clearer  assessment  (subsequently)  as  to  the  impacts 
that  the  financing  and  the  supported  actions  have  had  on  the  achievement  of  those 
objectives.  

Some of the more specific (or targeted) policy objectives where the intentions of the 
Commission  remain  somewhat  unclear  include,  for  example,  improving  and 
extending the European Keymark system, increasing the role of standards in security, 
and ensuring the effective take-up of standards by SMEs. 

EN 

205 

   EN 

 
 
We  recommend  that  the  Commission  seeks  to  explain  more  clearly  how  it 
intends  to  use  its  financing  to  pursue  the  achievement  of  specific  policy 
objectives, and that it considers earmarking funding for those purposes 

3.4. 

How does the Commission measure the achievement of its objectives?  

The  study  was  asked  to  assess  how  the  Commission  measures  the  contribution  of 
standardisation to the achievement of its policy. Based on our work we have to say 
that  it  is  not  clear  that  the  Commission  seeks  to  measure  (or  even  assess 
qualitatively) the contribution of standardisation to the achievement of its objectives 
on any kind of regular basis. Having said this, it is clear that due to the very general 
or  ‘high-level’  nature  of  the  objectives  being  pursued,  the  absence  of  performance 
indicators  and  data  with  which  to  gauge  their  achievement,  and  the  inevitable 
problems  associated  with  attributing  the  specific  role  that  the  financing  plays  in 
relation to all other inputs to those objectives, means that it is unlikely that any kind 
of robust quantitative assessment could be made.  

However, the recommendations already made above concerning (i) the need for more 
purposeful  statements  of  objectives  and  (ii)  clearer  explanations  as  to  how  the 
financing is expected to contribute to these should, if implemented, provide a better 
basis  for  assessing  retrospectively  the  contribution  that  the  financing  has  made  to 
their achievement. 

3.5. 

Effective deployment of the financing 

The  study  terms  of  reference  asked  the  evaluators  to  identify  whether  there  are 
actions  of  the  ESOs,  which,  although  not  financed  by  the  EC,  contribute  to  the 
achievement  of  its  policy  objectives,  and  whether  the  objectives  would  be  better 
achieved with EC/EFTA financing support.  

Based on our findings we can say that there are many and various actions performed 
by the ESOs that contribute to the achievement of Commission policy but where no 
financial  support  is  currently  given.  One  of  the  most  obvious  examples  is  work 
carried  out  by  CENELEC  under  New  Approach  Directives  (RTT,  LV  and  EMC), 
which supports directly the implementation of Community legislation, but for which 
CENELEC  no  longer  seeks  financial  support  due  to  past  negative  experiences 
associated  with  many  elements  of  the  administration  of  the  financial  support. 
CENELEC and its members have elected to no longer seek support delivered through 
action  grants  due  to  the  delays,  high  administrative  burden,  and  the  complex  and 
unstable  financial  rules  that  do  not  fit  well  with  how  the  ESO  systems  operate, 
involving  as  they  do  significant  elements  of  subcontracting  of  tasks  to  experts 
appointed  by  TCs.  However,  given  the  open  nature  of  the  Commission’s  policy 
objectives it is clear that most of the activities the ESOs undertake can be seen to be 
of relevance to and support in some way Commission policy. However, a significant 
portion of that work does not currently attract financing. 

It is clear that, based on the findings  of  this  report, the financing brings significant 
benefits from the perspective of all actors, and in this sense a financial allocation by 
EC/EFTA for this work would be beneficial. However, the current punitive financial 
rules  and  the  high  administrative  burden  associated  with  accessing  the  support  are 

EN 

206 

   EN 

 
limiting  seriously  the  propensity  of  the  ESOs  and  their  members  to  take-up  the 
available financial support. Unless a more stable and reasonable basis for providing 
the support can be found there is a danger that the real underlying extent of demand / 
need  for  the  support  will  not  be  revealed,  and  that  a  lot  of  work  that  could  be 
enhanced by EC/EFTA financing will have to make do without it.  

The  study  was  also  asked  to  identify  whether  there  are  actions  carried  out  by  the 
ESOs  that  could  contribute  to  the  achievements  of  the  policy  objectives  of  the 
Commission but which are not being performed, because of a lack of financing, and 
if so, would a Commission financial support help develop such actions. Based on our 
assessment  it  does  not  seem  that  there  are  any  significant  activities  that  are 
considered desirable / necessary that are not being performed at all because of a lack 
of  financing,  but  it  is  clear  that  certain  activities  are  carried  out  less  frequently  or 
with less resource due to limitations in the financial support available.  

The first area identified where a majority of commentators felt that important work 
was going on at a lower level than is desirable and where the level of support might 
reasonably  be  increased  is  in  the  area  of  translation.  Most  commentators  consider 
that  making  standards  available  in  the  national  languages  of  their  intended  users  is 
absolutely  vital  if  the  standards  are  to  be  widely  used  and  the  potential  benefits  of 
standardisation are to be fully realised. The 2006 evaluation of EC/EFTA support for 
translation identified a range of problems limiting the uptake of the available support, 
and we are pleased to report that a number of measures have now been put in place to 
overcome some of those problems. However, these changes have only recently been 
implemented and it is therefore important that the Commission monitors closely the 
extent  to  which  these  changes  are  having  a  material  impact  on  the  uptake  of  the 
support over the next few years.  

We  recommend  that  the  Commission  closely  monitors  the  level  of  uptake  of 
financing for translation over the coming 2-3 years to assess the effects of recent 
improvements to the financial arrangements, and that it takes corrective action 
as necessary if the changes are not having the intended (positive) effect  

We  have  also  identified  strong  support  for  increasing  the  level  of  financing  for 
visibility actions, as this is widely seen as an area where EC/EFTA financing is both 
legitimate  and  most  value  adding  in  the  sense  that  other  actors  are  unable  or 
unwilling to finance the work. More specifically, there is no strong case for industry 
to  support  the  wider  promotion  of  the  European  standardisation  system,  but  it  is 
considered to be vital for helping EU industry to access world markets, to assist with 
the  integration  of  New  Member  States,  and  to  support  the  take-up  and  use  of 
European standards.  

Problems with the administrative complexities of the financing as detailed elsewhere 
in  this  report  have  limited  the  willingness  of  some  ESOs  and  their  members  to 
participate in these actions, but we have also identified a diminishing desire on the 
part of the Commission to encourage such actions in recent years, leading to a sharp 
fall  in  the  extent  of  support  for  these  activities.  While  much  of  the  standardisation 
work  is  likely  to  proceed  at  some  point  in  the  absence  of  EC/EFTA  financing, 
visibility actions are unlikely to, and we therefore recommend that the Commission 

EN 

207 

   EN 

 
restate 
internationally, and ensure that resources are made available for this purpose. 

the  European  standardisation  system 

its  commitment 

to  promoting 

We  recommend  that  the  Commission  restates  its  support  for  visibility  actions 
and  ensure  that  sufficient  resources  are  available  to  support  these  projects  in 
future  

Over  the  period  covered  by  the  study  EC/EFTA  financing  has  successfully 
contributed  to  a  number  of  preliminary  scoping  or  feasibility  studies  that  have 
investigated  the  potential  for  standards  development  in  new  areas  such  as  services 
and fuel cells. It has also financed other ‘supporting’ activities such as ‘helpdesks’ to 
assist with the implementation of large suites of standards (e.g. pressure equipment) 
and encourage their wider take-up.  

These  actions  are  widely  considered  to  be  important  areas  for  EC/EFTA  financing 
for a number of reasons. The feasibility / scoping studies hold the potential to either 
confirm  the  need  to  proceed  with  standards  development  in  new  areas  of 
Commission  policy,  and  help  to  avoid  the  possibility  that  the  Commission  would 
encourage such work before the market is ready. The helpdesks have been shown to 
assist  in  the  uptake  of  standards,  thereby  supporting  directly  the  implementation  of 
New Approach legislation. There is also the potential for other types of supporting or 
preparatory actions to be used in order to generate similar / additional benefits.  

There  was  relatively  few  of  these  types  of  actions  supported  from  2004-7  and  we 
believe  that  there  is  the  potential  for  them  to  be  supported  more  actively  by  the 
Commission,  particularly  as  a  means  to  investigate  the  role  of  standards  in  new 
policy  areas  and  to  support  the  dissemination  and  uptake  of  standards,  thereby 
supporting both ends of the standards development cycle, while leaving industry to 
drive the main body of standards development work itself. We therefore suggest that 
the  Commission  also  restate  its  support  for  these  types  of  actions  and  ensure  that 
financing is available to support them. 

We  recommend  that  the  Commission  restates  its  support  for  (i)  preliminary 
studies that assess the potential for standards in new areas and (ii) other forms 
of  support  action  that  contribute  to  the  wider  take-up  and  use  of  European 
standards  

As  regards  support  for  standards  development  work  itself,  there  is  clearly  a  strong 
case  for  EC/EFTA  financing  to  continue  to  be  used,  as  it  clearly  helps  to  provide 
impetus for and strengthen work going on in areas closely linked to EC policy and 
legislation.  However,  of  all  the  forms  of  support  provided  it  was  the  area  where 
many stakeholder groups were more ambivalent about whether there was a real need 
and whether the financing might have negative effects as well as positive ones. We 
are reluctant to suggest that EC/EFTA should withdraw from this line of support, or 
even curtail its expenditure due to the clear and positive impacts that the financing 
has  in  encouraging  and  strengthening  work  in  areas  related  to  public  policy  and 
where the public interest dimension of the standards is clear.  

We did, however, identify strong demand for increased support for a specific element 
of the standardisation work, namely round robin testing to validate the test methods 

EN 

208 

   EN 

 
that  form  an  integral  part  of  many  standards.  The  ESOs,  NSBs  and  some  industry 
stakeholders  have  indicated  that  certain  areas  of  standards  development  work  were 
effectively  ‘stuck’  due  to  an  inability  to  find  financial  resources  to  carry  out  round 
robin tests. The bodies of standards affected all support directly the implementation 
of  Commission  Directives  or  legislation  and  the  accuracy  and  validity  of  the  test 
methods is of vital importance in ensuring that compliance with the standards ensure 
the  necessary  level  of  protection  of  health  and  safety  or  environmental  protection, 
and as such there is a strong case for public support.  

We understand that the Commission’s reluctance to finance round robin tests relates 
partly to the high costs and partly to the fact that this element of the work involves 
little input from the ESOs and NSBs, and as such the work may need to be tendered 
competitively.  It  is  not  clear  whether  this  is  actually  the  case  as  the  programme  of 
testing  would  have  to  be  coordinated  and  directed  in  some  way  by  the  TCs 
responsible for developing the standards. Even if it turns out that the work has to be 
competitively  tendered  then  this  route  should  be  followed  in  order  to  allow  the 
standards  development  work  to  be  completed  in  a  timely  fashion.  As  regards  the 
costs, the overall EC/EFTA budget for standardisation is relatively modest given the 
scale of the benefits realised and there is certainly a case for seeking to increase the 
budget in the face of increased need. We therefore recommend that the Commission 
seek to find ways to provide a greater level of support to round robin testing. 

We  recommend  that  the  Commission  seeks  ways  to  provide  a  greater  level  of 
support  to  round  robin  testing  in  order  to  ensure  that  important  bodies  of 
standards can be completed and used to support Community legislation 

One final area where there is a case for increased funding from EC/EFTA is for the 
revision  of  standards,  particularly  where  the  need  to  revise  standards  has  been 
prompted  by  changes  to  EC  Directives  or  other  forms  of  legislation.  Under  these 
circumstances,  changes  required  to  bodies  of  standards  to  ensure  that  they  can 
continue to be used to support the implementation of the legislation is as much in the 
interest of the Commission as it is industry, and it therefore seems appropriate that 
EC/EFTA should help to support that revision process where possible. 

We  recommend  that  the  Commission  provides  support  for  the  revision  of 
European  standards  in  cases  where  the  need  to  revise  has  been  prompted  by 
changes to Directives or other legislation 

3.6. 

Strengthening the role of Units I3 and D4 [currently Units C5 and D3] 

DG  ENTR  Units  I3  and  D4  [currently  Units  C5  and  D3  of  the  Enterprise  and 
Industry  DG  of  the  Commission]  provide  a  valuable  service  in  facilitating  other 
Commission  services’  access  to  standardisation.  This  role  is  effective  but  based  on 
the feedback received it could be further strengthened.  

One  of  the  key  roles  played  by  these  two  units  is  to  promote  the  wider  use  of 
standardisation across the Commission, helping other policy units to understand the 
benefits that standards can bring and providing a route by which they can make use 
of standardisation in support of their own areas of policy and legislation. We spoke 
to a number of units that spoke very highly of the ‘service’ provided by these units, 

EN 

209 

   EN 

 
some  of  which  indicated  that  they  would  have  struggled  to  address  requests  to  the 
ESOs  and  provide  an  impetus  to  standardisation  work  without  their  help.  Some  of 
these  units  have  indicated  that  more  could  be  done  to  promote  the  benefits  of 
standardisation  within  the  Commission,  and  that  standardisation  could  be  given  a 
higher profile. We are aware that resource constraints within units I3 and D4 limits 
the extent to which they can undertake such promotional work, although both have 
been  effective  in  these  roles  in  the  past.  We  hope  that  in  future  more  time  can  be 
given to continue this good work. 

We recommend the Commission seeks to more actively promote the benefits of 
standardisation  within  the  Commission,  helping  to  extend  the  range  of 
Directorates and policy units that use it in support of their policy  

Many of the policy units manage their own links to the standardisation work being 
carried  out  in  their  policy  areas.  Most  of  these  units  are  responsible  for  New 
Approach  Directives  and  have  long-standing  links  to  the  ESOs,  and  in  some  cases 
the  Technical  Committees  that  are  undertaking  the  work.  These  units  usually 
communicate  directly  with  the  ESOs  and  some  also  access  the  ESO’s  information 
systems directly in order to stay appraised of progress. In addition, some of the units 
meet  regularly  with  the  ESOs,  through  standing  committees  and  other  bodies 
connected  to  the  standardisation  work,  with  a  minority  also  attending  relevant 
Technical Committee meetings.  

Some  units,  however,  rely  on  unit  I3  or  D4  to  keep  them  informed  about  the 
standardisation work that they have (or should have) a policy interest in, but lines of 
communication  in  many  cases  are  weak,  and  in  some  cases  non-existent,  meaning 
that  these  units  are  not  being  kept  properly  informed  about  the  work.  Indeed,  we 
struggled  ourselves  to  identify  which  units  have  an  interest  in  some  of  the  actions, 
and there seems to be no centralised system for documenting the links and ensuring 
that regular communication is maintained. The situation was most acute with respect 
to ICT standards work, which has suffered from changes in how the work has been 
organised  and  managed  from  a  contractual  perspective,  and  from  the  fact  that  the 
work is no longer (or only rarely) requested through mandates developed by specific 
policy  units.  There  are  also  clearly  resource  constraints  inside  many  Commission 
units, and a lack of specific technical expertise that might help the units to engage in 
the standardisation work directly, without relying on Units I3 and D4. These factors 
certainly go some way to explaining the problems.  

However, we believe that both unit I3 and D4 could and should develop clearer and 
stronger  processes  for  connecting  the  actions  for  which  they  have  contractual 
responsibility to the units whose policy areas the work is intended to contribute to, 
and  for  ensuring  that  the  relevant  units  are  kept  regularly  informed  about  the 
standardisation  work.  As  such  there  is  a  need  for  the  relevant  policy  contact  or 
contacts  to  be  named  in  the  grant  agreements  and  for  some  system  to  keep  that 
information updated in the event of staff changes. In this way, units I3, D4 and the 
ESOs would always be aware of which individuals and units within the Commission 
have a policy interest in the work. 

A  related  concern  raised  by  some  of  the  policy  units  concerned  the  nature  of  the 
information they receive in relation to the work, which is often considered to be too 

EN 

210 

   EN 

 
technical  in  nature  and  not  sufficiently  tailored  to  their  needs.  The  best  way  to 
facilitate  their  interest  and  engagement  in  the  work  would  be  to  provide  regular 
information on the work, in laypersons terms, identifying any specific issues that the 
Commission might need to be aware of. The ESOs, via their TCs/TBs would be in 
the  best  position  to  provide  such  information,  though  there  would  be  a  cost  to  this 
that could reasonably be met by EC/EFTA as part of the eligible costs of the actions.  

We recommend the Commission establish (i) a clear process for linking specific 
actions  that  have  attracted  EC/EFTA  financing  to  named  officials  within  the 
relevant  policy  units,  and  (ii)  an  improved  process  for  ensuring  that  those 
officials are provided with regular updates concerning the progress of the work 
and any issues arising. 

The policy units are also interested in the impacts of the work and in particular would 
like to be kept informed about the extent of take-up of the standards and whether the 
standards  are  proving  useful  in  resolving,  for  example  interoperability  problems  or 
improving  compliance  with  Directives.  Such  information  is  not  easy  to  obtain,  and 
there are no processes currently in place to collect it. 

We believe that stronger engagement by the Commission in the work, facilitated by 
improved  lines  of  communication  with  the  ESOs,  would  help  to  strengthen  the 
relationship  between  the  Commission  and  the  ESOs,  and  would  allow  the 
relationship to be based more around common objectives, the progress of the work, 
and  the  benefits  realised  than  about  the  administrative  rules,  payment  delays,  and 
time  delays,  which  unfortunately  often  seem  to  be  the  most  salient  feature  of  the 
support system.  

4. 

EFFICIENCY 

4.1. 

Proportionality of the financing allocated to the ESOs 

The  study  was  asked  to  assess  whether  the  financial  support  allocated  by  the 
Commission to the ESOs is proportionate to their contribution to the achievement of 
the policy objectives. Based on our evaluation we conclude that the total volume of 
financial support provided by EC/EFTA for standardisation appears to be relatively 
modest, given the important role that standardisation plays in the implementation of 
EU  legislation  and  policy.  The  Commission  is able  to  make  significant  use  of,  and 
enjoys significant influence over, the standardisation system in relation to the scale 
of its financial contribution. In this sense the financing delivers very good value for 
money,  and  there  is  a  case  for  an  increased  level  of  financing  in  specific  areas  in 
order to address identified needs. 

We believe that there is something of a contradiction between the statements made 
by  the  Commission  about  the  importance  of  standards  to  the  economy  and  society 
and  its  very  modest,  some  might  say  ungenerous,  approach  to  financial  support  in 
this  area.  Despite  the  key  role  played  by  the  ESOs  in  implementing  the  New 
Approach  and  supporting  Commission  policy  and  legislation,  only  €15  million  per 
annum is currently spent and a significant portion of that is consumed in meeting the 
administrative burden that has to be complied with in order to receive that support. 

EN 

211 

   EN 

 
Regrettably one of the ESOs, several NSBs and a number of Technical Committees 
and  Bodies  have  elected  to  no  longer  apply  for  support  delivered  through  action 
grants (other than the OGs) as a result of the financial and administrative difficulties 
and the delays that are associated with the financial support, and this is testament to 
the  fact  that  the  political  ambition  is  not  being  met  by  corresponding  levels  of 
(useful) financial support. We might have expected that the standardisation unit (I3) 
would be keen to expand its budget and to do more to help and assist with the effort 
in  areas  that  contribute  to  Commission  policy,  but  the  approach  is  invariably  to 
question  or  doubt  the  need,  or  to  seek  to  minimise  the  amount  of  support  that  is 
offered,  despite  the  fact  that  the  Commission’s  input  into  the  overall  costs  of 
standardisation is very modest.  

Under  the  current  arrangements  the  budget  only  appears  to  be  under  a  moderate 
amount of pressure. The pressure has been alleviated significantly by the withdrawal 
of  some  ESOs  and  NSBs  from  certain  lines  of  support  due  to  problems  with  the 
detailed,  complex  and  unstable  financial  rules  and  the  high  administrative  burden. 
Under improved conditions there would be a strong case for an increased budgetary 
allocation  due  to  the  significant  benefits  that  the  support  can  deliver.  Many  policy 
units plan to make more use of standards in future, and we have identified a range of 
areas where an increased level of financing would be useful, but it is not clear that 
the ESOs and their members and technical bodies will make full use of that support 
unless the administrative and financial problems can be significantly reduced. If this 
can be done, and we make a number of recommendations for doing so below, then 
there is significant potential for increasing the budget and using it to extend the range 
of  ways  and  the  number  of  areas  in  which  the  financing  can  support  the 
implementation of Commission policy and legislation. 

We  recommend  that  the  Commission  seek  to  increase  its  budget  for 
standardisation in the medium term, in order to better reflect the considerable 
benefits  that  the  support  can  bring  and  in  order  to  provide  support  to  an 
increased range of activities across a broader range of policy areas. In order to 
ensure  that  the  support  is  taken  up  and  used  effectively,  an  improved  set  of 
administrative arrangements should be put in place to ensure that the financing 
can be accessed easily and used for its intended purposes / benefits rather than 
being consumed in administrative costs. 

We have also looked at the question of whether the volume of financing allocated to 
each ESO is proportionate to their relative contribution to Commission policy. This 
is  not  easy  to  answer  as  there  are  no  agreed  indicators  for  making  such  an 
assessment.  It  is  clear  that  the  three  ESO  systems  and  their  central  secretariats  are 
very different, and it is clear that the range of sectors covered by each ESO impacts 
on the level of financing that each is allocated. However, a host of other factors also 
affect the volume of financing they receive, including conscious decisions on the part 
of  some  to  limit  their  level  of  financial  reliance  on  the  EC/EFTA  support.  It  is 
therefore not possible to say whether the current balance is correct, but we received 
no indications from any of those consulted that the balance was obviously wrong or 
required  adjustment.  Having  said  this,  if  the  Commission  clarifies  its  policy 
objectives and provides more detail on how it expects standardisation to contribute to 
those  objectives,  this  may  provide  a  better  basis  in  future  for  arriving  at  a  clearer 
perspective  on  how  each  of  the  ESOs  is  contributing  to  these.  This  could  help  to 

EN 

212 

   EN 

 
determine  the  appropriate  scale  of  the  Operating  Grants  and  may  provide  the  basis 
for  deciding  a  suitable  ‘allocation’  for  standards  development  work  within  a  more 
straightforward  future  system  of  financing,  if  one  could  be  found.  However,  under 
the  current  arrangements  we  do  not  see  any  strong  need  to  undertake  such  an 
exercise. 

4.2. 

The de-facto monopoly position of the ESOs 

The study was asked to assess whether the de-facto monopoly of the ESOs generates 
a loss of efficiency regarding the financial support allocated by the Commission. It is 
our contention that the de-facto monopoly position of the ESOs does generate a loss 
of efficiency, but this is not because the ESOs abuse in any way the position that they 
hold, or seek to maximise their gains because they can access financing in a largely 
non-competitive environment. The loss of efficiency is created by the financial and 
administrative  rules  that  are  applied  by  the  Commission  because  of  the  monopoly 
position.  

Under  normal  circumstances  the  Commission  issues  open,  competitive  calls  for 
tenders  when  wishing  to  support  specific  forms  of  activity  undertaken  by  external 
organisations.  However,  the  ESOs  are  formally  recognised  as  the  three  European 
standardisation  bodies,  and  as  a  result  they  are  uniquely  qualified  to  undertake 
certain types of work, specifically those relating to the ‘core process’ of developing 
recognised  European  standards  (ENs).  As  such,  the  Commission  financing  rules 
indicate that a full competitive tender is not necessary, and specific provision is made 
in the financing decision to allow the Commission to direct requests to the ESOs and 
provide financial support without running an open tendering process. This facility is 
intended  to  make  the  financing  of  the  actions  more  efficient,  as  it  saves  time  and 
money associated with the full tendering process.  

However, it seems that the de-facto monopoly status of the ESOs brings into play a 
number of other financial rules and creates a certain nervousness on the part of the 
Commission, which together have led to a situation where the financial controls and 
administrative  requirements  have  now  become  excessively  demanding  and 
bureaucratic and seem to go far beyond the level applied to competitively tendered 
work. Many of those rules also appear to be a poor fit with the ESOs’ natural ways of 
working, which inevitably involve a certain level of subcontracting, and there have 
been  significant  problems  associated  with  frequent  changes  to  the  rules  and  an 
inconsistent application of the rules by different officials. This situation has created a 
significant loss of efficiency and has led to a situation where a significant element of 
the  financing  allocated  to  the  ESOs  is  expended  in  administering  the  grants  rather 
than  carrying  out  the  work.  The  administrative  burden  is  no  longer  commensurate 
with the level of EC/EFTA contribution to the real costs of the work. 

This situation has led to a breakdown in relationships between the Commission and 
the ESOs and their members, to the point where the support is no longer viewed in as 
positive  terms  as  it  should  be,  and  where  little  time  or  energy  is  left  for  positive, 
creative  discussions  about  how  to  enhance  the  system  as  a  whole  and  how  to 
maximise the value added by the support. The underlying trend now appears to be for 
the  ESOs  to  avoid  applying  for  action  grants  wherever  possible.  This  is  clearly  a 
regrettable  situation  and  one  that  needs  to  be  addressed  as  a  matter  of  urgency.  It 

EN 

213 

   EN 

 
should be noted, however, that significant efforts have been made in recent years to 
reduce  the  administrative  complexity  and  develop  improved  process  in  order  to 
increase  efficiency,  with  some  positive  effects.  However,  further  more  substantial 
improvements  would  be  beneficial,  and  a  more  straightforward,  stable  system  of 
financial support would bring significant benefits. Our recommendations in this area 
are set out in Section 4.3 below. 

The  terms  of  reference  also  asked  the  evaluators  to  determine  whether  the 
achievement of the policy objectives of the Commission would be better supported if 
the Commission were to allocate grants or contracts to other organisations, especially 
as far as promotion actions are concerned. It is our conclusion that it is unlikely that 
the allocation of grants or contracts to other organisations for similar activities would 
better  support  the  Commission’s  policy  objectives.  The  ESOs  are  all  highly 
organised, professional organisations that have, by a long way, the best command of 
European  standardisation  and  are  in  the  best  position  to  carry  out  the  full  range  of 
tasks that currently attract EC/EFTA financing.  

4.3. 

How  can  the  current  method  of  financing  be  further  simplified  and 
streamlined? 

The  study  terms  of  reference  asked  us  to  assess  how  could  the  current  method  of 
financing be further simplified and streamlined, and how could project management 
be  further  simplified,  bearing  in  mind  the  role  of  the  Central  Secretariats  of  the 
European Standards Organisations and the role of National Standards Bodies. 

As indicated in the preceding section and as discussed extensively in the main body 
of this report, the current method of financing has become bogged down by a high 
level  of  administrative  burden,  with  unstable  and  complex  financial  rules,  an 
atmosphere  of  mistrust,  and  significant  delays  in  certain  parts  of  the  process  that 
together  significantly  diminish  the  level  of  value  added  by  the  financing. 
Unfortunately, this has come to be the most salient feature of the system of financing 
implemented  by  the  Commission  and  has  come  to  dominate  the  basis  of  the 
relationship between the Commission and the ESOs. The problems have become so 
serious  that  take-up  of  the  support  is  in  decline,  despite  the  considerable  positive 
benefits that it can and often does bring to both parties. 

We  are  aware  that  the  situation  has  been  improved  in  the  past  couple  of  years  and 
that  the  new  Framework  Partnership  Agreements  signed  this  year  (2009)  offer  the 
potential for smoother and less burdensome processes in relation to certain elements 
of  the  overall  administration  of  the  grants.  However,  while  significant  efforts  have 
been  made  to  improve  the  situation  and  address  the  significant  backlog  of  actions 
where there has been a failure to agree on the final cost claims, significant problems 
remain and in many respects the damage has already been done.  

It  is  our  contention  that  a  shift  to  a  radically  simpler,  faster  and  more  stable 
arrangement is necessary in order to increase the efficiency of the financial support 
and in order to ensure that it is fully utilised and indeed extended in future. The ESOs 
have signalled that there have been enough minor revisions to the rules and processes 
in recent years and that what is now needed is a period of stability and consistency in 
the  application  of  the  current  rules  and  processes,  and  a  serious  attempt  to  find  a 

EN 

214 

   EN 

 
more  suitable  financial  arrangement  in  the  medium-term.  In  the  short  term  we  also 
believe  that  the  Commission  should  apply  a  more  constructive  and  proportionate 
approach  to  the  resolution  of  any  points  of  confusion  or  disagreement  over  the 
interpretation  of  the  financial  rules  and  administrative  requirements,  in  order  to 
facilitate improved uptake of the support as opposed to a further diminution of it.  

We  recommend  that  the  Commission  seeks  to  identify  a  significantly  simpler 
and less bureaucratic set of arrangements in the medium term, and that in the 
interim  the  administrative  requirements  and  financial  controls  are  defined  as 
clearly as possible and are then applied fairly, proportionately and consistently 
across the various contracts. 

While the administrative problems surrounding the interpretation and application of 
the  financial  rules  have  been  the  most  serious  problem  area,  there  are  also  notable 
problems concerning the (slow) speed of certain processes. We have identified that 
one of the major benefits of the Commission’s financing support and policy lead can 
be  to  accelerate  the  onset  of  new  standardisation  work  in  areas  closely  linked  to 
public  policy,  bringing  confidence  to  stakeholders  and  providing  impetus  for  the 
work  to  move  forward.  However,  having  signalled  its  need  or  wish  to  support 
standardisation in a particular area, the process of agreeing the financing and drawing 
up the contracts can in many cases delay the start of the work, in some cases by more 
than  a  year.  This  causes  frustration  among  the  standardisation  bodies  and  industry, 
and in some cases has caused those involved to not apply for the support, electing to 
proceed  instead  with  less  resources  in  order  to  avoid  the  delays  and  administrative 
burden associated with EC/EFTA financing.  

The  main  cause  of  the  delays  appears  to  relate  to  the  time  taken  to  evaluate  and 
assess ESO grant applications, and to agree and sign the contracts. These problems 
affect  both  the  annual  Operating  Grants  and  the  individual  grants  for  actions  that 
support the standards development work, feasibility studies, visibility actions, and so 
on.  The  reasons  for  the  delays  appear  to  relate  mainly  to  the  time  that  the 
Commission takes to organise and undertake the evaluation process, and the number 
of  iterations  that  proposals  have  to  go  through  before  the  contracts  can  be  agreed. 
There also appear to be problems with the Commission’s own budgeting cycle, with 
signature of contracts sometimes being delayed pending a decision on the size of the 
budget for the coming year. There were also some suggestions that there have been 
specific  shifts  in  policy  priorities  within  the  Commission,  which  has  meant  that 
standardisation  work  in  new  areas  originally  prompted  by  the  Commission  has 
subsequently  (following  a  grant  application)  been  de-prioritised,  leading  to 
uncertainties as to whether the work is still required. Such situations may also have 
delayed  decisions  on  some  occasions,  but  are  perhaps  not  easy  to  always  avoid 
within a policy environment.  

Given the simplicity of the evaluation process used to assess the proposals it appears 
in  many  cases  to  take  too  long,  and  the  process  should  be  accelerated  wherever 
possible  in  order  to  expedite  the  start  of  the  work.  It  would  be  helpful  if  the 
Commission could agree and observe a maximum period of 1-2 months to undertake 
the  evaluation  of  proposals  and  to  render  a  decision  or  request  for  further 
information,  with  requests  for  minor  revisions  to  otherwise  acceptable  proposals 
being agreed and made without the need for formal resubmission and reassessment 

EN 

215 

   EN 

 
of  grant  applications.  In  cases  where  more  substantial  revisions  to  proposals  are 
needed the ESOs should be given a further month to respond, and the Commission a 
further  month  to  review  the  changes  and  take  its  decision.  The  drawing  up  and 
signing of contracts should take no more than a further month to achieve. 

The Commission has indicated that one of the reasons why it takes so long to assess 
proposals and agree the contracts is the variable quality of the proposals submitted by 
the  ESOs,  which  in  many  cases  are  adjudged  to  be  insufficiently  developed  or 
containing  mistakes  that  then  need  to  be  rectified.  They  suggest  that  if  the  ESOs 
implemented an improved ‘quality control’ process before releasing proposals there 
would  be  a  reduced  need  for  the  Commission  to  ask  for  revisions  or  further 
information before the contract can be agreed. In response, the ESOs have indicated 
that the comments received are often very minor, and that under-developed proposals 
tend to occur when the Commission’s requests are too open or unclear or when the 
time that their Committees have to respond to the requests is too short to allow a full 
and considered response. It is contended that the time given to prepare proposals is 
often less than the time that the Commission takes to read and assess them, and given 
the relative workloads involved, the evaluation process should be able to be carried 
out much more quickly than the development of the proposals.  

We  recommend  that  the  Commission  defines  a  clear  process  with  agreed  time 
limits  for  carrying  out  the  evaluation  of  ESO  proposals  and  issuing  decisions, 
and strictly observes those time limits. In addition, requests for minor revisions 
to proposals should be negotiated directly and if complied with should obviate 
the need for a full re-evaluation of the proposals 

The  ESOs  have  also  indicated  that  a  standard  template  and  guidelines  for  the 
development  of  proposals  would  be  helpful,  which  go  beyond  those  already 
developed and which provide a more functional specification concerning the types of 
information  the  Commission  needs  and  the  preferred  length  and  format  of  the 
information.  If  such  a  template  and  associated  guidelines  can  be  agreed  it  should 
improve the extent to which the ESOs are able to get their proposals ‘right first time’. 

We  recommend  that  the  Commission  define  more  clearly  its  requirements 
concerning  the  format  and  content  of  proposals,  and  that  the  ESOs  observe 
these requirements in order to minimise the extent to which proposals have to 
go through multiple iterations before contract signature. 

5. 

UTILITY 

5.1. 

Is the financing vital to the ESOs? 

The  study  terms  of  reference  asked  us  to  determine  whether  the  financial  support 
delivered by EC/EFTA is vital to the ESOs, and whether the ESOs would contribute 
the  same  way  to  the  achievements  of  the  Commission  policy  objectives  if  the 
financial support were not available.  

Our conclusion is that the financial support is of significant utility to the ESOs, NSBs 
and industry and in many cases is the critical driver for the decision (by industry and 

EN 

216 

   EN 

 
other  stakeholders)  to  proceed  with  standardisation  work  in  a  given  area.  In  other 
cases  the  financing  affords  additional  priority  to  the  work,  and  causes  it  to  happen 
sooner  rather  than  later.  The  ESOs  would  certainly  not  be  able  to  contribute  to  the 
achievement  of  Commission  policy  objectives  to  the  same  extent  in  the  absence  of 
the  financing,  though  it  is  clear  that  they  would  continue  to  contribute  to  the 
achievement of Commission policy objectives, due to the high degree of alignment 
between  the  Commission,  the  ESOs  and  industry  stakeholders  involved  in  the 
standardisation work. There are many points of common or shared interest and part 
of the rationale for EC/EFTA support is to contribute to the wider  body of activity 
that contributes to community objectives as part of a ‘fair deal’ between the various 
stakeholders.  

The  question  of  whether  the  work  is  vital  to  the  ESOs  is  more  difficult  to  answer. 
Certainly  the  Operating  Grants  are  vital  in  enabling  the  central  secretariats  to 
continue their operations at the current levels, respond to Commission requests and 
requirements,  and  to  continue  to  drive  the  same  level  of  improvement  within  the 
standardisation  system  than  they  are  currently  able.  It  is  not  however  vital  to  their 
ultimate survival, nor should it be. The other forms of financing are vital to certain 
actions  being  undertaken,  in  particular  the  volume  of  visibility  work,  preliminary 
studies, supporting actions and a certain amount of translation work. The support is 
less vital to the continuation of the standards development work, but certainly has a 
significant role to play in encouraging and strengthening that work in defined areas 
related to Commission policy and legislation.  

5.2. 

Industry perceptions of the financial support 

The study terms of reference asked us to assess whether industry (including SMEs) 
perceives the financial support allocated to the ESOs as a useful contribution to the 
European  policy.  Feedback  from  industry  representatives  and  industry  participants 
consulted  as  part  of  this  study  strongly  confirms  that  industry  sees  the  financial 
support provided by EC/EFTA as of significant utility, not only to European policy 
but to industry itself by helping to co-finance at least some aspects of the system that 
industry might otherwise have to carry itself. It is clear that industry players see their 
own inputs into the overall standardisation effort as the largest share (which it is) and 
many believe that EC/EFTA could and should do more to help to offset the costs of 
the  activities,  which  are  significant  and  which  in  some  sectors  have  been  very 
considerable, extending over many years. There is a strong view from industry that 
the Commission should do more rather than less to support European standardisation 
from a financial perspective. Industry representatives and NSBs have also noted the 
important and valuable non-financial role played by the Commission in developing 
and  promoting  the  New  Approach  principles  and  in  observing  those  principles  by 
limiting the extent to which it seeks to direct or control the standardisation process.  

5.3. 

The counterfactual 

The  study  terms  of  reference  asked  what  would  be  the  impacts  if  the  Commission 
stopped its financing.  

Our  conclusion,  based  on  the  study  findings,  is  that  if  EC/EFTA  withdrew  its 
financing entirely there would be a very significant negative impact on the activities 

EN 

217 

   EN 

 
of  the  ESOs  and  the  work  undertaken  in  support  of  Commission  policy  would  be 
significantly  reduced  or  weakened.  The  various  benefits  that  the  financial  support 
brings would be lost or significantly diminished and the ability of the Commission to 
influence the system would be weakened. This is not, therefore, a course of action we 
would recommend. 

A  related  question  contained  in  the  terms  of  reference  asked  whether  there  are 
alternative  sources  of  financing  for  the  ESOs  for  the  same  actions.  One  way  to 
answer this question is to say yes, there are alternative sources of financing and these 
are  already  being  used  to  finance  the  actions.  All  of  the  financing  provided  by 
EC/EFTA is co-financing the activities, covering only a share of the real full costs. 
As such, other contributors to the system, primarily industry, are already ‘alternative’ 
sources of financing.  

If we are asked whether there are alternative sources of financing for those elements 
of the costs currently being carried by EC/EFTA, the answer in most cases is no. As 
indicated above, industry already finances the vast majority of the costs of European 
standardisation and public sector inputs are fairly low in real terms. It is unlikely that 
alternative  sources  of  financing  could  be  found  to  support  the  additional  capacity 
within the ESOs provided through the Operating Grants, and it is also unlikely that 
alternative  sources  of  financing  could  be  found  for  the  visibility  actions  and 
preliminary  /  supporting  actions,  or  for  the  translation  of  standards.  In  some  cases 
alternative sources of financing for standardisation work could be found, but in most 
cases the activities would simply be carried out later, over a longer period  of time, 
and with less management resource and expertise. 

5.4. 

Negative effects of the financing 

The  study  terms  of  reference  asked  whether  there  are  any  negative  effects  to  the 
financing allocated to the ESOs.  

We received a small number of indications that on occasion the financing may have 
prompted standards development work to start at EU level, undertaken by the ESOs, 
when there are already parallel developments underway either at international level 
(ISO)  or  within  other  fora  that  develop  standards.  However,  in  most  cases  such 
duplication of effort has been avoided and we believe that it is unlikely that ‘parallel’ 
efforts would be going on without each party having some awareness of the activities 
of  the  other.  It  is  therefore  unlikely  that  the  financing  has  created  any  significant 
level of duplication. 

The main negative effects that we have identified relate to the loss of goodwill and 
wasted effort associated with complex and unstable financial rules, which has created 
something of a rift between the Commission and the ESOs, at least with regard to the 
financial and administrative elements.  

The  financing  is  given  in  light  of  the  fact  that  EC/EFTA  and  the  standardisation 
bodies have common objectives and shared interests, and the financing is intended to 
support  and  enable  the  activities  of  the  ESOs  where  their  activities  and  objectives 
align with those of the Commission. It is therefore vital that the financing is provided 
within an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect, and that all parties work together to 

EN 

218 

   EN 

 
ensure  that  the  financing  is  delivering  the  maximum  value  and  is  used  in  the  most 
effective ways possible, and with a minimum of administrative burden. It is therefore 
necessary for the Commission officers involved to see their primary role as to help 
and support the ESOs and to enable Commission policy units to make greater use of 
the  system.  Financial  administration  and  control  are  or  should  be  secondary  roles, 
and ones that should not interrupt the core business of expanding and strengthening 
the  system.  It  would  seem  that  these  ‘principles’  are  regrettably  not  always  being 
observed, and we hope that this report can signal the start of a new phase of stronger 
cooperation between the Commission and the ESOs. 

EN 

219 

   EN