COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Analysis of the implementation of the Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 from 2013 to 2015 and factsheets Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 from 2013 to 2015
Date: 2016-06-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, European standard, European standardisation body, harmonisation of standards, technical specification, technical standard

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 1.6.2016  SWD(2016) 126 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Analysis of the implementation of the Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 from 2013 to 2015 and factsheets Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 from 2013 to 2015 {COM(2016) 212 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 4 

2. BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE ....................................................................... 5 

2.1 European Standardisation System (ESS) .............................................................. 5 
2.1.1  Baseline  for the intervention at Union level ........................................... 6 
2.1.2 The new ESS and its legal framework, regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 .. 6 

3. EVALUATION QUESTIONS ........................................................................................ 8 

4. METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 9 

4.1 The Independent Review ....................................................................................... 9 
4.2 "Article 24" Study ................................................................................................. 9 

5. IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY - THE RESULTS ....................................... 10 

5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 10 
5.2 Implementation of the Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 ...................................... 10 
5.2.1 Transparency .......................................................................................... 12 
5.2.2 Inclusiveness .......................................................................................... 12 
5.2.4 Union financing of standardisation activities ......................................... 13 

5.3 Vademecum on European standardisation in support of Union legislation and 

policies, ........................................................................................................... 15 

6. ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .................................................. 17 

6.1 Effectiveness ....................................................................................................... 17 
6.1.1 Objectives ............................................................................................... 17 
6.1.2 Transparency .......................................................................................... 21 
6.1.3 Addressing legal ambiguities ................................................................. 21 
6.1.4 Use of ICT technical specifications in public procurement ................... 21 
6.1.5 Economic impact of standardisation: estimates from national studies... 22 
6.2 Conclusions regarding effectiveness ................................................................... 26 
6.3 Efficiency ............................................................................................................ 26 

6.3.1  Efficiency  of  the  European  standardisation  system  (ESS)  and 

Regulation ......................................................................................... 26 
6.4 Conclusions regarding efficiency ........................................................................ 28 
6.5 Relevance ............................................................................................................ 28 
6.5.1 Relevance of the intervention ................................................................. 28 
6.5.2 Relevance of the standardisation activities receiving Union financing . 29 
6.6 Conclusions regarding relevance ........................................................................ 30 
6.7 Coherence ............................................................................................................ 31 
6.8 Conclusions regarding coherence ........................................................................ 32 
6.9 EU added value ................................................................................................... 32 
6.9.1 The added value of the ESS for stakeholders ......................................... 32 
6.9.2 The added value of the standardisation activities funded by the EU ..... 33 

2 

 
 
6.10 Conclusions regarding EU added value ............................................................ 33 

7. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................... 34 

ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................ 37 

Annex 1:  List of Acronyms ...................................................................................... 37 
Annex 2: The actors in the ESS ................................................................................ 39 
Annex 3: Figure 1: The European Standardisation System (ESS) ............................ 43 
Annex 4: Three main problems identified in the Impact Assessment of 2011 ......... 45 
Annex  5:  Mandating  Process,  standards  development  and  publication  of  the 

references in the OJEU .................................................................................... 46 
Annex 6: Table 1 – The evaluation questions ........................................................... 47 
Annex 7: Article 24 Study and relationship with the Independent Review / Article 

25 Report ......................................................................................................... 49 
Annex 8: Methodologies and sources of information of the Independent Review ... 50 
Annex 9: Methodologies and sources of information ............................................... 53 
Robustness of findings/limitations .................................................................. 54 

Annex 10: Table 4: Overview of the findings related to the implementation of the 

Regulation, by article ...................................................................................... 55 

Annex  11:  Table  5:  Number  and  percentage  of  NSBs/NSOs  providing  or 
planning  to  provide  online  public  commenting  and  online  access  to  draft 
national standards, 2013 and 2014 .................................................................. 58 

Annex 12:  

List  of  ICT  technical  specifications  eligible  for  referencing  in 

public    procurement ....................................................................................... 60 
Annex 13: Table 10: Adopted standardisation requests in 2014 and 2015 ............... 61 
Annex 14: Table 11: Notified draft requests in 2014 and 2015 ................................ 62 
Annex 15: 

Independent  Review  of 

Final  Report  of 

the  European 

Standardisation System, Ernst&Young 2015 .................................................. 63 

Annex 16: 

Final  Report  -  Annexes  of  Independent  Review  of  the  European 

Standardisation System, Ernst&Young 2015 .................................................. 63 

Annex 17: 

COM(2015)198  final  REPORT  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO 
THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  THE  COUNCIL  Article  25 
Report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  impact  of  the 
procedures established by Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 on 
European  standardisation  on  the  timeframe  for  issuing  standardisation 
requests 63 

Annex 18: 

Study  on  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  No 

1025/2012 (Article 24) .................................................................................... 63 

Annex 19: 
2015 
Annex 20: 

Report  on  the  Friends  of  Standardisation  Roundtable  of  1st  July 
63 
Analysis  of  the  results  of  the  Online  Survey  of  the  Independent 

Review of the   European standardisation system ........................................... 63 

Annex 21:  SWD(2015)205 final of 27 October 2015, Vademecum on European 

Standardisation in support of Union Legislation and policies. ....................... 63 

3 

 
 
 
1. INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the performance of  the European Standardisation 
System (ESS – see Annex 1 for a list of acronyms) including Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 
on European standardisation (hereinafter “the Regulation”)1 since its entry into force in 2013, 
in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU value added.  

This  exercise  is  conducted  in  response  to  the  review  clause  set  out  in  Art  24(3)  of  the 
Regulation. Given the recent entry into force of the Regulation,  a full ex post evaluation of 
the  Regulation  cannot  be  achieved  due  to  the  fact  that  the  full  cycle  of  the  standardisation 
work  requested  by  the  Commission  since  2013  has  not  yet  been  completed.  However,  this 
exercise assessed whether the ESS is on track with achieving the objectives expected by the 
legislator  in  order  to  deliver,  where  appropriate,  recommendations  on  how  to  improve  the 
implementation  of  the  Regulation  and  the  system.  It  covers  the  EU  and  EFTA  countries.  It 
assesses mainly the processes put in place within the ESS and in the context of the Regulation 
and  does  not  aim  at  assessing  comprehensively  the  wider  impacts  of  standardisation  on  the 
single market or the competitiveness of EU business. 

This  evaluation  is  linked  to  the  Regulatory  Fitness  and  Performance  Programme  of  the 
Commission2 because of the importance of standardisation as a way to harmonise the Single 
Market  and  of  its  impact  on  the  competitiveness  of  the  EU  economy.  This  evaluation  is  of 
particular relevance to regulatory fitness because it draws upon studies or reports in relation to 
the ESS and its processes, specifically in relation to further involving particular stakeholders 
such  as  SMEs,  refining  Union  financing  and  addressing  the  Administrative  Burden  on  the 
European  standardisation  organisations  (ESOs)  and  the  National  standardisation  bodies 
(NSBs).  

This  evaluation  builds  on  two  external  studies  carried  out  by  the  European  Commission 
("Independent Review", "Article 24" study - see section 4 for details) and on its Article 25 
Report3  on  the  impact  of  the  procedure  established  by  Article  10  of  the  Regulation  on  the 
timeframe for issuing standardisation requests as well as on validation workshops held on 26 
March and 1st July 2015. 

1 Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012, OJEU L 
316,14.11.2012, p.12. 
2  COMMUNICATION  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT,  THE  COUNCIL,  THE 
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 
Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT): State of Play and Outlook, COM(2014) 368 final, 18.6.2014 
3 COM(2015) 198 

4 

 
 
                                                            
2. BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 

2.1 European Standardisation System (ESS) 

European standardisation is a cornerstone for the functioning of the Single Market as well as a 
tool to support EU legislation and policies in technical harmonisation of product and service 
rules  in  the  Single  Market.  There  is  no  Single  Market  without  standardisation.  Due  to  its 
nature,  standardisation  concerns  directly  or  indirectly  every  stakeholder,  from  industry  to 
consumers to social and societal actors. 

Overall  CEN  and  Cenelec  have  developed  some  20,000  European  standards  (EN)  or  other 
deliverables  and  one  (1)  EN  may  in  theory  replace  up  to  33  national  conflicting  standards. 
This  makes  the  business  environment  of  European  companies,  notably  SMEs,  much  easier. 
ETSI  has  developed  some  35,000  technical  specifications  including  some  450  harmonised 
standards. 

However,  standardisation  within  EU/EFTA  relies  on  voluntary  cooperation  between 
businesses, users, public authorities and other interested parties (consumers, NGOs and other 
stakeholders). At the EU/EFTA level, in simplified terms, the CEN/Cenelec standard setting 
process  is  based  on  consensus  between  the  various  industry  players  and  other  interested 
stakeholders  participating  in  the  standardisation  process  and  where  the  final  adoption  of  an 
EN is voted in a weighted vote between the NSBs. From a practical perspective, cooperation 
is needed between a broad range of stakeholders, including the EC and EFTA in case of the 
Commission  requested  standardisation,  ESOs,  industry,  and  the  representatives  of  societal 
stakeholders and other stakeholders.  

Standards are voluntary technical specifications adopted by a recognised standardisation body 
for repeated or continuous application.4 

European standards can be divided into 2 categories: 

1. 

2.  

European standards adopted at the initiative of undertakings, the NSBs or other 
stakeholders.  The  majority  (around  80%)  of  European  standards  fall  into  this 
category; 

European  standards  supporting  EU  legislation  or  policies,  developed  at  the 
request of the Commission, on the basis of a standardisation requests ('mandates') 
in  which  the  ESOs  are  requested  to  draw  up  technical  specifications  of  a  normative 
nature  that  meet  the  requirements  set  out  in  the  request.  These  standards  can  be 
subdivided into 2 subcategories: 

–  Harmonised standards adopted by the ESOs for the application of Union 

harmonisation legislation for products or for services; 

–  Other European standards in support of Union legislation or policies. 

The ESS involves a large number of actors who have different interests. At the heart of the 
ESS  is  the  public-private  partnership  between  the  European  Commission/EFTA  on  the  one 
hand and the ESOs on the other hand. CEN, Cenelec and ETSI are recognised by Article 2(8) 

4 See Article 2(1) of the Regulation (EU) No. 1025/2012 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
of  the  Regulation  as  the  European  standardisation  organisations.  Each  of  the  ESOs  is  an 
independent, non-profit organisation that operates as a platform composed of two main parts: 
a “secretariat” and a “network”. 

Other major actors of the ESS are in particular the national standardisation bodies (NSBs), the 
international  standardisation  bodies,  the  Annex  III  stakeholders,  and  industrial  stakeholders. 
The  main actors  of the ESS and  their role  are described in  more detail in  Annex 2. For the 
mutual interactions between these various actors see Figure 1 in Annex 3.  

2.1.1  Baseline 5 for the intervention at Union level 
In  2011,  the  Commission  assessed  the  way  the  European  standardisation  system  was 
functioning and three main problems (for details see Annex 4) were identified: 

1.  speed  of  Commission  requested  standardisation:  the  process  for  adopting  European 
standards  requested  by  the  Commission  was  not  fast  enough  (ie  adoption  took  an 
average of 5 years in 2009)6 

2.  under-representation  of  SMEs,  social  and  societal  stakeholders 

in  European 
standardisation; SMEs were in general under-represented in standardisation activities, 
in  particular  at  European  level.  During  the  public  consultation  on  the  reform  of  the 
ESS in 2010, 69% of respondents declared that the participation of SMEs in European 
standardisation  should  be  reinforced.  Furthermore,  although  standards  play  a  major 
role in society, the opinion of relevant social and societal stakeholders was considered 
as not sufficiently integrated in the EU standardisation process  

3.  problems  in  using  ICT  standards  developed  outside  ESOs  and  ISO/IEC  in  public 
procurement:  in  the  field  of  ICT,  many  standards  ensuring  interoperability  are  not 
elaborated by the ESOs, but by global fora and consortia, however it was not possible 
to use these standards in public procurement.  

The  co-existence  of  three  different  legal  instruments  on  European  standardisation  i.e. 
Directive  98/34/EC  (adoption  of  standardisation  requests,  transparency  of  standardisation 
work programmes), Decision 1673/2006/EC (financing ESOs) and Decision 87/95/EEC (ICT 
standardisation)  created  a  number  of  ambiguities  and  did  not  authorize  the  Commission  to 
adopt standardisation requests on service standards or standards supporting Union’s policies. 
There was therefore a need to remove uncertainties in the existing legal framework.  

2.1.2 The new ESS and its legal framework, regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 

In June 2011, following the conclusion of the Impact Assessment (IA), an overall revision of 
the system was initiated with the launch of the 'Standardisation Package'. The Standardisation 
Package  is  made  up  of  the  Commission  Communication  for  standards  [COM(2011)311], 
while the legal framework is set by Regulation  (EU) No 1025/2012 that entered into force in 
2013. 

The “Standardisation Package”7 answered the need to simplify and adapt the legal framework 
governing  European  standardisation,  in  order  to  reflect  the  latest  developments  and  future 

5 SEC(2011) 671 final 
6 Final Report of the Independent Review, p.52 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
challenges.  The  Standardisation  Package  also  responded  to  the  call  of  the  European 
Parliament (EP) on the Resolution "Future of European standardisation"8 of 2010 in order to 
make the ESS fit for the future. The three major issues identified above (speed, inclusiveness, 
lack  of  or  insufficient  European  standardisation  in  the  field  of  ICT),  identified  by  the 
preparatory work, were targeted by the reform. 

The  Communication  COM(2011)311  established  the  guiding  principles  of  the  European 
Standardisation system (ESS), expressed through five strategic objectives: 

  European standards need to be quickly available; 
  European  Standards  are  powerful  strategic  tools  for  businesses  to  increase  their 

competitiveness; 

  European  standards  need  to  respond  to  an  increasing  demand  as  a  tool  to  support 

European policies and legislation; 

  European  standards  will  affect  more  and  more  groups  in  European  society.  The 
European standardisation system must, therefore, become as inclusive as possible; 
  European standards must play a role in supporting the competitiveness of European 

business in the global market. 

As part of the reform, the Regulation sets the legal framework for European standardisation. 
In  particular,  the  Regulation  represents  the  consolidated  legal  basis  for  the  Union  to  use 
European  standards  for  products  and  services  in  support  of  the  Union’s  legislation  and 
policies, to identify ICT technical specifications and to finance European standardisation. 

Entered  into  force  on  1st  January  2013,  it  aims  at  strengthening  the  role  of  European 
standardisation as a policy tool to support Union legislation and policies, not only for products 
but  also  for  services.  The  concept  of  standardisation  and  the  use  of  European  voluntary 
standards in the service sectors are explicitly encouraged in the Directive on Services in the 
Internal Market (2006/123/EC) which is recalled in the Regulation. 

The  main  general  objectives  of  the  Regulation  are  to  increase  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.  

The Regulation's main specific objectives were to: 

increase the transparency of the standards development in the ESS; 
reduce the time taken by the Commission requested standardisation process; 

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

  enable Member States to reference ICT technical specifications developed outside the 

ESS in public procurement; and 

7 The new Standardisation Package consists of the following three documents:   Commission Strategic 
Communication setting out a Vision for European Standards (COM(2011)311);  an impact assessment 
accompanying a regulatory proposal (SEC(2011)671); a proposal for Regulation of the European Parliament and 
of the Council on European Standardisation (COM(2011)315), which was implemented as Regulation (EU) No. 
1025/2012. 
8 P7_TA(2010)0384, Future of European standardisation, 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2010-
0384+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN 

7 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
  set  revised  rules  for  financing  European  standardisation  including  SME  and  societal 

stakeholder organisations at the European level. 

The Regulation introduces several changes affecting the processes and the interactions among 
the actors involved. In particular, the following provisions should be noted:  

  An  improved  planning,  through  the  Annual  Union  Work  Programme  (AUWP)  for 
standardisation,  in  order  to  identify  priorities  for  European  standardisation  and  the 
standardisation requests; 

  Substantial changes to the mandating process (see Annex 5) are introduced:  

-  After notification of the request, the (relevant) ESO(s) need(s) to communicate its 

(their) acceptance within one month (Art. 10(3) of the Regulation).  

-  Conditional  acceptance  is  not  appropriate  anymore  —  considering  the  formal  and 
regulated process leading to adoption of a request — and should be considered as a 
rejection of the request by the ESO(s). Member States consultation was performed 
on the basis of Regulation (EU) 98/34. 

-  The Regulation introduced the Committee on Standards (Art. 22 of the Regulation), 
being  a  comitology  committee  as  defined  in  Regulation  (EU)  182/2011  and 
supporting  the  Commission  in  implementing  Regulation  (EU)  1025/2012.  As 
comitology  procedures  only  apply  to  Implementing  Acts,  the  legal  form  of 
standardisation requests was changed to Commission Implementing Decisions. 
-  Article 12(b) of the Regulation introduces and formalises required notifications to 
stakeholders  about  requests.  Notifications  need  to  be  sent  during  the  mandating 
process and before the standardisation request is adopted.  

-  The introduction of a maximum time for the acceptance of the request by the ESOs 
and the fact that conditional acceptance is considered as a refusal increase the need 
for  early  informal  consultations  and  discussions  as  ESOs  need  to  start  planning 
their  resources  (human,  financial)  and  discussion,  before  the  final  and  approved 
version of the standardisation request. 

Annex  5  illustrates  the  mandating  process,  standards  development  and  publication  of  the 
references in the OJEU.  

3. EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

The  present  evaluation  investigates  the  functioning  of  the  European  standardisation  system 
(ESS) from two different perspectives: i) the overall ESS and the framework established by 
the new standardisation package and the actions undertaken by the different stakeholders and 
ii) the standardisation activities supported by Union financing.  

Each of the issues was investigated via a set of questions related to the five evaluation criteria 
(effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence,  and  EU  added  value).  Table  1  in  Annex  6 
recaps  the  evaluation  questions  for  each  of  the  issues,  and  links  them  to  the  relevant 
evaluation criteria. 

The answers to the evaluation questions are provided in section 6. 

8 

 
 
 
 
4. METHODOLOGY 

This  evaluation  relies  on  two  external  studies,  the  "Independent  Review  of  the  European 
Standardisation  System  (ESS)",  an  externally  commissioned  study  prepared  under  Article 
24(3) examining the implementation of the Regulation, and the Commission report on Article 
25 of the Regulation. Annex 7 illustrates the relationship between these three documents. 

4.1 The Independent Review 

The  Independent  Review  of  the  ESS  was  carried  out  by  an  external  contractor  between 
December 2013 and March 2015 and involved an extensive consultation with all stakeholders. 

The  main  sources  of  information  for  the  Independent  Review  consisted  of  a  desk  research, 
phone  and  face-to-face  interviews  with  stakeholders,  an  online  survey9  assessing  in  a 
quantitative and qualitative way the perception of stakeholders regarding the achievement of 
the  strategic  objectives  of  ESS,  the  efficiency  of  the  processes  and  suitability  of  the 
governance, as well as the suitability of ESS for the future, and 10 case studies focusing on 
specific topics and aimed at providing an in-depth analysis of some critical points and areas 
for improvement identified in the course of the Independent Review.   

The methodology used in the Independent Review also included validation workshops which 
were  organised  (with  the  support  of  the  EC)  in  Brussels  on  26  March  2015  before  the 
completion  and  publication  of  the  final  report  of  the  Independent  Review  and  a  roundtable 
with stakeholders which was held after the publication of the final report on 1st July 2015. 

The Independent Review triggered an unprecedented response from stakeholders. More than 
120  phone  and  face-to-face  interviews10  were  performed,  with  a  vast  range  of  different 
stakeholders.  The  online  survey  collected  447  complete  answers,  in  addition  to  348 
incomplete answers (for a total of around 800 inputs). The first validation workshop attracted 
a  broad  stakeholders'  participation  as  well,  with  over  110  participants  (and  200  in  July) 
including  the  Commission,  ESOs  and  industrial,  social  and  societal  stakeholders.  All  these 
inputs provided a significant information basis for the Independent Review.  

For more details on the methodology and sources of information of the Independent Review 
see Annex 8. 

4.2 "Article 24" Study 

In  June  2015,  the  Commission  tasked  an  external  consultant  to  perform  a  study  aiming  at 
analysing 
the 
standardisation activities receiving Union financing and assessing possibilities for simplifying 
the financing of the European standardisation and reducing the administrative burden. 

the  Regulation,  evaluating 

implementation  of 

the  relevance  of 

the 

The  findings  of  the  Article  24  study  are  based  on  a  robust  methodological  approach  which 
included  both  primary,  qualitative  sources  (interviews  with  the  relevant  stakeholders)  and 
secondary, qualitative/quantitative sources (for example, the ESOs 2013/2014 reports and the 
Commission’s data on Union financing). 

9 The survey questions are available in the Annex of the Independent Review (see Annex ‘Online survey’). 
10  These  figures  include  stakeholders  interviewed  in  Phase  1  and  2,  and  the  interviews  carried  out  for  the 
purposes of the case studies. 

9 

 
 
 
                                                            
However, specific objectives were set for the Article 24 study. It was, therefore, outside of the 
scope  of  the  study  to  examine  the  wider  context  and  impact  of  standardisation  activities  on 
society and European businesses.  

For more details on the methodology and sources of information of the Article 24 study see 
Annex 9. 

5. IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY - THE RESULTS 

5.1 Introduction 

This  section  presents  an  analysis  of  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation,  based  on  the 
information provided by the ESOs’ and the Annex III organisations’ reports.  

Table  4  in  Annex  10  summarises  the  progress  achieved  in  relation  to  each  article  of  the 
Regulation (column entitled ‘Summary of the implementation’), the possible issues recorded 
in the implementation, and gaps in the information provided (column entitled, ‘Remarks and 
gaps in information’).  

5.2 Implementation of the Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 

After two years of implementation of the Regulation it should be noted that: 

  The  Regulation    has  introduced  the  AUWP,  which  enhances  the  convergence  of  the 

individual plans of the various standardisation actors (EC, ESOs, NSBs etc.); 

  Progress has been  made  in  ensuring the  transparency of the  work programmes of 

the ESOs and NSBs, through their publication on the related websites; 

  The  transparency  of  standards  has  been  enhanced.  The  ESOs  and    NSBs  are 
gradually  implementing  tools  to  ensure  access  to  draft  national  standards  to  all 
relevant parties; 

  Significant investments in ICT tools have been made in the last number of years by 
the three ESOs and their members, in order to streamline and speed up processes; 
  At  European  level,  four  stakeholder  organisations  have  been  selected  as  eligible 
for Union financing (SBS in 2013; ANEC, ECOS and ETUC in 2014) and these have 
launched  activities  to  strengthen  their  presence  in  and  contribution  to  European 
standardisation; 

  Together  with  the  new  Framework  Partnership  Agreements  between  the  EC  and  the 
ESOs,  which  include  Key  Performance  Indicators  (KPIs)  and,  among  these,  50% 
reduction  in  the  standard  development  time  by  2020,  the  introduction  of  the  AUWP 
and  the  revision  of  the  procedure  to  adopt  standardisation  requests  are  expected  to 
contribute to speeding up the standards setting process; 
In  application  of  the  Regulation,  in  2015,  the  Commission  has  authorised  the  use  of 
lump  sums11  for  the  reimbursement  of  costs  of  the  certain  standardisation  activities 
carried out by the ESOs and their members; 

 

11 C(2015) 3697 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
  At the national level, the NSBs report the participation, at policy and technical level, 
of  representatives  of  four  stakeholder  groups:  SMEs,  consumers,  social  and  societal 
stakeholders. 

Union financing of activities of the ESOs and the Annex III organisations is limited to a range 
of between EUR 20 to 25 million annually. The Commission contributes, on the basis of the 
Regulation, on average between  35% and 40% of the total income of the three non-profit 
ESOs  and  75%  to  100%  of  the  total  income  of  the  Annex  III  organisations.  The  other 
sources  of  income  are  membership  fees  or  equivalent  other  contributions  and  fees  for 
organisations  in  partnership  with  the  ESOs.  At  national  level,  NSBs  usually  enjoy  public 
funding as an essential income element and in many Member States the membership fees of 
the  ESOs  are  'earmarked'  from  the  national  budget  for  the  NSBs  meaning  that  the  Member 
States also indirectly support the operation of the secretariats of  the ESOs (the legal entities 
but  not  the  'network').  Like  the  ESOs,  the  NSBs  also  collect  membership  and  participation 
fees. For CEN and Cenelec  related NSBs, revenues  from sales  of standards are an essential 
source  of  income  together  with  other  possible  services  (like  training,  certification,  technical 
assistance, consultation) linked to application of standards.  

The experts who voluntary participate in standardisation work at the international, European 
and  national  levels,  usually  do  so  at  their  own  expense.  According  to  an  estimation  of  the 
ESOs, the industry experts alone spend around EUR 1 billion each year to participate in and 
contribute  to  voluntary  standardisation  work  (ie  the  estimated  total  value  of  the  working 
hours,  travelling  and  accommodation  costs  etc…).  In  addition,  the  industry  buys  standards 
and  other  related  services  from  the  NSBs.  For  the  last  10  years,  the  ESOs  and  NSBs  have 
implemented many online tools to distribute standardisation documents and other information 
to  enable  online  meetings  during  standards  development.  Despite  this  fast  development,  no 
figures are available on how much the industry reduces its costs by effective use of these tools 
(ie less lost working time, less travelling and accommodation costs, no specific hardware or 
software are needed because of web applications). 

Although  the  annual  public  funding  of  the  legal  entities  operating  in  the  ESS  is  almost 
negligible  compared  to  overall  costs  borne  by  industry,  in  its  current  setting  this  public 
funding  is  crucial  to  keep  the  ESS  running  and  essential  for  the  ESOs  to  accept  the 
Commission’s  standardisation  requests  in  support  of  Union  legislation  and  policies.  It 
provides a unique opportunity to include Annex III organisations and to ensure transparency, 
which is important for SMEs in their innovation strategies and for acceptance of standards. 

The  application  of  the  Regulation  is  recent.  It  has  introduced  several  changes  in  the 
functioning  of  the  overall  system,  not  limited  to  Commission  requested  standards  and 
standardisation  deliverables,  and  which  are  being  implemented  by  the  Commission  and 
applied  or  “enjoyed”  by  different  parties  involved  (the  ESOs,  the  NSBs  the  Member  States 
and the Annex III organisations). Standards development processes and related activities now 
take 3 years. Moreover, in the case of new technical domains even longer and all the benefits 
produced can only be appraised in a longer time span. Therefore, the full assessment of the 
results achieved by the implementation of the Regulation and the activities supported within 
its framework will be performed at the next review. Nevertheless, the present evaluation will 
assess whether the implementation of the Regulation is on track to achieve what was expected 
by the legislator. 

11 

 
 
 
According  to  the  Article  24  study,  no  major  issue  is  recorded  in  the  application  of  the 
Regulation by the key stakeholders involved (see Table 4 in Annex 10 for details).  

5.2.1 Transparency 
Progress has been made in ensuring the transparency of work programmes of the ESOs and 
NSBs, through their publication on the related websites. Some improvements as indicated in 
Table 4 in Annex 10 are however still needed. 

The  transparency  of  standards  appears  ensured  overall,  thanks  to  the  provision  of 
information about European standards and the status of the work on the ESOs websites and 
their  information  systems.  NSBs  are  gradually  implementing  tools  to  ensure  access  to 
draft  national  standards  for  all  relevant  parties  (in  particular  those  established  in  other 
Member  States)  and  provide  the  opportunity  to  submit  comments.  The  most  direct  and 
effective method is considered to be via online public commenting and online access to draft 
national standards.  

Although  in  2013,  less  than  50%  of  NSBs12  were  providing  online  platforms,  this  share  is 
gradually increasing. In 2014, more than 84% of ETSI NSBs and 77% of CEN NSBs enabled 
online  public  commenting  and  online  access  to  draft  national  standards.  Cenelec  NSBs  are 
still lagging behind, with a share of 58% (though this percentage is an improvement on 2013). 

Several NSBs are planning to implement online platforms in 2016. The development of online 
commenting  platforms  is  also  supported  by  the  ‘eComment  project’,  co-funded  by  the 
Commission, which will further develop the ESOs' national members’ capacity to offer draft 
standards  for  on-line  public  commenting  via  their  websites.  When  online  platforms  are  not 
available, access to national standards during public enquiry is usually provided via email. 

Further details regarding the number and percentage of NSBs/NSOs providing or planning to 
provide online public commenting and online access to draft national standards can be found 
in Table 5 in Annex 11.   

5.2.2 Inclusiveness 
A range of provisions of the Regulation supports the participation of relevant stakeholders’ 
groups in standardisation, at the European level (through the Annex III organisations), and 
at  the  national  level  (through  NSBs).  At  the  European  level,  the  Annex  III  organisations 
participate  in  the  work  of  the  three  ESOs  at  policy  and  technical  level  in  different  ways, 
depending on the different models of CEN and Cenelec, and ETSI.  

At the national level, NSBs report the participation of representatives of SMEs, consumers, 
environmental  stakeholders  and  societal  stakeholders  at  policy  and  technical  level.  Also, 
several measures favour the access of SMEs to the standardisation process and to European 
standards and standardisation deliverables (e.g. reduced national membership fees or reduced 
prices  for  standards).  Between  2013  and  2014,  the  number  of  ESOs’  technical  bodies  and 
NSBs recording stakeholder participation has been increasing. Despite this, data suggests that 
SMEs are largely, but not fully, represented in the relevant technical bodies at NSB level13. 
The other stakeholders’ groups, and especially social and societal stakeholders, take part only 
in  a  small  share  of  technical  bodies  at  NSB  level.  However,  the  reporting  on  stakeholders’ 

12 On average for the members of the three ESOs. 
13 Source:  CEN, Cenelec and ETSI reports to the European Commission on the implementation of Regulation 
(EU) No 1025/2012, 2013 and 2014. Data is presented in the Article 24 Study. 

12 

 
 
                                                            
participation  at  the  national  level  would  benefit  from  a  clearer  description  of  the  measures 
taken  to  encourage  participation,  the  forms  of  participation  foreseen,  and  how  the 
representation takes place. 

In  parallel,  in  2013  and  2014,  the  Annex  III  organisations  have  set  up  their  activities  to 
actively  participate  in  and  contribute  to  European  standardisation,  with  concrete  actions 
undertaken for the provision of experts participating in technical bodies of the ESOs, training 
and information and awareness raising. 

5.2.3 Timing 

No  complete  assessment  can  be  done  for  the  implementation  of  the  provisions  related  to 
Commission’s standardisation requests to the ESOs since 2013 as full development cycles 
of the requested standards have not been realised yet.  

This is also reflected in the Article 25 Report14 on the impact of the procedure established by 
Article  10  of  the  Regulation  on  the  timeframe  for  issuing  standardisation  requests  which 
concludes that 'the short timeframe to gain experience with the new processes does not allow 
to  draw  a  final  conclusion  about  whether  the  new  rules  will  result  in  a  permanent  and 
unacceptable increase in the length of procedures for”[planning, preparing and adopting]“ 
standardisation requests'. 

Due  to  the  transition  from  the  previous  regime  under  Directive  98/34/EC  to  the  current 
legislation  and  due  to  the  time  needed15  to  prepare  standardisation  requests,  three 
standardisation requests were adopted in 2014 by the Commission under the Regulation and 
all were accepted by CEN within one month. In 2015, the number of adopted standardisation 
requests increased, with eight requests adopted by end of October 2015. The number of draft 
requests notified in the notification system was 12 draft requests in 2014 and 14 draft requests 
by end of October 2015.  

Thirty-two  possible  requests  are  identified  in  AUWP  for  2016:  historically,  the  trend  was 
around twenty requests addressed annually to the ESOs, however this also included requests 
for  studies  and  programming  work  not  leading  to  publication  of  any  standards  or  other 
specifications.  This  effect  is  due  to  the  setting-up  of  the  infrastructure  resulting  from  the 
Regulation  (ie  Comitology,  AUWP,  the  revision  of  the  Vademecum  on  European 
standardisation).  More  detailed  analysis  concerning  the  impact  of  the  Regulation  on  the 
planning,  preparation,  consultation  and  adoption  of  the  requests  will  be  available  only  after 
some  years  following  new  standardisation  requests  and  the  full  completion  of  standards 
development processed by the ESOs. 

5.2.4 Union financing of standardisation activities 
The  list  of  the  operating  grants  and  action  grants  was  signed  by  the  Commission  (DG 
GROWTH) with the ESOs and Annex III organisations.  From 2010 to June 2015, 62 action 
grants related to the revision or development of standards and to preliminary or ancillary work 
were signed. Of these, 32 grants were signed in 2013-2014. The subject matter of the action 
grants allows us to gain an overview on the kinds of activities funded, the sectors and areas of 
work involved. 

14 COM(2015)198 final 
15 According to the 'Article 25 Report' the preparation time was on average around 13.5 months.  

13 

 
 
                                                            
According  to  Article  15  of  the  Regulation,  the  Commission  may  provide  funding  to  the 
ESOs, NSBs and other bodies contributing to the following standardisation activities:  

  Development or revision of standards suitable for the support of Union legislation and 

policies, Art. 15(1) (a); 

  Verification of quality and conformity to Union legislation and policies, Art. 15(1) (b); 
  Preliminary or ancillary work, Art. 15(1) (c); 
  Activities of the central secretariats of the ESO, Art. 15(1) (d); 
  Translation of European standards or European standardisation deliverables, Art. 15(1) 

(e); 

  Activities to explain, interpret or simplify European Standards (e.g. Information, user-

guides, trainings), Art. 15(1) (f); 

  Technical assistance, cooperation with third countries, promotion of the ESS, Art. 15(1) 

(g).  

One  of  the  instruments  used  to  simplify  the  financing  of  standardisation  activities  and  to 
reduce the administrative burden is the reimbursement of lump sums by the Commission in 
case of activities under Art 15(1)(a) and (b). 

The Commission with the decisions taken in 2014 and 2015 authorised the use of lump sums 
for the reimbursement of costs of these standardisation activities carried out by the ESOs and 
their  members.  This  simplification  should  enable  the  ESOs  to  better  plan  the  Commission 
requested work and reduce the time for preparing a proposal for a grant to be financed by the 
Commission. 

At the same time, Art. 16 of the Regulation provides for the possibility to finance the Annex 
III  organisations,  in  relation  to  their  activities  relating  to  European  and  international 
standardisation  (Art.  16(a)),  the  provision  of  legal  and  technical  expertise  (Art.  16(b)),  the 
participation in the technical work (Art. 16(c)), and the promotion of European standards and 
European  standardisation  deliverables  (Art.  16(d)).  The  funding  is  provided  by  the 
Commission  and  EFTA;  the  latter  provides  5%  of  the  total  EC/EFTA  contribution  to 
the  financing  of  the  standardisation  activities  mentioned  above.  Therefore,  in  the  next 
paragraphs, we will refer to ‘EC/EFTA’ financing. 

In 2013, the EC/EFTA provided financing for the ESOs and the Annex III organisations for 
an  amount  of  almost  EUR  30  million.  This  amount  declined  significantly  in  2014,  to  some 
EUR  20  million,  despite  the  new  operating  grants  assigned  to  the  Annex  III  organisations 
under the Regulation (and not ready in 2013, except that for SBS). The decline in funding is 
explained  by  the  2014  reduction  by  the  Budgetary  Authorities  of  about  25%  for 
standardisation under the negotiations for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2014-
2020. To align to the new MFF 2014-2020, new Framework Partnership Agreements (FPA) 
have  been  signed  with  CEN/Cenelec  and  ETSI  which,  in  addition,  introduce  the  concept  of 
Key Performance Indicators (KPI) to attain higher performance, efficiency and effectiveness 
for the ESS. The same was done for the Annex III organisations receiving Union financing. 

With  regard  to  standardisation  activities  carried  out  in  2013  and  2014,  financing  granted  in 
2013-2014  has  supported  activities  that  correspond  to  the  policy  objectives  of  the 
Commission  and  are  linked  to  the  Union’s  priorities  as  set  out  in  the  AUWP.  This  is  an 
obligation resulting from the Regulation.  

14 

 
 
The  ICT  Rolling  Plan  is  a  source  of  objectives  for  ICT  standardisation  deliverables  and 
includes  those  of  other  standards  setting  organisations  like fora  and  consortia  (based  on  the 
advice  of  the  ICT  Multi-Stakeholder  Platform  (MSP)  set  up  by  Commission  Decision 
(2011/C349/04) of 30 November 2011).   

In practice, only standardisation priorities taken up under the AUWP or the Rolling Plan for 
ICT standardisation would be eligible receiving Union financing. The AUWP and the Rolling 
Plan  for  ICT  standardisation  are  essential  tools  to  identify  standardisation  work  which  has 
priority also in terms of Union’s financing. 

The Union financing is targeting standardisation work in areas of public policy (e.g. standards 
and/or preliminary and ancillary work in the area of consumers’ or workers’ health and safety, 
equal  opportunities  for  disabled  people,  air  quality,  environmental  protections,  climate 
change, security), that otherwise would not be funded by industry or the NSBs, or not to the 
magnitude and with the timing required. 

Moreover, the support to the Annex III organisations plays a significant role (20% of the EU 
budget  of  standardisation  is  dedicated  to  the  Annex  III  organisations)  in  strengthening  the 
representation of relevant stakeholder groups (SMEs, consumers, environmental interests and 
workers) in European standardisation and pursues its objectives in terms of the inclusiveness 
of the system.  

The  following  table  details  the  budget  allocations  and  grants  disbursed  in  respect  of  2013-
2015. 

Table 6: Union financing of European standardisation 2013-2015 

Years 

2013 

2014 

2015 

Operating grants 
(EUR) 

Action grants (EUR) 

Total (EUR) 

11.348.972 

18.367.127 

29.716.099 

11.281.161 

7.939.993 

- 

- 

19.221.154 

20.885.000 

Source: Data refer to the contracts signed by the Commission (DG GROWTH) in 2013, 2014 and 2015.  
The total amount for action grants of 2013 includes an action grant from the Commission (DG Energy) equal to 
€3.779.513. 

5.3  Vademecum  on  European  standardisation  in  support  of  Union  legislation  and 
policies16,  

The Vademecum gives guidance on the preparation and adoption of standardisation requests 
in  order  to  comply  consistently  with  Articles  8,  10(2)  and  12  of  Regulation  (EU) 
No.1025/2012 and ensure proper and wide consultation of the standardisation actors. 

The  Vademecum  was  originally  published  by  the  Commission  in  2003  as  a  response  to  a 
Council resolution in 199917.  It was revised for the first time in 2009. The second revision, 

16 SWD (2015) 205 final, 27.10.2015   
17 OJEU C 141, 19.5.2000 

15 

 
 
                                                            
reflects  actions  and  priorities  of 
SWD(2015)  205, 
(COM(2011)311 final and the requirements of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012). 

the  Standardisation  Package 

The  objective  of  the  Vademecum  is  to  ensure  a  common  understanding  of  the  role  of  the 
Commission’s  standardisation  requests  (Implementing  Acts)  to  the  ESOs  and  the  role  and 
responsibilities of the various actors in planning, preparing and executing these requests. It is 
addressed  to  all  actors  of  the  European  standardisation  system  (ESS)  and  in  particular  to 
Commission officials, public authorities in the Member States and EFTA countries, the ESOs, 
the organisations identified in Annex III to the Regulation, the national standardisation bodies 
(NSBs) and all stakeholders in European standardisation. 

To  support  Union  legislation  and  policies,  the  revised  Vademecum,  together  with  the 
Commission’s  internal  project  management  tools  has  been  aligned  in  a  new  process  (as 
defined in the Vademecum) to be used when standardisation requests are needed and relevant. 
Concerning the standards setting process itself, which is fully under the responsibility of the 
ESOs,  the  Vademecum  provides  guidance  on  the  expected  quality  of  requested  deliverables 
and sets out reporting and transparency principles. 

16 

 
 
6. ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

The present evaluation investigates the overall functioning of the ESS, a key element of which 
is  the  progress  with  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation.  However,  given  the  recent  entry 
into  force  of  the  Regulation,  a  full  ex  post  evaluation  of  the  Regulation  cannot  be  achieved 
due  to  the  fact  that  the  full  cycle  of  the  standardisation  work  requested  by  the  Commission 
since  2013  has  not  yet  been  completed  and  thus  the  answers  provided  to  the  evaluation 
questions  discussed  in  this  section  must  be  considered  in  that  same  context  and  within  that 
constraint. 

6.1 Effectiveness 

6.1.1 Objectives 
As  part  of  the  new  Standardisation  Package,  launched  in  2011,  the  Communication 
COM(2011) 311 final defined five strategic objectives, as the guiding principles of the ESS, 
including  the  Regulation:  speed  and  timeliness  of  standards  development,  support  to 
competitiveness of EU businesses, support to EU legislation and policies, inclusiveness, and 
support to the competitiveness of EU businesses at global level.  

The  Regulation  (EU)  No  1025/2012  –  that  followed  the  Communication  and  entered  into 
force in 2013 – established the framework for the effective use of the ESS as support to EU 
legislation  and  policies,  and  introduced  several  changes,  including  standards  in  services, 
comitology  and  a  stronger  focus  on  stakeholder  participation  in  European  and  national 
standardisation activities.  

The  main  general  objectives  of  the  Regulation  are  to  increase  the  contribution  of  standards 
and European standardisation to a better functioning internal market, to stimulate growth and 
innovation and to foster the competitiveness of EU enterprises, especially SMEs.  

In  terms  of  the  specific  objectives,  the  Regulation  addresses  in  particular  the  transparency, 
timeliness and inclusiveness of the standards development, use of ICT technical specifications 
developed  outside  the  ESS  in  public  procurement  and  new  rules  for  financing  European 
standardisation 

In the following paragraph, an analysis of the progress towards the objectives set out in the 
Communication,  as  well  as  the  general  and  specific  objectives  of  the  Regulation,  is  given. 
Since the implementation of the Regulation is a part of the overall functioning of the ESS, the 
objectives  of  the  Communication  and  the  Regulation  partly  overlap  and  no  strict  separation 
between these objectives is therefore made. 

6.1.1.1 Progress towards the strategic objectives and barriers 
The ESS is achieving most of its stated objectives, contributing to the integration of products 
and  services  markets  across  the  Member  States  and  EFTA  countries,  supporting  the 
elimination  of  trade  barriers,  fostering  interoperability  and  setting  up  an  increasingly 
inclusive, transparent and participatory process.  

According  to  the  Independent  Review,  the  development  time  for  European  standards 
requested  by  the  Commission  has  been  significantly  reduced  during  recent  years.  The 
development  time  of  the  Commission  requested  standards  went  from  5  years  on  average  in 
2009 to 3 years in 2013. The factors which are helping to reduce this time include: 

17 

 
 
 
  The  Framework  Partnership  agreements  (FPAs)  and  Operating  Grant  agreements 
(OGs)  between  the  Commission  and  the  ESOs  which  aim  at  further  reducing  the 
development time of standards; 

  The OGs include key performance indicators and, among these, 50% reduction in the 

standard development time by 2020 (as mentioned in the COM 311 (2011); 

  The introduction of the AUWP and the revision of the procedure to plan, consult and 
adopt standardisation requests are expected to contribute to speeding up the standards 
setting process. 

Estimates  carried  out  in  Phase  1  of  the  Independent  Review  show  that  the  timing  for  the 
overall development of standards significantly decreased between 2009 and 2013 (no data 
available for 2014); the average time for the overall development process in 2013 was about 
three years, against an average of five years in 2009. This average does not take into account 
any extremes (very long and very short development time frames).18  

The  timeframe  indicated  for  ETSI  is  shortest.  However,  different  milestones  were  available 
for the computation of data, and the figure below should not be used for comparison between 
the ESOs. 

Figure 4 - Development time for home grown - 1st edition standards (extremes excluded 

(5%)) 

3000 
2500 
2000 
1500 
1000 
500 
0 

2009 

2010 

2011 
CEN  CENELEC 

ETSI 

2012 

2013 

Source: Computations based on CCMC Database – ETSI Database 

Data limitation: 5% extreme (highest and lowest) were excluded to avoid bias from erroneous datasets and from 
extreme cases, not necessarily reflecting current performance of the system. 

Two  out  of  three  standards  have  a  development  time  lower  than  three  years,  and  the 
average  development  time  mentioned  above  is  highly  influenced  by  a  few  standards  whose 
development started a long time ago (see figure over).  

18 Computations are based on CCMC Database – ETSI Database.  

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
Figure 5 - Home- grown 1st edition standards made available between 2009 and 2013, by 
date of decision on Working Item (WI) 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

Source: CCMC Database – ETSI Database 

Data limitation: 5% extreme (highest and lowest) were excluded to avoid bias from erroneous datasets and from 
extreme cases, not necessarily reflecting current performance of the system. 

Looking  at  the  detailed  steps  of  the  development  process,  average  EN  drafting  time  is 
estimated to be 280 days, while enquiry and vote last on average 145 days and 61 days, 
respectively.  The  difference  between  the  sum  of  these  values  and  the  average  development 
time is due to a range of administrative activities such as preparation of public consultation, 
need for multiple consultations, and/or time spent in other activities such as translations. The 
time  needed  for  these  administrative  activities  seems  to  be  the  main  obstacle  to  further 
improve the performance of the ESS in terms of timely delivery.  

In  the  recent  past,  the  ESOs  introduced  several  changes  to  improve  the  timely 
availability  of  the  standards  developed  upon  EC  request,  also  as  a  consequence  of  the 
2011  Communication.  These  changes  range  from  general  measures  aimed  at  improving  the 
management of the work (a progressive shift from paperwork to electronic tools, organisation 
of web meetings, alerts system on the progress of the standardisation work), to the revision of 
formal procedures.  

Further, under the FPA until 2020 signed with the ESOs, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) 
have  been  agreed.  One  KPI  is  the  time  taken  to  deliver  a  standard.  A  yearly  threshold  is 
agreed  in  the  annual  OG  ensuring  a  continuous  reduction  in  the  delivery  time  of  European 
standards. Not complying with the threshold may give rise to financial consequences for the 
next  OG.  This  certainly  represents  a  significant  progress  towards  the  achievement  of  a  key 
objective  of  the  ESS:  the  speeding-up  of  the  process  and  the  improvement  of  the  timely 
availability  of  standards.  Moreover,  under  the  Regulation,  further  significant  improvements 
are  expected  in  terms  of  timely  availability  of  standards  requested  by  the  Commission, 
through  the  early  involvement  of  the  stakeholders,  the  creation  of  consensus  around  the 
standardisation requests under preparation, and the improvement in the quality and detail of 
the requests issued19.  

As to the effective inclusiveness of the ESS, this was one of the central points of the reform 
package  launched  in  2011,  and  progress  in  this  respect  has  been  achieved.  Firstly,  the 

19 Independent Review, Final Report, par. 4.1.  

19 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
  
Regulation  (in  its  Annex  III)  has  recognised  the  support  to  representatives  of  social  and 
societal stakeholders and SMEs for their participation in standardisation activities20. 

Secondly,  the  four  stakeholder  organisations  complying  with  the  Regulation  and  selected 
for Union financing (SBS, ANEC, ECOS and ETUC) have undertaken  activities in 2013 and 
2014, mainly focused on the training of experts, the participation in ESO Technical Bodies, 
and  the  setting  up  of  tools  for  communication  and  awareness  raising  (see  par.  2.5  of  the 
Article 24 Study). Moreover, Annex III organisations take part in the work of the ESOs at a 
policy and technical level with different levels of involvement and participation (see par. 2.3 
of the Article 24 Study).  

The  implementation  of  the  Regulation  suggests  that  the  number  of  NSBs/NSOs  where  the 
four  stakeholder  groups  (SMEs,  consumer  organisations,  social  and  societal  stakeholders  in 
national  standardisation  bodies)  are  represented  has  been  quite  stable  or  increasing  between 
2013 and 2014 with a particularly good track record for ETSI. In particular, SMEs appear to 
be  represented,  at  both  policy  and  technical  level,  in  most  of  the  NSBs,  while  the  other 
stakeholders take part to a lesser extent. 

In the framework of the implementation of the Regulation, steps have been taken to improve 
the participation of SMEs and underrepresented stakeholders. Most of the NSBs facilitate 
the  participation  of  SMEs  in  the  national  technical  bodies,  especially  by  allowing  SMEs  to 
participate  without  being  members  of  the  NSB,  and  by  providing  for  special  rates  for  the 
participation  in  standardisation  activities  (see  par.  2.5  of  the  Article  24  Study).    However, 
according  to  key  stakeholders,  there  are  still  difficulties  for  SMEs  in  taking  part  in 
standardisation  and/or  to  make  use  of  standards.  Similarly,  and  despite  the  improvements 
introduced, the participation of stakeholder organisations, representing consumers’, workers’, 
SMEs and environmental interests, is still challenged by some limitations at the European and 
international levels, raised by the Annex III organisations during the Independent Review and 
in their reports on the implementation of the Regulation. 

These perceived limitations are the following: difficult access to the relevant information and 
technical  documents  (due  to  the  scope  of  the  access  rights  on  the  electronic  systems  of  the 
ESOs and the technical committees), the limited formal status of the Annex III organisations 
in any of the ESOs affects their visibility and the limited understanding of their role by other 
actors in the ESS21.  

Moreover,  looking  at  the  last  strategic  objective  (“support  to  competitiveness  of  EU 
businesses  at  the  global  level”),  European  standards  are  increasingly  aligned  with 
international  standards,  thanks  to  the  active  use  of  cooperation  agreements  between  the 
ESOs  and  their  international  counterparts  for  the  development  of  joint  work  or  the 
endorsement of international deliverables. In particular, data regarding CEN-ISO cooperation 
shows  that  over  the  past  eight  years  35%  of  work  items  have  been  developed  under  the 
Vienna  Agreement22,  while  77%  of  Cenelec  work  items  having  been  developed  under  the 
Dresden Agreement, in cooperation with IEC.  Although no comparable data is available for 

20 Independent Review, Final Report, par. 4.4. 
21 See par. 2.3 of the Final 'Article 24 Report'.  
22 The remaining 65% of the CEN work items have related to 'home grown' standards not developed under the 
Vienna  Agreement.  Source:  elaboration  on  CEN  data.  For  more  details,  see  the  Independent  Review,  Final 
Report, par. 4.5. 

20 

 
 
 
                                                            
ETSI, the mapping between ETSI technical bodies and those of ITU shows a high number of 
active linkages between ETSI technical bodies and study groups and those of ITU23.  

6.1.2 Transparency 
The  introduction  and  implementation  of  the  Regulation  since  2013  has  contributed  to  the 
progress which has been made to the effectiveness of the ESS, most clearly in relation to the 
inclusiveness and associated transparency of the system.  

As evidenced in tables 7 and 8, there has been a substantial increase in the representation of 
certain key, previously under-represented stakeholders within the system. This is particularly 
so in the case of social and societal stakeholders and SMEs. This increased participation will 
contribute, in due course, to a more cohesive and legitimate system where the different actors 
have a better understanding of their respective roles. This is also underlined by the funding of, 
better  status  for  and  participation  in  ESO  work  (at  policy/technical  level)  by  Annex  III 
stakeholder  representative  groups  which  was  introduced  by  the  Regulation.  Taken  together 
this  improved  status  and  participation  should  ensure  that,  crucially,  information  flows  more 
effectively  between  the  Commission,  the  ESOs,  the  NSBs  and  stakeholders  who  were  less 
well informed previously. 

6.1.3 Addressing legal ambiguities 
The  Regulation  harmonises  certain  definitions,  the  process  for  adopting  standardisation 
requests,  conditions  for  publishing  references  of  harmonised  standards  in  the  OJEU,  the 
process  for  formal  objections  and  equal  criteria  for  grant  funding  to  SME  and  stakeholder 
organisations.  These  provisions  contribute  significantly  to  the  achievement  of  the  specific 
objectives of the Regulation, increasing in particular the transparency and inclusiveness of the 
standards development, and appear to be well received by the majority of stakeholders.   

6.1.4 Use of ICT technical specifications in public procurement 
The lack  of European and international ICT standards  had created a permanent problem for 
public procurement. This could not be directly resolved by other means than the identification 
procedure for ICT technical specifications established by the Regulation. The option exists 
to  use  identified  ICT  technical  specifications  in  public  tenders  and  this  is  expected  to 
counter  the  tendency  towards  market  fragmentation  and  to  have  a  positive  impact  on  the 
Single  Market.  Correspondingly,  the  referencing  of  ICT  technical  specifications  enhances 
the competitiveness of enterprises, in particular the European ICT industry, where officially 
recognised specifications increase stability and provides an incentive to invest. 

So  far,  the  Commission  has  decided24  that  six  ICT  technical  specifications  are  eligible  for 
referencing in public procurement (Annex 12).  

Further  ICT  technical  specifications  eligible  for  the  use  in  public  procurement  are  being 
identified  by  the  European  Multi-stakeholder  Platform  on  ICT  standardisation  set  up  in 
accordance with the Commission Decision C(2011) 8600.25 

23 ETSI points out that it is not possible to closely monitor and count its many formal and informal interactions 
with the ITU. For more details, see the Independent Review, Final Report, par. 4.5. 
24  
technical specifications eligible for  referencing in public procurement, OJ C 2014/188/EU 
25  
Platform on ICT standardisation, OJ C 349, 30.11.2011, p.4  

Commission  Implementing  Decision  C(2014)2120  of  3  April  2014  on  the  identification  of  ICT 

Commission  Decision  C(2011)  8600  final  of  28.11.2011  setting  up  the  European    Multi-stakeholder 

21 

 
 
                                                            
6.1.5 Economic impact of standardisation: estimates from national studies 
Finally, regarding the overarching strategic objective of "Support to competitiveness of 
EU businesses", this section focuses on what can be established from the estimates made in 
national studies. Particular use is made of the estimates detailed in the Centre for Economics 
&  Business Research (Cebr, June  2015)  report,  The Economic Contribution of Standards to 
the  UK  Economy,  (hereafter,  the  'Cebr  report')  26,  27,  28  and  as  summarised  in  a  1  July  2015 
Cebr presentation to the Friends of Standardisation Roundtable. 

The figure below illustrates the complexity of the manner in which standardisation contributes 
to competitiveness and thereby economic growth - and the different pathways involved. 

Figure 6 - How do standards contribute to economic growth? 

Source: Cebr presentation to the Friends of Standardisation Roundtable (2015, p.3) 29 

In  light  of  the  complexity  of  the  pathways  by  which  standardisation  impacts  on 
competitiveness and growth, it is worth reviewing the methodology employed in the Cebr 
report. The report (2015, p.7) states that it represents "the most comprehensive study of the 
economic  benefits  of  standards  to  UK  businesses  to  date"  and  that  it  (ibid)  "adds  to  that 
important  work  [a  previous  2005  DTI  study]30  by  updating  the  estimates  for  the  impact  of 
consensus  standards  on  productivity  at  the  national  level,  using  a  similar  methodology  and 
covering the period from 1921 to today".  

The Cebr report examines the economic impact of standards from two perspectives:  

1.  an empirical analysis of the macro-economic impact of standards on the UK economy; 

and 

2.  a micro-level analysis on how the use of standards and participation in the 

26 The Cebr report was commissioned by the British Standards Institution (BSI). 
27 Available online at: http://www.bsigroup.com/LocalFiles/en-GB/standards/BSI-standards-research-report-The-
Economic-Contribution-of-Standards-to-the-UK-Economy-UK-EN.pdf 
28 This is the latest such study available. It is understood that the National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI) 
is currently undertaking a study (based on Cebr's methodology) which is expected to be published in December 
2015. 
29 The Economic Contribution of Standards to the UK Economy, Roundtable - Friends of Standardisation. 
30 UK Department of Trade and Industry, DTI Economics Paper No.12 (June 2005), 'The Empiricial Economics 
of  Standards' available online at: http://www.sis.se/upload/632555702720125533.pdf 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
standards  development  process  produce  financial  and  other  benefits  for  individual 
companies.  

In  relation  to  the  first  perspective,  the  Cebr  report  measured  the  impact  of  standards 
empirically  at  the  national  (macro-)  level  by  carrying  out  an  econometric  analysis  to 
determine the relationship that standards have with productivity and to quantify the value of 
their contribution to the UK economy.31  

The Cebr report (p.13) also explains that:  

"The  macro-level  estimate  for  the  impact  of  standardisation  is  based  on  average 
productivity  growth  for  the  whole  economy,  incorporating  both  high  and  low 
productivity growth sectors. If only high productivity growth sectors were covered - as 
was  the  case  in  the  sector-level  analysis  -  then  estimated  impacts  would  likely  have 
been larger." 

In  relation  to  the  second  perspective,  a  survey  was  carried  out  of  527  UK  companies  (all 
survey respondents used standards though 68% were not involved in their development) and 
this  was  combined  with  in-depth  interviews/case  studies  in  seven  key  sectors.  It  should  be 
noted (p.12) that: 

"the  micro-level  analysis  targeted  sectors  that  were  identified  as  the  most  standard-
intensive  in  the  UK  economy.  These  sectors,  which  represent  25%  of  the  UK  non-
financial  business  economy  are  also  sectors  that  have  experienced  the  strongest 
productivity growth over the past ten years  – productivity in manufacturing grew by 
19.7%  between  Q1  2005  and  Q3  2014  compared  to  just  4.9%  growth  for  all  sectors 
over the same time period." 

As  mentioned  in  relation  to  the  methodology  employed,  the  Cebr  report  examines  the 
economic  contribution  of  standards  to  the  UK  economy  from  both  a  macro-  and  micro-
economic  perspective.  The  following  selected  findings  were  identified  with  a  view  to 
highlighting  those  UK  economic  impacts  caused  by  standards  which  would  be  most 
relevant on a trans-national basis:32 

  The results of the econometric estimation show that the contribution of standards to 
productivity  growth  over  the  period  1921  –  2013  has  been  positive  and 
statistically significant; 

  Standards  are  associated  with  approximately  0.69  percentage  points  of  the  average 
labour  productivity  growth  of  1.8%  a  year.  This  equates  to  the  suggestion  that 
standards  supported  37.4%  of  labour  productivity  growth  and  28.4%  of  GDP 
growth between 1921 and 2013; 

  For the purposes of expressing the findings in monetary terms, if it is assumed that the 
estimated impact is constant over time, standardisation at a national (i.e. UK) level 

31 A detailed description of the methodological technique employed (i.e. the use of a Cobb-Douglas production 
function to describe how output is a non-linear function of the labour force, the capital stock and total factor 
productivity (TFP)) is available at section 4.3 of the Cebr report. 
32  Accordingly,  less  attention  has  been  focused  on  the  micro-economic  findings  and  UK  monetary  values 
(though a limited number are provided). 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
would be associated with approximately £8.2 billion (€10.4 billion)33 of the £29.0 
billion (€36.8 billion)34 of GDP growth recorded in 2013 (2014 prices);35 

  Results  from  the  micro-level  analysis  provided  evidence  to  support  the  macro-
level  findings  with  48%  of  companies  surveyed  reporting  a  net  benefit  from 
standards.  This  finding  was  relatively  consistent  across  industries  though  larger 
businesses were more likely than SMEs to report this benefit; 

  The report states (p.10) that "one of the most important economic roles of standards is 
in  promoting  and  supporting  international  trade"  and  reports  that  standards  have 
been hugely influential in boosting the sales of UK products and services abroad, 
with  reported  impacts  averaging  3.2%  per  annum  in  additional  exports.  This 
impact on exports ranged from 0.3% in the energy sector to 9.9% in the food and drink 
manufacturing sector; 

  The  results  at  sector  level  show  that  the  impact  of  standards  on  annual  turnover 
range within sectors from 1.7% (aerospace and defence) to 5.3% (food and drink 
manufacturing).36 

The  Cebr  report  (see  table  over)  also  provides  a  very  useful  overview  of  the  findings  of 
several national studies including their own which finds that "while not directly comparable, 
particularly due to the different time periods analysed…reveals potentially interesting insights 
about effect of standards on productivity."  

33 Sterling monetary values converted to Euro using average currency conversion value in respect of December 
2014 (i.e. £1 = approximately €1.27) – calculated values then rounded to the nearest €0.1 billion. 
34 Ibid. 
35 The Cebr report (p.7) does caution that, in relation to interpreting these estimates, standards "have a 
complementary and interdependent role in driving productivity along with patents, and other forms of 
knowledge." 
36 The Cebr report notes that this is consistent with the findings from a series of ISO company case studies (ISO, 
2014, Economic Benefits of Standards) which found impacts ranging from 0.15% to 5% of annual turnover. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Table 9 – Comparison of summary results from national studies 

Country 

France 

Canada 

Germany 

Germany 

UK 

UK 

Organisation and 
publication year 

AFNOR 
(2009) 

Standards 
Council of 
Canada (2007) 

DIN (2000) 

DIN (2011) 

DTI (2005) 

Cebr (2015) 

Period of analysis 

1950-2007 

1981-2004 

1961-1990 

2002-2006 

1948-2002 

1921-2013 

Estimated function 

GDP Output 

Elasticity of stock of 
standards 
Share of labour 
productivity growth, 
% 
Growth rate of GDP 
growth, % p.a. 
Share of GDP growth, 
% 
Contributions of 
standards to GDP 
growth, % points 

0.12 

27.1 

3.4 

23.5 

0.8 

Source: Cebr report (2015, p.39)  

Labour 
Productivity 

0.36 

17 

2.7 

9.2 

0.3 

GDP Output 

GDP Output 

Labour 
Productivity 

Labour 
Productivity 

0.07 

30.1 

3.3 

27.4 

0.9 

0.18 

- 

- 

- 

0.7 

0.05 

13 

2.5 

11.0 

0.3 

0.11 

37.4 

2.4 

28.4 

0.7 

The estimated contribution of standardisation to the average growth rate of GDP per annum of 
the UK (2.4%), Germany (3.3%) and France (3.4%) was in the range of 0.7 percentage points 
(UK) to 0.9 percentage points (Germany), with France at 0.8 percentage points. 

With  regard  to  the  robustness  of  the  Cebr  report's  findings  with  regard  to  the  macro-
economic  impact  of  standardisation,  several  limitations  were  identified  and  appropriate 
caution  was  urged.  However,  it  may  be  noted  that  the  estimated  contribution  of 
standardisation  to  the  average  growth  rate  of  GDP  per  annum  of  the  UK  (2.4%),  Germany 
(3.3%) and France (3.4%) was within a consistent range - of 0.7 percentage points (UK) to 0.9 
percentage points (Germany), with France at 0.8 percentage points. 

In conclusion, all three Member States (to which reference are made to above) are large 
developed  economies  with  a  tradition  of  industrialisation.  Their  combined  GDP  constitutes 
approximately  one  half  of  total  EU  GDP  and  these  national  studies  therefore  do  deserve 
attention.  Equally,  it  is  acknowledged  that  comprehensive  estimates  on  the  impacts  of 
standardisation at the overall EU level are missing and that the Council Conclusions on 
Single Market Policy (adopted by the Competitiveness Council on  2 March 2015) invited 
the Commission to (paragraph 9) "finalise the Independent Review and analyse the impact 
of  standardisation  on  the  economy  taking  into  account  the  interest  of  all  the  parties". 
Ideally,  therefore,  a  study  might  be  commissioned  addressing  the  competitiveness 
implications and economic impact of standardisation across the EU, building on the Cebr 
report as well as the previous econometric studies (DIN 2000, Blind 2004, DTI 2005, AFNOR 
2009 and 2016) in several EU countries (France, Germany, United Kingdom). However, this 
option  would  have  to  be  considered  carefully  in  light  of  the  significant  financial  resources 
involved  and  the  substantial  time-allocation  (anticipated  to  be  in  the  region  of  24  months) 
required for such a European-wide study. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.2 Conclusions regarding effectiveness 

There are over 4,000 harmonised standards requested by the Commission out of over 20,000 
CEN  and  Cenelec  European  Standards  and  450  harmonised  standards  out  of  over  35,000 
ETSI  technical  specifications.  In  the  context  that  the  ESS  operates  with  so  many  standards 
and different categories of standards (national, European, international etc.), it is vital that a 
focus is maintained on the effectiveness of the system. 

Significantly,  the  Regulation  opened  new  perspectives  for  EU  financial  support37  to  the 
European  Standardisation  Organisations  (ESOs).  The  new  financial  support  rules  aim  at 
driving  continuous  improvement  in  the  ESOs'  performance  by  setting  deadlines  within 
Commission requests for standards and by making funding conditional on the ESOs' fulfilling 
related criteria. This is a significant improvement and the limited experience collected so far 
clearly indicates that these new measures will substantially contribute to the timely delivery of 
standards requested by the Commission.  

The  Regulation  has  also  increased  the  transparency  of  the  ESS  -  in  particular,  the 
transparency of the development of the Commission's standardisation requests in support of 
EU  legislation  and  policies.  Crucial  elements  in  this  respect  are  the  introduction  of 
comitology,  the  launch  of  a  publicly  accessible  notification  system  and  the  introduction  of 
new reporting requirements for the relevant standardisation actors. 

Steps  have  been  taken  to  improve  the  participation  of  SMEs  and  underrepresented 
stakeholders.  Nevertheless,  there  is  a  room  for  introduction  of  additional  measures  to 
improve the inclusiveness. 

The  Regulation  also  facilitates  the  exploitation  of  the  potential  of  innovative  ICT 
technologies and contributes to the realisation of the Single Market.  

Finally, a wide-ranging study would be needed to assess the overall effectiveness of the ESS 
with regard to its impact on European economic growth.  

6.3 Efficiency 

6.3.1 Efficiency of the European standardisation system (ESS) and Regulation 
This section mainly encompasses the ESS but also, to a certain extent, the implementation of 
the Regulation to date.  

The Independent Review of the ESS addressed the efficiency of the system from an overall 
perspective, and provided an assessment of the main elements of efficiency/inefficiency. The 
results showed that the ESS is generally perceived as a complex process by the stakeholders 
(based on the replies to an online survey and the information collected through interviews). Its 
efficiency is partly limited by bottlenecks in the process specific to standardisation requests 
from  the  Commission,  the  differences  of  working  methods  between  actors  involved 
(Commission,  ESOs  and  NSBs),  and  difficulty  accessing  information  on  standardisation 
activities by all the stakeholders involved.  

37  In  particular,  the  Regulation  introduced  the  use  of  lump  sums  which  was  implemented  by  the  Commission 
decision C(2014) 1892 final of 25/03/2015. The decision was applied to all action grant agreements signed with 
the ESOs from 2015 and therefore there are no available data at this stage to include in this report an analysis of 
the impact from the use of lump sums. 

26 

 
 
                                                            
Issues  have  been  raised,  in  relation  to  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation  by  ESOs 
and/or  Annex  III  organisations,  and  the  execution  of  standardisation  activities,  in 
particular, in terms of:  

  Timing and predictability and for the signature of the grant agreements: For their first 
generation, significant delays between the proposals from the ESOs and the Annex III 
organisations and the finalisation of operating grants are often recorded. These delays 
result  in  the  need  to  perform  work  before  financing  is  received,  cause  issues  in 
finalising contractual engagements or slow down the commencement of the work; 
  Complexity  of  procedures  and  control  processes  linked  with  Union  financing 
(applications for financial support, the technical and financial reporting for operating 
and action grants and the provision of related supporting documents);  

  Reporting  associated  with  the  overall  activities  undertaken  under  the  Regulation,  on 
the  implementation  of  the  Regulation  (according  to  its  Art.  24),  is  perceived  by  the 
ESOs as an additional constraint; 

  Efforts  required  by  the  ESOs  and  the  Annex  III  organisations  in  applying  for  the 

operating grants and for reporting on their execution.  

These issues, in particular the reporting requirements according to Art. 24 of the Regulation 
and procedures linked to operating grants are perceived as administrative burden by the ESOs. 
However,  this  perception  is  not  supported  by  available  data.  Estimates  carried  out  by  the 
Article 24 study indeed show that a certain effort is required by the ESOs and the Annex III 
organisations in applying for the operating grants (i.e. the drafting of the annual plan), and 
for  reporting  on  their  execution.  The  estimates  on  administrative  costs  related  to  operating 
grants suggest that these represent a small share of the total amount received (around 1% for 
the  ESOs,  and  between  2%  and  5%  of  the  amounts  received  by  the  four  Annex  III 
organisations in the form of operating grants).  

In 2013 and 2014, several actions have been undertaken by the Commission to improve 
the  efficiency  of  the  system  and  to  simplify  standardisation  activities.  The  new 
Vademecum on European standardisation in support of Union legislation and policies38  
has been defined as a tool, addressed to all the parties participating in the system, and aimed 
at clarifying the mechanisms for the Commission’s standardisation requests. 

The  Commission  has  also  approved  in  2015  a  decision  on  'lump  sums':  in  relation  to  the 
development or revision of European standards, and the verification of quality and conformity 
to EU legislation and policies. The grants will take the form of reimbursement of the eligible 
costs  declared  by  the  ESOs  on  the  basis  of  lump  sums.  Based  on  these  decisions,  the 
reimbursement  of  costs  will  be  based  on  unit  costs,  established  in  the  decisions,  and  the 
number  of  days  necessary  to  implement  the  action  (estimated  in  the  ESOs  proposals,  and 
assessed and approved on case by case basis by the Commission evaluation committee39). The 
decisions  on  'lump  sums'  simplify  the  financing  in  relation  to  activities  carried  out  by  the 
ESOs  and  of  direct  relevance  for  the  European  standardisation  policy.  This  'lump  sums' 
approach  therefore  reduces  the  administrative  burden  for  the  standardisation  actors.  On  the 
basis  of  those  actions  the  situation  is  expected  to  improve  –  however  this  requires  new 

38 SWD(2015)205 final 
39 Commission decision C(2015)3697 authorising the use of grants in the form of reimbursement of eligible costs 
declared by beneficiaries on the basis of lump sums for standardisation activities carried out by CEN, Cenelec 
and ETSI and amending Decision C(2014)1892 as regards additional unit costs. 

27 

 
 
                                                            
internal management of such grants by the ESOs and result-oriented thinking to utilise such 
grants effectively. 

6.4 Conclusions regarding efficiency 
Taking into consideration the acknowledged complexity of the ESS and the relatively recent 
implementation of the Regulation as well as the longer timeframe required before standards 
development processes and related activities can be assessed, the current data does not allow 
for  a  fully  reliable  analysis  of  the  efficiency  of  the  ESS  as  influenced  by  the  activities 
supported by the Commission and within the new framework of the Regulation.  

While there is a perception by the ESOs and the Annex III organisations that the Regulation 
has  increased  the  administrative  burden  on  their  part,  this  perception  is  not  supported  by 
available  data.  Still,  perception  is  a  sufficient  reason  for  the  Commission  to  act  beyond  the 
steps already undertaken (Vademecum; lumpsums). 

Under the next evaluation planned by Article 24 in 2020, it is anticipated that sufficient data 
will be available to make a fuller assessment. 

However, the foregoing comments should be placed in the overall context that (as previously 
discussed  in  relation  to  the  Cebr  report)  there  are  complementary  factors  influencing  the 
economic impact of the ESS which cannot be captured without a more wide-ranging study. 

6.5 Relevance 

6.5.1 Relevance of the intervention 
The  Impact  Assessment  (IA)  carried  out  in  2011  identified  the  following  needs  from 
stakeholders, as further explained in the previous section 2 "background of the initiative": 

- Speed: need to reduce the time taken by the standardisation process for standards developed 
at the request of the Commission 

-  Inclusiveness:  need  to  ensure  that  SMEs  and  societal  stakeholders  are  adequately 
represented in the standardisation process, especially for standards developed at the request of 
the Commission 

-  Need to 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' 

- Need to remove ambiguities in the existing legal framework. 

Those  needs  are  still  valid  among  stakeholders  and  the  Regulation,  although  relatively 
recently  implemented,  seems  to  address  them.  In  addition,  the  Regulation  also  significantly 
improves the transparency of the ESS.  

Additionally, the ESS is faced with a fast-changing environment and the need to adapt to the 
economic  and  social  dynamics.  The  Independent  Review,  based  on  the  findings  related  to 
each strategic objective and on the conclusions of the 2013 JRC study “How will standards 
facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 
2025?”, focused on two main trends which are affecting the ESS: (i) the globalisation of the 
economy and (ii) the pervasive role of ICT systems. In order to ensure the suitability of the 
ESS for the future, the following points have been identified:  

28 

 
 
  Increasing the importance of standardisation at the global level and the need for 
better  coordination  between  standardisation  bodies  at  all  levels  (national,  European 
and international); 

  Increased  role  of  service  standards:  standardisation  in  services  appears  to  be  at  a 
very  early  stage,  while  the  increasing  relevance  of  this  economic  sector  calls  for  a 
better  understanding  of  the  needs  and  potentialities  for  standards  development. 
Moreover,  services  and  products  are  becoming  more  and  more  interconnected,  with 
the advancement of ICT systems and the rise of products bundled with services (e.g. 
the  rise  of  smart  objects  and  smart  environments  which  combine  products  with 
accompanying services); 

  Increased  relevance  of  IPR/patents  in  standardisation  processes:  as  ICT 
concentrates  a  significant  part  of  patent  activity,  the  digital  enablement  of  the 
economy  might  lead  to  increased  patent  declarations  related  to  standardisation.  As  a 
consequence,  solid  patents  declaration  procedures  and  policies  need  to  be  defined  in 
order  to  ensure  transparency  about  existing  IPR,  for  patent  holders  and  for 
implementers.  Enforcing  the  protection  of  IPR  while  ensuring  transparency  is  an 
important  element  to  enable  innovation  among  European  businesses  and  to  promote 
the development and use of standards based on fair conditions40. 

Within the overall strategic objectives established by the ESS, these elements represent points 
for future policy development.   

6.5.2 Relevance of the standardisation activities receiving Union financing 
Taking  into  account  the  objectives  established  with  the  standardisation  package  and  the 
overall Commission priorities in terms of standardisation policy, Article 24 of the Regulation 
also seeks to assess the relevance of “standardisation activities receiving Union financing in 
the light of the requirements of Union legislation and policies”. The analysis has been aimed 
at  assessing  to  what  extent  the  EC/EFTA  financial  support  allocated  to  the  ESOs  and  the  
Annex III organisations is relevant to EC priorities in the field of standardisation, if there is a 
rationale  for  financing  of  these  specific  activities,  and  how  these  activities  contribute  to  the 
Commission’s objectives in the standardisation policy. 

The following three elements have been investigated in more detail below:  

(1)  typology  of  activities  supported  and  links  between  the  activities  funded  in  2013 
and  2014  and  the  priorities  defined  by  the  Commission  in  the  Annual  Union  Work 
Programme (AUWP) and/or the ICT Rolling Plan;  

(2) contribution of the activities funded to  the implementation of the Regulation and 
the achievement of the Commission’s objectives;  

(3)  presence  of  a  clear  rationale  for  Union  financing  of  the  activity,  i.e.  whether  the 
Commission  is  funding  actions  that  would  otherwise  not  happen,  or  not  to  the  same 
extent/with the same timing41.  

40 Independent Review, Final Report, par. 4.7.  
41 Chapter 3 of the 'Art. 24 Study'. 

29 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
(1)Typology of activities supported in 2013 and 2014 and consistency with the AUWP 

In  2013,  the  highest  share  (62%)  of  Union  funding  has  been  devoted  to  action  grants 
(intended as encompassing “grants for an action” and translation grants), while the financial 
allocations for 2014 are hardly representative, since no fund for the development or revision 
of  European  standards  (under  Art.  15  (a))  has  been  awarded  pending  the  approval  of  the 
decision on the methodology for the calculation of the lump sums. 

In  summary,  the  detailed  activities  for  European  standards  revision  or  development  and  the 
preliminary and ancillary work supported by the EC/EFTA between 2013 and 2014 appear to 
be, in all cases, of relevance to the Commission policy priorities, as spelled out in the annual 
Union work programmes, and directly related to Union legislation. 

For  the  Annex  III  organisations, the  operating  grants  support  all the  activities  related  to  the 
participation  of  organisations  representing  stakeholders  at  the  European  level.  In  this  view, 
also activities supported with the operating grants appear directly relevant to the strengthening 
of the ESS, by contributing to the improvement of the overall system and of its inclusiveness 
through the participation of relevant stakeholder categories. 

(2) Rationale for the Union financing 

Most of the standardisation work co-financed by EC/EFTA with action grants is identified in 
the  AUWP  or  in  the  Rolling  Plan  for  ICT  standardisation  and,  in  many  cases,  is  related  to 
Commission’s standardisation requests. This link suggests how the Union financing is mainly 
targeting  areas  of  public  policy  (e.g.  consumers’  and  workers’  health  and  safety,  equal 
opportunities for disabled people, air quality, climate change), supported by the Commission 
and related to fields of work that otherwise would not be completely funded by industry, 
or not to the magnitude and with the timing required. 

Regarding the Annex III organisations, their representatives agree that the activities currently 
funded with the operating grants would not happen in the absence of Union financing. On the 
one  hand,  the  Annex  III  organisations  have  limited  financial  resources,  coming  from  the 
annual  fees  of  the  members  or  entirely  from  public  funding  (as  is  the  case  for  ANEC)  that 
would not allow them to fully carry out their work in relation to European standardisation. On 
the  other  hand,  there  is  a  lack  of  awareness  or  difficult  access  to  standardisation  by  SMEs, 
consumers,  workers  and  environmental  stakeholders.  Standards  are  voluntary  and  the 
knowledge  on  their  economic  and  social  impacts  appears  limited  among  these  stakeholders 
categories: these two factors make it difficult to draw the attention of and to promote available 
funding among stakeholders. 

6.6 Conclusions regarding relevance 

There  are  three  strands  to  the  ongoing  relevance  of  the  Commission's  standardisation 
activities: 

 

 

the  four  policy  objectives  identified  in  the  IA  and  which  are  supported  by  the 
Regulation continue to be relevant and will continue to be monitored; 
in addition, the ESS is faced with a fast-changing environment and the need to adapt 
to  economic  and  social  dynamics.  In  particular,  the  two  main  trends  which  are 

30 

 
 
 
affecting  the  ESS:  the  globalisation  of  the  economy  and  the  pervasive  role  of  ICT 
systems; 

  Union's  funding  of  standardisation  activities  continues  to  be  relevant  to  support  EU 

policies. 

At this stage of the implementation of the Regulation, and in the context of the studies and/or 
reports  that  have  been  finalised  recently  by  the  Commission  (DG  GROWTH  and  the  JRC), 
the relevance of the standardisation activities and continued policy development is justified. 

6.7 Coherence 

Standardisation is interlinked with a range of other Union policies, as it plays a key role in the 
creation  of  the  Single  Market,  the  interoperability  of  products,  services  and  processes,  the 
efficiency of production, a high level of consumer and environmental protection, innovation 
and social inclusion.  

The  framework  established  by  the  Regulation  and  the  standardisation  activities  promoted 
contribute to wider Union’s policy objectives, primarily in the area of the Single Market and 
Digital Single Market.  

In  particular,  the  recent  Commission  Communication42  for  a  Digital  Single  Market  (DSM) 
identifies 
the  essential  role  of  standardisation,  with  focus  on  ICT  standards  and 
interoperability. The current system is deemed relevant to support the priorities fixed by the 
EC in its new strategy for the DSM.  

In a broader perspective, standards can also help achieve at least five of the ten Commission 
priorities: 

  boosting jobs, growth and investment; 
  the connected digital single market; 
  a resilient Energy Union; 
  a deeper and fairer internal market; and 
  the EU being a stronger global actor. 

The Commission only considers financing specific standardisation deliverables when they are 
part of the annual UAWP for European standardisation. The AUWP is drafted in line with the 
President Juncker priorities (see tables 10 and 11 in Annex 13 and 14).  

Through the establishment of the AUWP consistency is ensured and overlaps with other 
policy domains, in the context of standardisation, is excluded through close monitoring of the 
process inside the Commission as well as externally through consultation with stakeholders 
(the  Committee  on  Standards,  the  ESOs,  the  Annex  III  organisations  and  all  other  relevant 
stakeholders).   

Coherence is further strengthened through transparency as this programme is published 
at every stage from the draft through to the final version on the notification system as required 
by Article 12 of the Regulation. 

42  European  Commission,  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions 'A Digital Single Market Strategy 
for Europe', [COM(2015)192 final)] 

31 

 
 
 
                                                            
6.8 Conclusions regarding coherence 

Inasmuch as standardisation is acknowledged to play a fundamental and longstanding role in 
the  development  of  the  Single  Market,  it  is  inherently  coherent  with  a  wide  range  of  other 
related EU policies.  

The  framework,  established  by  the  Regulation,  and  the  standardisation  activities  it  supports 
and  seeks  to  develop  contribute  to  broader  Union  policy  objectives,  primarily  the  Single 
Market (and the Digital Single Market).  

On a practical level, coherence is achieved through the use of the AUWP (which is line with 
the  President  Juncker  priorities),  and  subsequently  through  close  monitoring  of  the  process 
inside  the  Commission  as  well  as  through  interaction  with  the  Member  States  and  relevant 
stakeholders. 

6.9 EU added value 

6.9.1 The added value of the ESS for stakeholders 
European standardisation plays a key role in the creation and functioning of the Single Market 
for  products  and  services  by  gradually  harmonising  conflicting  national  standards  that  may 
create  technical  obstacles  to  entering  national  markets.  They  are  thus  eliminating  possible 
barriers 
the 
competitiveness  of  European  industry  but  only  when  European  standardisation  is  wide-
ranging, internationally recognised and easy to comply with (especially by SMEs). Regulating 
stakeholder representation, transparency of work programmes of standardisation organisations 
and transparency of draft standards by the Regulation ensures framework conditions for a fair 
standardisation system.  

trade.  Such  voluntary  harmonisation  may  contribute 

increasing 

to 

to 

In  most  cases,  the  Commission's  requests  for  European  standardisation  supports  Union’s 
legislation (based on Article 114 of TFEU, establishing the Single Market for products and for 
services). The Regulation also allows the Commission to request standards in support of the 
Union’s other policies thus enabling the promotion, case by case, of voluntary standardisation 
beyond Article 114 of TFEU. Considering the nature of the policy area measures at European 
level are most appropriate. Correspondingly, measures to improve standardisation at national 
level  cannot  deliver  EU  added  value  as  such.  However,  it  is  necessary  to  rely  on  synergies 
between the EU and the national level to deliver 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. As such, 
the ESS assumes a direct EU relevance and pursues objectives that could be hardly achieved 
at national level with the same level of effectiveness. Companies, in particular, benefit from a 
reduction in transaction costs, an increased level of interoperability and the development of a 
common technical language within the Single Market. 

Lack of European and international ICT standards had created a permanent problem for public 
procurement  and  could  not  be  directly  resolved  by  means  other  than  the  identification 
procedure  established  by  the  Regulation.  The  main  advantage  of  this  procedure  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 Single Market (especially for businesses delivering goods or services 
complying with these fora and consortia standards). Correspondingly, the referencing of fora 
and  consortia  standards  enhances  the  competitiveness  of  enterprises,  with  the  creation  of  a 

32 

 
 
competitive  advantage  for  the  businesses  concerned.  This  relates,  in  particular,  to  the 
European  ICT  industry.  Also,  the  fact  that  these  specifications  are  officially  recognised 
reassures enterprises about their stability and provides an incentive to invest. 

6.9.2 The added value of the standardisation activities funded by the EU 
Ongoing  financial  support  at  EU  level,  rather  than  at  national  level  for  standardisation 
activities (for the ESOs and to enhance stakeholder participation), is crucial in ensuring that 
the ESOs also elaborate the standards needed to support EU legislation and policies. 

Looking  at  the  standardisation  activities  supported  in  the  framework  of  the  Regulation,  the 
financial  allocations  (action  grants)  to  the  ESOs  only  contribute  to  the  development  and 
translation of European standards of direct relevance for EU legislation and policies. Reduced 
support  to  the  general  activities  of  the  ESOs  (operating  grants)  would  likely  result  in  a 
reduced responsiveness of the ESOs to the Commission requests and, in a wider perspective, 
in a much weaker link between European standardisation and the relevant EU priorities. 

The financial support available annually is used effectively to create better EU added value as 
it  support  initiatives  in  support  of  the  development  of  the  ESS  that  would  not  otherwise  be 
undertaken.  However, consideration could be given in future as to how the available budget 
could  be  more  performance-based  (focusing  notably  on  the  ratio  between  operating  grants 
and the action grants linked directly to work requested by the Commission).  

6.10 Conclusions regarding EU added value 
The  ESS  provides  a  direct  EU  added  value  via  the  development  of  the  Single  Market  and 
pursues  objectives  that  could  not  be  achieved  at  national  level.  Through  the  level  of 
harmonisation  it  brings,  the  Regulation  provides  added  value  by  breaking  down  technical, 
non-tarriff barriers to trade within the EU (and EFTA). The benefits generated are particularly 
important  for  SMEs  and  societal  stakeholders.  This  represents  the  major  added  value  of 
European standardisation.  

33 

 
 
7. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS 

Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012, providing the legal basis of the ESS, has applied since 2013. 
Overall, no major issue has been raised concerning the application of the relevant provisions 
of  the  Regulation  by  the  ESOs,  their  national  members  (National  Standardisation Bodies  or 
NSBs  and  National  Standardisation  Organisations  or  NSOs)  or  stakeholders  organisations 
eligible  for  Union  financing  (the  Annex  III  organisations).  In  this  framework,  the 
standardisation  activities  supported  by  Union  financing  in  2013-2014  (and  in  the  period 
immediately  before)  are  explicitly  and  directly  linked  to  the  policy  objectives  of  the 
Commission, and linked with EU priorities as set out in the Annual Union Work Programme 
and/or the ICT Rolling Plan.  

In  a  broader  perspective,  the  current  standardisation  package  (which  took  effect  in  January 
2013) introduced a set of strategic objectives to enhance the contribution of standards to the 
growth  of  the  European  economy  and  the  creation  of  an  increasingly  inclusive  and 
participatory  standards  development  process.  The  achievement  of  these  stated  objectives 
contributes  to  the  harmonisation  of  products  and  integration  of  the  services  market  (where 
appropriate) across  the EU Member States  and EFTA countries,  supports the elimination of 
trade barriers, fosters interoperability and sets up an increasingly inclusive system. 

A more far-reaching exercise than this essentially procedural evaluation would be required to 
fully  support  conclusions  on  the  progress  achieved  by  the  ESS.    Such  an  evaluation  would 
have  to  measure  the  impact  of  European  standards  on  the  EU  economy  rather  than  the 
objectives, efficiency and effectiveness of the process of creating European standards. 

Moreover,  the  four  stakeholder  organisations,  selected  according  to  criteria  listed  in  the 
Regulation  and  eligible  for  Union  financing  (SBS,  ANEC,  ECOS  and  ETUC),  have  mainly 
focused on the training of experts, participating in ESOs' Technical Bodies, and the setting up 
of  tools  for  effective  communication  and  awareness  raising.  Moreover,  these  organisations 
took  part  in  the  work  of  the  ESOs  at  a  policy  and  technical  level,  with  different  levels  of 
involvement and participation.   

Steps have been  taken to improve the effective participation of SMEs  and underrepresented 
stakeholders.  Most  of  the  NSBs  also  facilitate  the  participation  of  SMEs  and  the  national 
technical bodies allow SMEs to participate without being members of the NSB, and provide 
special rates for participation in standardisation activities.  

For  efficiency  assurance,  the  Vademecum  on  European  standardisation  in  support  of  Union 
legislation and policies has been defined as a tool addressed to all the parties participating in 
the  system  and  aimed  at  clarifying  the  mechanisms  for  and  role  of  the  Commission’s 
standardisation  requests.  Like  previously  mentioned,  the  Commission  has  also,  in  2015, 
approved  a  decision  on  the  use  of  'lump  sums'.  These  will  be  used  in  relation  to  the 
development or revision of European standards, and the verification of quality and conformity 
of EU legislation and policies. The grants will take the form of reimbursement of the eligible 
costs declared by the ESOs. The decisions on 'lump sums' is intended to make financing more 
efficient in relation to activities carried out by the ESOs.  

In  order  to  ensure  the  relevance  of  the  ESS  for  the  future  the  following  topics  of  attention 
have been identified:  

34 

 
 
 
 
  Increasing need for standardisation at the global level;  

  Increased role of service standards; 

  Increased relevance of IPRs and patents in standardisation.  

Taking into account the objectives established for the standardisation package and the overall 
Commission priorities as to standardisation policy, the evaluation of standardisation activities 
receiving  Union  financing  in  the  light  of  the  requirements  of  Union  legislation  and  policies 
has been aimed at assessing to what extent the EC/EFTA financial support (allocated to the 
ESOs  and  the  Annex  III  organisations)  is  relevant  to  EC  priorities.    In  the  field  of 
standardisation, these activities are relevant above all to the development of the Single Market 
and  would  not  be  pursued  at  national  level.  Therefore,  the  need  for  this  ongoing  support  is 
confirmed. 

Standardisation is interlinked with Union policies: it is designed to play a coherent role in the 
development  of  the  Single  Market.  The  framework  established  by  the  Regulation  and  the 
standardisation activities is designed to contribute to wider Union policy objectives, primarily 
the  Single Market  and the  Digital  Single Market.  Through  the  establishment  of  the  AUWP, 
including  all  EU  policy  priorities,  coherence  is  targeted  through  close  monitoring  of  the 
process inside the Commission as well as through interaction with stakeholders (Committee 
on Standards, ESOs, Annex III organisations etc.). 

The  development  of  harmonised  standards target  the  removal  of  trade  barriers  in  the  Single 
Market,  respresenting  a  major  added  value  of  European  standardisation.  As  such,  the  ESS 
assumes a direct EU relevance and pursues objectives that could not be achieved at national 
level. Companies, in particular, can benefit from a reduction of transaction costs, an increased 
level  of  interoperability  and  the  development  of  a  common  technical  language  within  the 
European Single Market.   

The  ESS  involves  a  large  number  of  actors  who  have  different  interests,  and  bottlenecks 
reduce its effectiveness and efficiency. This evaluation has identified several areas for further 
improving the achievement of the strategic objectives of the process, strengthening the overall 
governance of the system and its link to identified challenges. It has also identified needs for 
simplification  in  relation  to  reporting  requirements  and  the  procedures  related  to  Union 
financing described in the Regulation. Those issues are identified in Annex 1 to the Article 24 
Report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  (which  report  this  Commission  Staff 
Working Document accompanies). 

the 

The Article 25 report which evaluated the impact of the procedure established by Article 10 
of the Regulation on the timeframe for issuing standardisation requests concluded that  "the 
new rules under Article 10 of the Standardisation Regulation increase the need for efficient 
cooperation  between 
the  Member  States, 
standardisation  organisations,  Annex  III  organisations  and  relevant  other  stakeholders],  "the 
short  timeframe  to  gain  experience  with  the  new  processes  does  not  allow  to  draw  a  final 
conclusion about whether the new rules will result in a permanent and unacceptable increase 
in  the length of procedures for [planning, preparing and adopting] standardisation requests. 
Thus,  there  is  not  enough  data  to  substantiate  the  need  for  a  legislative  proposal  to  amend 
Article 10 of the Standardisation Regulation at this stage. 

involved  actors”  [the  Commission, 

35 

 
 
The  Commission  will  revisit  the  situation  five  years  after  completion  of  the  present 
evaluation, in the context of the report that it will present to the Council and to the European 
Parliament on the implementation of the Regulation, under Article 24(3). 

In  addition  to  the  Article  24  Report,  the  Council  Conclusions  on  Single  Market  Policy  (in 
March  2015)  invited  the  Commission  to  "analyse  the  impact  of  standardisation  on  the 
economy taking into account the interest of all the parties". 

As previously discussed, a substantial study on the EU-wide macro-economic implications of 
the  ESS  would  provide  a  far  more  substantive  assessment  of  the  efficiency,  effectiveness, 
relevance,  coherence  and  EU  added  value  of  the  contribution  of  the  ESS.  It  would  also  be 
very  relevant  in  assessing  the  further  development  of  the  system  itself  and  how  the 
Commission  should  further  support  EU  priorities,  especially  (though  not  exclusively)  in 
relation to the Single Market and Digital Single Market. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEXES 

Annex 1:  List of Acronyms 

AUWP 

CCMC 

CEN 

Annual Union work programme 

CEN-CENELEC Management Centre 

European Committee for Standardisation 

CENELEC 

European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation 

COS 

EC 

EFTA 

EN 

ESO 

ESS 

ETSI 

EU 

FPA 

hEN 

ICT 

IEC 

ISO 

ITU 

KPI 

MS 

MSP 

NGO 

NSB 

OJEU 

37 

Committee on Standards 

European Commission 

European Free Trade Association 

European standard 

European Standardisation Organisation 

European Standardisation System 

European Telecommunications Standards Institute 

European Union 

Framework partnership agreement 

Harmonised European standard 

Information and communication technologies 

International Electrotechnical Commission 

International Organisation for Standardisation 

International Telecommunication Union 

Key performance indicator 

Member States 

Multi-stakeholder platform 

Non-governmental organisation 

National standardisation body 

Official Journal of the European Union 

 
 
 
 
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
 
 
   
   
   
   
REGULATION 

Regulation (EU) No. 1025/2012, on European standardisation 

SME 

TB 

TC 

WTO 

Small and medium-sized enterprises 

Technical body 

Technical committee 

World Trade Organisation 

38 

 
 
   
   
   
   
 
 
 
 
Annex 2: The actors in the ESS 

European standardisation organisations (ESOs) 
CEN,  Cenelec  and  ETSI  are  recognised  by  Article  2(8)  of  the  Regulation  as  European 
standardisation organisations.  

CEN  (the  European  Committee  for  Standardisation)  exercises  its  standardisation 

• 
activities in all fields, except for electro-technology and telecommunication; 

Cenelec (the European Committee for Electro-technical Standardisation) exercises its 

• 
standardisation activities in the electro-technical field; 

ETSI 

• 
(the  European  Telecommunications  Standards 
standardisation activities in the ICT and telecommunication fields. 

Institute)  exercises 

its 

Each  of  the  ESOs  is  an  independent,  non-profit  organisation  that  operates  as  a  platform 
composed of two main parts: a “secretariat” and a “network”.  

The secretariat is the physical organisation and a legal entity responsible, under the statutes of 
the relevant ESO,  for handling all administrative and practical matters of the network and for 
ensuring  that  the  standards  are  developed  according  to  agreed-upon  (open,  transparent, 
inclusive) processes. The CEN/Cenelec Management Centre (CCMC) in Brussels is the joint 
secretariat of CEN and Cenelec, while ETSI has its own secretariat in Sophia Antipolis in the 
south of France.  

In the cases of CEN and Cenelec, the members of these organisations (legal entities) are the 
NSBs  covering  28  EU  Member  States,  the  Former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia  and 
Turkey  and  the  EFTA  countries  Iceland,  Norway  and  Switzerland.  In  the  case  of  ETSI, 
industry  and  other  stakeholders  on  a  worldwide  basis  (around  800  members  from  64 
countries) are also members of the organisation. 

National standardisation bodies (NSBs) 
National  standardisation  bodies  (NSBs)43  are  the  organisations  (legal  entities)  that  develop 
and  adopt  national  standards  and  are  recognised  at  a  national  level  and  notified  by  the 
Member States to the Commission44. These bodies represent the interest of national interested 
parties  in  standardisation.  Usually,  these  bodies  are  also  members  of  CEN,  Cenelec  and/or 
ETSI, and ISO and/or IEC. Standardisation matters for a given country are either handled by a 
single NSB, or more than one NSB (with their respective fields of expertise, similar to ESO 
fields). NSBs may be either public or private sector organisations, or combinations of the two, 
and  may  undertake  a  range  of  related  activities  in  addition  to  standards  development  and 
adoption. 

The NSBs play a pivotal role in the ESS, enabling the interested parties (industry and other 
stakeholders) to participate in the elaboration and approval of standards at national, European 
and international (ISO/IEC) levels. 

43  Cenelec  calls  its  members  National  Committees  (NC).  ETSI  calls  its  standards  body  members  National 
Standard Organisations (NSOs) 
44  OJEU  C  338,  27.9.2014,  p.  31–34,  Publication  of  an  update  to  the  list  of  national  standardisation  bodies 
pursuant  to  Article  27  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1025/2012  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on 
European standardisation. 

39 

 
 
                                                            
International standardisation bodies 
At  the  international  level,  the  Regulation  in  Article  2(9)  identifies  the  following  three 
international  standards  bodies,  which  to  some  extent  are  the  analogues  of  the  ESOs,  and 
where NSBs are also members: 

• 
ISO  (the  International  Organisation  for  Standardisation)  performs  standardisation 
activities in all fields, except for electro-technical and telecommunications. ISO currently has 
members  representing  national  standards  bodies  of  162  different  countries,  117  of  which 
participate as full members; 

• 
IEC  (the  International  Electro-technical  Commission)  performs  standardisation 
activities  in  the  electro-technical  field.  IEC  currently  has  59  full  members  and  23  associate 
members, representing 82 national committees (NCs); 

• 
ITU (the International Telecommunication Union) performs standardisation activities 
in  the  ICT  and  telecommunication  fields.  It  currently  has  193  national  members  and  more 
than 700 “sector members” from industry.  

Other standardisation bodies 
A  range  of  other  organisations  exist,  including  fora  and  consortia,  which  are  not  national, 
European  or  international  within  the  meaning  of  the  Regulation,  especially  in  the  ICT  field 
but not restricted to ICT, and develop standards or other technical specifications which may 
be utilised in the ESS. The ESO may co-operate or have liaisons with such organisations and 
in case of ICT domain, the output from those organisations may be subject to identification 
within the meaning of Article 13 of the Regulation. 

Industrial stakeholders 
Standards are in most cases initiated, developed and applied by industry and businesses. As 
such, industry plays a key role in the ESS, and is arguably the most important “actor” in the 
development and use of European standards. Industry can participate in the development and 
approval  process  of  European  standards  through  respective  NSBs  or  in  the  case  of  ETSI, 
through direct membership and participation at the European level. The ESS is based on the 
principle  of  national  delegation  (CEN/Cenelec)  and  on  the  principle  of  direct  membership 
(ETSI), wherein: 

• 
In  CEN/Cenelec,  the  development  of  standards  is  managed  by  Technical  Committee 
(TCs)  comprised  of  “national  delegations”,  each  of  which  represents  one  of  the  national 
member (NSB). Where there is sufficient interest, the NSBs may create “mirror committees” 
or  equivalent  bodies  ('mirroring'  the  European  TCs)  at  the  national  level,  which  enable 
interested parties (industrial and other stakeholders) to participate in the national discussions 
during  the  creation  of  the  standard  in  order  to  decide  on  national  positions.  This  is  usually 
possible  once  during  public  enquiry  stage.  All  draft  standards  remain  to  be  in  English, 
German and French.  

In  ETSI,  the  development  of  standards  is  based  on  direct  participation  of  ETSI 
• 
members,  i.e.  industrial  and  other members  without representative  intermediaries. However, 
in the case of ENs, final adoption must also be given by the relevant representative NSBs. The 
work  done  by  ETSI  is  carried  out  in  committees  and  working  groups  (technical  bodies) 
composed of technical experts from the ETSI members. 

40 

 
 
The  majority  of  the  experts  that  contribute  to  the  development  of  standards  come  from 
industry. In this perspective, most of the costs for developing standards are borne to industry, 
through  the  supply  of  voluntary  experts  to  participate  in  the  drafting  work  at  national, 
European and international level, through membership subscriptions or participation fees and 
through the purchase of standards. 

Public authorities and regulators 
Public authorities and regulators have a direct interest in standardisation, primarily due to 
the role that standards may play in the functioning of markets, for access to foreign markets, 
industrial competitiveness, environmental protection, and the health and safety of workers and 
citizens.  

At  European  level,  the  Commission  as  an  initiator  of  Union  legislation  has  an  interest  in 
standardisation, primarily from a regulatory and policy perspective. European standardisation 
may  be  used  to  support  the  implementation  of  the  Union’s  legislation  and  policies,  and  the 
Commission  may  issue  standardisation  requests  for  the  development  of  European  standards 
and European standardisation deliverables.  

At  a  national  level,  public  authorities  and  bodies  (including  public  procurement  activities, 
market  surveillance  and  accreditation  activities  using  harmonised  standards)  also  have  an 
interest  in  the  ESS.  Member  States  set  aspects  of  the  regulatory  frameworks  within  which 
NSBs  operate,  play  a  key  oversight  role  concerning  national  accreditation  and  conformity 
assessment infrastructure, and make use of standardisation to support national legislation and 
policies. Participation of national authorities in the ESS occurs through involvement in NSBs' 
activities and through Member States’ membership in the Committee on Standards (CoS).45 

Annex III Organisations: SMEs, social and societal stakeholders 
The  European  characteristic  of  the  standardisation  system,  the  global  relevance  of  many 
standards, and the fact that standards may be used to support Union’s legislation and policies, 
and are often used to address health and safety of consumers and workers, environmental and 
societal again, societal includes consumers and environment – social is for trade unions 
(in  the  language  of  the  Regulation  aspects,  all  go  together  with  a  need  to  ensure  that  all 
relevant stakeholders are involved in order to ensure the legitimacy of the ESS. 

The  Regulation  identifies  stakeholder  categories,  which  are  much  affected  by  the  results  of 
European standardisation but  which by the nature of the  standardisation work and how it is 
organised  and  financed  are  not  always  sufficiently  represented  or  directly  participating  and 
which for that reason need specific attention. The categories are as follows:  

• 
Societal  stakeholders  (here  understood  as  representatives  of  consumers,  workers  and 
of  environmental  interests):  WE  NEED  CONSISTENCY  –  EITHER  WE  USE  THE 
LANGUAGE  OF  THE  REGULATION  OR  NOT,  TRADE  UNIONS  ARE  SOCIAL 
STAKEHOLDERS. They have no direct financial interest in participating in standardisation, 
and  their  representation  is  therefore  not  ensured  through  the  normal  cost-benefit  logic  of 
standardisation. However, their interests can be highly influenced by standardisation work, for 
instance in the case of standards related to health, safety, accessibility, security, compatibility 
or environmental protection. 

45 The Committee on Standards is a Comitology Committee made up of: Member States as members and EFTA 
countries, the ESOs and Annex III organisations as permanent observers. 

41 

 
 
                                                            
SMEs:  Despite  representing  99%  of  the  market,  SMEs  appear  to  have  individually 
• 
very  limited  resources  to  invest  in  standardisation  (even  on  the  bases  of  cost-benefit  logic) 
and  therefore  experience  difficulties  in  participating,  while  their  business  can  be  highly 
impacted by standardisation work.  

On  the  basis  of  the  Regulation,  these  stakeholder  categories  can  be  therefore  supported  by 
representative  bodies  (hereinafter  called  “Annex  III  organisations”)  participating  in  all 
standardisation work of the ESOs at European level.  A call for proposals has been issued and 
four organisations have been selected to represent, at a European level, the four categories of 
interests identified in the Annex III of the Regulation: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The interests of SMEs are currently represented by SBS; 

The interests of consumers are currently represented by ANEC; 

Environmental interests are currently represented by ECOS; 

Workers' interests are currently represented by ETUC. 

The  role  of  these  organisations  is  to  represent,  at  a  European  level,  the  voice  of  those 
stakeholders or interests, which are not always sufficiently represented at a national level. The 
Commission and the EFTA may provide finance to the Annex III organisations accordingly. 

Other organisations and bodies 
Many  other  organisations  and  bodies  have  a  direct  or  indirect  interest  in  European 
standardisation and are stakeholders in the ESS. These include accreditation and conformity 
assessment  bodies,  research  institutes  and  laboratories,  legal  experts  (e.g.  because  of  IPRs, 
patents), academics, innovation agencies, insurance institutes, trade unions, NGOs and other 
groups  representing  specific  sectorial,  professional  or  societal  interests  (e.g.  consumer 
interests, worker interests, environmental interests and SME interests). 

The  Regulation,  in  its  Articles  5,  7  and  9,  identifies  the  following  specific  categories  of 
stakeholders: 

• 

• 

Market surveillance authorities in the Member States; 

Joint Research Centre of the Commission; 

Undertakings,  research  centres,  universities  and  other  legal  entities  funded  by  the 
• 
Union  under  a  multiannual  framework  programme  for  activities  in  the  area  of  research, 
innovation and technological development. 

The  link  between  research,  innovation  and  standardisation  plays  an  important  role  in  the 
ability of the European economy to remain competitive. European standardisation must create 
a  bridge  to  ensure  that  researchers  and  industry  work  closely  together  with  standards 
developers  and  maximize  the  social  and  economic  benefits  of  new  ideas.  Therefore,  the 
European  Commission  pays  special  attention  to  the  integration  of  standards  into  R&D 
projects such as Horizon 2020. 

42 

 
 
Multi-stakeholder platform on ICT standardisation 
The  Multi-stakeholder  Platform  on  ICT  standardisation  (MSP)  is  mentioned  in  the 
Commission Communication COM (2011)3114647 and established by a Commission Decision 
of 28 November 2011.48  

Based  on  the  Commission  Decision,  the  MSP  comprises  representatives  of  national 
authorities of Member States and EFTA countries, stakeholder organisations representing the 
industry  category,  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises,  consumers  and  other  societal 
stakeholders,  as  well  as  European  and  international  standardisation  organisations  and  other 
non-profit  organisations,  which  are  professional  societies,  industry  or  trade  associations  or 
other membership organisations active in Europe, which within their area of expertise develop 
standards in the ICT field. 

Annex 3: Figure 1: The European Standardisation System (ESS)  

46 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic 
and Social Committee 'a strategic vision for European Standards: Moving forward to enhance and accelerate the 
sustainable growth of the European economy by 2020', COM (2011) 311, 1.6.2011 
47 The communication stated that in 2011, the Commission would create and chair a dedicated MSP to advise the 
Commission on matters relating to the implementation of standardisation policy in the ICT field, including the 
work programme for ICT standardisation, priority-setting in support of legislation and policies, and identification 
of specifications developed by global ICT fora and consortia. 
48 OJEU C 349, 30.11.2011. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Annex 3: Figure 1: The European Standardisation System (ESS)  

WTO 

EUROPEAN STANDARDISATION ORGANISATIONS (ESOs) 

Vienna Agreement 

Equivalent international bodies 
(Recognised by the World Trade Organisation) 

DG GROW provides funding, requests 
standards (after consultation with 
other DGs, Member States, ESOs and 
Annex III orgs). CoS delivers opinions. 

CEN 

Joint Secretariat 

Dresden Agreement 

Cenelec 

Funding for Annex   III orgs.   
(EC and EFTA provide this)   

 DG GROW  chairs 

ESOs send hENs to EC 
for 'compliance check' 
and OJEU publication 

ETSI 

A range of agreements between ETSI, ITU and others 

- Three organisations cater to different industry sectors 
- They co-ordinate the creation of industry-driven standards and ones in support of EU legislation 
- They co-operate, and work jointly, where appropriate 

                       Permanent observers 

Committee on 
Standards (CoS) 

CEN and Cenelec Technical Boards 

         ETSI Committees/Groups 

ETSI Technical 
Bodies 

             ENs only – NSBs give final approval 

International 
Organisation for 
Standardisation (ISO) 

International 
Electrotechnical 
Commission (IEC) 

International 
Telecommunication 
Union (ITU) 

International fora 
and consortia, 
and other bodies 

          Permanent   observers                          Co-   Chaired by DGs GROW & CONNECT 

                   Members 

                        Members 

CEN and Cenelec 
Technical 
Committees/Boards 

                  Those affiliated may, under certain conditions, participate but not vote    

    NCs elaborate positions – presented by National Delegations 

Direct participation 

Industry (the single most important 
stakeholder) – as individual actors or as 
members of advocacy organisations (e.g. 
Digital Europe, orgalime) 

'Annex III' organisations – SBS, 
ANEC, ECOS, ETUC. 

MSP – Advice on ICT 
standardisation policies. 

Members 

EC consults prior to 
"identification" – Article 13(3). 

National Standardisation Bodies 
(NSBs) (e.g. NSAI in Ireland) 

                                                                                            (+ EFTA States, a range of other stakeholders)  

         Members 

Member States / National 
Authorities (regulators and 
funders of NSBs) 

Working 
Groups 

(technical)  Committees 

National 
national standards. 
These  are  mirror  committees  to  the  CEN/Cenelec 
Technical Committees 

(NCs) 

for   

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 4: Three main problems identified in the Impact Assessment of 2011 
Problem  1:  the  process  for  adopting  European  standards requested  by  the  Commission  was 
not fast enough (adoption took a total of 5 years in 2009)49. 

In order to use European standards as policy tools to support Union legislation there should 
be a confidence that the requested standards are available in a timely manner. The speed of 
the process is also important to remove possible legal uncertainties. According to experience 
with  harmonised  standards,  this  has  not  been  always  the  case  causing  delays  in 
implementation.  Four  main  stages  of  the  standards  setting  process  were  considered  where 
delays  were  encountered,  i)  the  preparation  of  the  Commission  request  and  the  positive 
opinion of the Committee of Member States, ii) the acceptance of the request by the relevant 
ESO  and  the  start  of  work  on  the  requested  standard,  iii)  the  development  of  the  standard 
itself and iv) the publication of the reference of the harmonised standard in the OJEU by the 
Commission.  In  addition  harmonised  standards  may  be  subject  to  the  objection  procedure 
where the publication of the reference in the OJEU is challenged.  

Problem  2:  Under-representation  of  SMEs  and  societal  stakeholders  in  the  European 
standardisation process. 

Several studies showed that SMEs encountered a series of problems with respect to standards 
and standardisation. One of the most important problems, according to many stakeholders, is 
that  SMEs  were  in  general  under-represented  in  standardisation  activities,  in  particular  at 
European level. Furthermore, standards often relate to the safety and well-being of citizens, 
the  efficiency  of  networks,  the  environment  and  other  public  policy  fields.  Although 
standards play a major role in society, the opinion of relevant societal stakeholders was not 
sufficiently integrated in the EU standardisation process.  

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

In the field of ICT, many standards ensuring interoperability are not elaborated by the ESOs 
but by global fora and consortia. This applies particularly for Internet and World Wide Web 
related  standards.  Mostly  due  to  a  lack  of  highly  specialized  expertise,  the  traditional 
standard-setting organisations  do not cover the ICT domain and so currently a major part of 
the  global  ICT  standardisation  work  is  carried  out  outside  the  formal  European  or 
International standardisation system (i.e. ESOs, ISO/IEC). 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. Public procurement has to comply with 
Public  Procurement  Directive  2004/18/EC50  which  differentiates  between  formal  standards 
and  other  technical  specifications,  for  which  a  description  of  functional  requirements  is 
additionally requested. 

49 Final Report of the Independent Review, p.52 
50 Since revised as Directive 2014/24/EU 

45 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Annex 5: Mandating Process, standards development and publication of the references 
in the OJEU 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 6: Table 1 – The evaluation questions 

Evaluation 
criteria 

Evaluation questions on the overall 
ESS 

Implementation 

Effectiveness 

-  How  effective  is  the  ESS  in 
its  stated 

achieving  each  of 
objectives?  

Efficiency 

Relevance 

-  What are the barriers to effective 
change towards improved speed, 
representativeness 
efficiency, 
and inclusiveness if any? 
are 

most 
efficient/inefficient  aspects  of 
the ESS?  

-  What 

the 

-  What  are  the  main  trends,  at 
policy  and  economic 
level, 
which can influence the ESS? Is 
the  ESS  suited  to  address  these 
new trends? Is the ESS suited for 
the future? 

Evaluation questions on the 
standardisation activities supported 
by Union financing 

-  What kinds of activities are 

supported? How financing is 
distributed across different 
activities51? 

-  How the activities funded can 

contribute to the implementation 
of the Regulation and the 
achievement of the EC 
objectives? 

-  How 
can  Union 
contribute to a more efficient ESS? 

financing 

-  Are there clear links between 

the activities funded in 2013 and 
2014, and the priorities defined 
by the EC in the annual Union 
Work Programme (AUWP) 
and/or the ICT Rolling Plan 
(ICT RP)? 
Is there a clear rationale for 
Union financing of the activity 
(e.g. due to market failure or 
public interest or support to 
specific community policy 
objectives)? 

- 

Coherence 

- 

Is  the  implementation  of  the 
European  Standardisation  policy 
coherent  at  the  level  of  the 
Union 
legislation,  Member 
States and ESOs? 

-  How  can  Union  financing  ensure 
that  the  standardisation  activities, 
through 
requests 
standardisation 
from  the  Commission,  are  coherent 
with the overall EU policies?  

EU Added 
value 

-  What  is  the  added  value  of  the 
ESS  for  stakeholders  and  for 
ICT standardisation? 

What  is  the  added  value  of  the 
support  of  the  standard  activities 
funded by the Union? 

51  The  list  of  the  operating grants  and  action grants  was  signed by  the Commission  (DG GROWTH) with  the 
ESOs  and  Annex  III  organisations.    From  2010  to  June  2015,  62  action  grants  related  to  the  revision  or 
development of standards and to preliminary or ancillary work were signed. Of these, 32 grants were signed in 
2013-2014, the years of reference of the Article 24 Study. The subject matter of the action grants allows us to 
gain an overview on the kinds of activities funded, the sectors and areas of work involved. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
48 

 
 
 
Annex  7:  Article  24  Study  and  relationship  with  the  Independent  Review  /  Article  25 
Report 

Independent 
Review 

Article 25 report 

WP
1  

– Inception 

Data collection 
Template     

– Collection and analysis 

WP
2  

– Conclusions 

 actions 

WP
3  

ESO reports 

Annex III org. reports 

2013 
2014 

2013 
2014 

Alternative sources 

Interviews 

Assessment of the 
implementation of  
the Regulation 

€ 

Analysis of the  
financial dimension  
and relevance 

Conclusions  
and Actions 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 8: Methodologies and sources of information of the Independent Review 

1. Desk research 
Initial  desk  research  was  performed  to  ensure  that  the  team  had  identified  all  the  relevant 
sources of information for initiating the Independent Review and steering the analysis in the 
right direction. 

2. Interviews, meetings and workshops 
Phone and face-to-face interviews were performed with a wide range of stakeholders within 
the ESS. 

In total, around 120 interviews were conducted during the independent review (corresponding 
to more than 120 interviewees), involving a vast range of different stakeholders. 

3. Online survey 
An  online  survey  was  launched  for  assessing  in  a  quantitative  and  qualitative  way  the 
perception of multiple stakeholders regarding the achievement of the strategic objectives of 
ESS,  the  efficiency  of  the  processes  and  suitability  of  the  governance,  as  well  as  the 
suitability of ESS for the future.  

The questionnaire was tested through pilot interviews with several stakeholders (three NSBs, 
secretariats from the three ESOs, three companies or industry representatives, and two Annex 
III organisations).  

The  link  to  the  survey  was  diffused  through  direct  mailing  to  a  predefined  list  of  contacts. 
The stakeholders included in this list of contacts were also invited to disseminate the link to 
the consultation to interested parties in their own network. Moreover, the link to the survey 
was published on the Commission website, thereby promoting the visibility of the survey.  

The  consultation  (open  during  20  October  -  28  November  2014)  collected  447  complete 
answers,  in  addition  to  348  incomplete  answers  (for  a  total  of  almost  800  inputs).  The 
quantitative assessment of the answers received (i.e. the analysis of closed or multiple choice 
questions) was based only on the set of complete questionnaires submitted (i.e. 447), whereas 
the  incomplete  questionnaires  were  considered  for  qualitative  analysis  (i.e.  the  summary  of 
answers  to  open  questions),  when  relevant.  Overall,  the  results  of  the  survey  represented  a 
significant information basis for the review. 

The  results  of  the  survey  are  presented  in  the  Annex  entitled  'Online  Survey'  of  the 
Independent Review. 

4. Case studies 
During  the  Independent  Review,  the  team  performed  10  case  studies  focusing  on  specific 
topics  and  aimed  at  providing  an  in-depth  analysis  of  some  critical  points  and  areas  for 
improvement identified in the course of the review.  

The  findings  of  the  case  studies  are  integrated  in  the  overall  review,  whereas  the  complete 
analysis  is  reported  in  the  Annex  “Case  studies”.  The  following  table  summarises  the  case 
studies performed. 

50 

 
 
Table 2: List of case studies 

Title 

Objectives of the case study 

Scope/problem statement 

Speed – Responsiveness of the ESS in 
addressing EC needs 

Identify how fast is the system in addressing 
the EC needs, and what are the factors 
affecting the system responsiveness 

How fast is the standard development 
initiated, following the submission of a 
standardisation request to the ESOs? 

Innovation and Research – Anticipation of 
standardisation needs in additive 
manufacturing 

Assess how research can support the ESS, and 
how the ESS is able to manage tomorrow's 
technological breakouts 

What mechanisms can be implemented to 
ensure that research leads to early start of 
standardisation activities? 

How is the ESS able to tackle cross-
sectorial aspects? 

IPR – IPR coverage by ESOs guidelines 

Analyse the role of patents in standardisation 
and assess the transparency induced by the 
patent declaration process 

Is the patent declaration process 
sufficiently transparent? 

Stakeholders – Inclusiveness: principles 
and practical implementation 

Identify barriers to inclusiveness of the 
system, with focus on Annex III organisations 

For stakeholders identified by Annex III of 
Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012, what are 
the issues encountered? What are the 
reasons behind them and how can these 
issues be overcome? 

The eInvoicing standardisation request 

Analyse the mandating process, after the 
implementation of the new Regulation, and the 
impact on transparency, speed and market 
relevance 

How effective is the new mandating 
process, and in particular, the Comitology 
procedure established by the new 
Regulation? 

Cooperation mechanisms extra-ESS in ITS 

Assess cooperation mechanisms between the 
ESS and other entities acting in the 
standardisation domain 

What are the mechanisms to ensure a 
smooth cooperation between the ESOs and 
the other entities involved? 

What are the coordination tools? How can 
these be applied in different fields? 

Compliance checks, harmonised standards 
in gas appliances 

Assess the mechanisms ensuring that 
harmonised European standards effectively 
support legislation 

What process ensures that harmonised 
standards respond to legislative needs, and 
what are the issues encountered?  

The primacy of international 
standardisation 

Identify existing interconnections (theoretical 
mechanisms and practical use) between ESOs 
and international standardisation bodies 

What are the mechanisms in place for 
promoting European work items at 
international level and vice versa? Are 
these mechanisms sufficiently used? 

ICT rolling-plan 

Assess the mechanisms dedicated to support 
EU policies in the ICT sector 

What are the mechanisms to identify 
policy areas where standardisation is 
needed, in ICT? How could this practice 
be applied to other standardisation areas? 

Standardisation in Aerospace 

Identify reasons for sectorial lack of interest in 
the ESS 

What are the reasons that reduce the 
interest of aviation companies in the ESS? 

5. Validation 
A Validation workshop was organised (with the support of the EC) in Brussels on 26 March 
2015  before  the  completion  and  publication  of  the  final  report  of  the  Independent  Review.  
The  workshop  took  place  with  broad  stakeholder  participation  (over  110  participants 
including  the  Commission,  ESOs,  industrial  and  societal  stakeholders,  etc.)  in  order  to 
improve the transparency of the process and the quality of the overall outcomes.  

51 

 
 
  
 
6. Friends of Standardisation Roundtable 
In  order  to  improve  transparency  and  ownership  of  this  report  and  the  consequent 
recommendations for improvements, all stakeholders were also invited to a Roundtable on 1 
July  2015.    Around  200  participants  took  part  (the  ESOs,  Member  States,  the  NSBs, 
Permanent  Representations 
industry  representatives,  academia,  societal 
stakeholders,  etc.)  and  exchanged  their  views  on  possible  improvements  to  the  current 
practices. 

the  EU, 

to 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 9: Methodologies and sources of information  

Article 24 study 

The methodological approach adopted is based on the screening of secondary sources (reports 
for  2013  and  2014  provided  by  the  ESOs  and  the  Annex  III  organisations,  data  on  Union 
financing provided by the  EC, documentation related to the Union financing such as sample 
grant agreements, framework partnership agreements, the Commission decisions on unit costs 
and  the  lump  sums,  the  annual  Union  work  programmes  and  ICT  rolling  plans  for  the 
relevant years), and on interviews with the relevant stakeholders representing the three ESOs, 
the Annex III organisations, and the Commission (the templates for the interviews and the list 
of interviewees are reported in Annex 4).  

The  work  was  divided  into  three  main  work  streams,  which  involved  a  different  use  of 
primary and secondary sources (as summarised in table 3 over).  

Table 3: Desk and field sources 

Specific objective of the project 

Data sources 

Analysing  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation 
(EU) No. 1025/2012  

  Reports  (for  2013  and  2014)  provided  by  the  ESOs  and  the 

Annex III organisations 

Evaluating 
activities receiving Union financing 

relevance  of 

the 

standardisation 

Assessing  opportunities 
the 
financing of European standardisation and reducing 
the administrative burden 

simplifying 

for 

  Reports  (for  2013  and  2014)  provided  by  the  ESOs  and  the 

Annex III organisations 

  Data on Union financing provided by the EC 
 
Interviews with the relevant stakeholders 
  AUWPs and ICT Rolling plans 
  Documentation  related  to  the  Union  financing  provided  by  the 
EC  (i.e.  sample  contracts,  FPAs,  Commission  decision  on  the 
lump sums, etc.) 
Interviews with the relevant stakeholders 

 

The  first  task  aimed  at  analysing  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation,  based  on  the 
secondary  review  of  the  reports  annually  submitted  by  the  ESOs  and  the  Annex  III 
organisations to this purpose. The results are presented according to the main provisions of 
the Regulation under focus (transparency of work programmes and standards, standardisation 
requests to the ESOs, stakeholder participation, use of ICT in the standardisation system and 
cooperation between ESOs and NSBs).  

The  analysis  of  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation  has  been  exclusively  based  on  the 
reports  of  the  ESOs  and  the  Annex  III  organisations,  whereas  the  results  of  the  interviews 
have been used only for clarification purposes. The gaps in the information provided by the 
ESOs and the Annex III organisations reports or limitations in the comparability of data are 
also highlighted.  

The  second  task  analysed  the  relevance  of  standardisation  activities  receiving  Union 
financing, under the Regulation, taking into account the funding provided by the Commission 
and  EFTA  to  the  ESOs  and  the  Annex  III  organisations  in  2013  and  2014.  A  qualitative 
analysis  has  also  been  carried  out  with  reference  to  the  grant  agreements  (with  the  ESOs) 
signed in the years immediately before the entry into force of the Regulation, i.e. from 2010 
to 2012. To assess relevance, the questions provided in section 4 were used. 

Finally, as the third task, the report addressed the issues encountered by the ESOs and the 
Annex  III  organisations  in  relation  to  the  procedures  for  accessing  Union  financing  for 

53 

 
 
 
standardisation  activities  and  in  terms  of  administrative  burden  perceived  by  the  ESOs  and 
the Annex III organisations. 

Robustness of findings/limitations 
The  findings  of  the  Article  24  study  are  based  on  a  robust  methodological  approach  which 
included  both  primary,  qualitative  sources  (interviews  with  the  relevant  stakeholders)  and 
secondary, qualitative/quantitative sources (for example, the ESOs 2013/2014 reports and the 
Commission’s data on Union financing). 

However, specific objectives were set for the Article 24 study (as set out in Table 3 above). It 
was, therefore, outside of the scope of the study to examine the wider context and impact of 
standardisation activities on society and for European businesses.  

As illustrated in figures 1 and 2, the ESS is a complex system and one which also operates in 
a fast-changing environment strongly influenced by various stakeholders and other processes. 

Cebr study  

The  Cebr  study  (2015,  p.42)  also  urges  caution  in  relation  to  its  findings  of  the  macro-
economic  impacts  of  standardisation  activities  as  there  are  issues  which  complicate  the 
interpretation of any findings, i.e. regardless of the robustness of the methodology employed.  

These issues include: 

1.  More standards may not necessarily produce proportional economic benefits; 
2.  Standards alone do not boost productivity, i.e. other complementary factors, such as 
advances in technology and improvements to education also drive productivity and a 
model can only attempt to disentangle such factors; 

3.  The concept of standards as a 'black box' – national level studies such as CEBR's do 
not  attempt  to  incorporate  the  mechanisms  by  which  standards  generate  increased 
productivity within their quantitative analysis, primarily because the data to examine 
such factors is not normally available at the national or sector level. 

Therefore, the existing national macro-economic studies (DIN 2000, Blind 2004, DTI 2005, 
AFNOR 2009, AFNOR 2016) of the impacts of standardisation are limited by the challenges 
in isolating those impacts and a lack of data. A wide-ranging study on the EU-wide macro-
economic implications of the ESS would be needed to assess the overall effectiveness of the 
ESS with regard to its impact on European economic growth.  

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex  10:  Table  4:  Overview  of  the  findings  related  to  the  implementation  of  the 
Regulation, by article 

Articles of the 
Regulation (EU) 
No. 1025/2012 

Summary on the implementation 

Remarks and possible gaps in information 

Transparency of work programmes and standards 

National  work  programmes  are  drafted  according  to 
different practices, established by each NSB. Some of 
the work programmes provide the English translation 
of the titles of the standards and a short summary of 
their scope. Without language practices agreed at the 
ESO  level  the  ultimate  objective  of  transparency  of 
work programmes is not fully realised if stakeholder 
in other language areas are not able to understand the 
standardisation 
subject  matters  under  national 
process. 

to 

According 
the  Regulation  a  national  work 
programme  shall  only  contains  draft  national 
standards  which  are  not  identical  or  equivalent 
transpositions  with 
international  or  European 
standards. In many cases this is not respected making 
it very difficult to find subject matters under national 
standardisation process.  

 According  to  the  Regulation  the  Commission  shall 
make all work programmes available to the Member 
States  through  the  Committee  on  Standards.  The 
Commission does this information provision publicly 
by  publishing  all  notified  work  programmes  on  its 
website (the notification system). Only a few national 
work  programmes  are  listed  on  the  notification 
system  of  the  EC  indicating  that  some  NSBs  have 
not realised the direct applicability of Article 4(4) and 
the  fact  that  national  work  programme  needs  to  be 
notified by the NSBs to the Commission. 

to 

No  major  problems  are  reported 
the 
Commission  in  terms  of  implementation  of  this 
provision.  
More details on the actors requesting draft standards 
and/or  submitting  comments  could  provide  a  better 
understanding of the interest in standardisation topics 
and its evolution.  

According  to  work  programme  of  CEN  there  are  4 
standards  under  preparation  under  those  two  requests 
accepted by CEN (situation in October 2015). 

Art. 3 – 
Transparency of 
work programmes 
of standardisation 
bodies 

The  ESOs  publish  their  work  programmes  on 
the  website,  and  provide  for  online  databases 
for 
to  current  and  planned 
the  access 
standardisation work.  

At  NSB  levels,  an  increasing  number  of 
national bodies have provided the link to the 
national  work  programmes  between  2013 
and 2014. The lack of some work programmes 
could  be  due  to  the  lack  of  standardisation 
work at national level, or to the non-availability 
of  the  reports  at  the  time  of  submission  of  the 
ESOs reports to the Commission.  

Art. 4 – 
Transparency of 
standards 

European  and/or  national  draft  standards 
are  regularly  sent  by  the  ESOs  and  NSBs, 
upon  request.  Similarly,  comments  on  draft 
standards  received  are  generally  taken  into 
account in due time.  

Failures  in  sending  the  draft  standards  upon 
requests  and  delays  in  replying  to  comments 
are limited and usually due to the timing of the 
requests  and  the  nature  of  the  comments  (e.g. 
drafts  requested  when  not  yet  available; 
comments  replied  later  than  three  months  due 
to  the  scheduling  of  the  meetings  of  technical 
committees).  

Standardisation requests to ESOs 

Three  standardisation  requests  were  adopted 
in  2014  on  the  basis  of  Article  10  of  the 
Regulation  (see  Table  10),  and  all  of  them 
were  accepted  by  CEN.  Draft  standards  in 
relation 
under 
preparation. In 2014 the Commission notified 
12  draft  requests  under  preparation  in  the 
notification system.  

requests 

two 

are 

to 

During  2013, 

the 

first  year  of 

the 

Art. 10 – 
Standardisation 
requests to 
European 
standardisation 
organisations 

55 

 
 
 
Articles of the 
Regulation (EU) 
No. 1025/2012 

Summary on the implementation 

Remarks and possible gaps in information 

of 

the  Regulation, 

applicability 
the 
Commission  issued  16  other  requests  which 
were developed and consulted in 2012 on the 
basis consulting the 98/34 Committee. There 
requests are not considered here.  

 During  the  first  ten  months  of  2015,  eight 
standardisation  requests  have  been  adopted 
by  the  Commission  and  14  draft  request 
under  preparation  notified  in  the  notification 
system.  

Stakeholder participation at European and national levels 

Based  on  the  provisions  of  the  Regulation, 
four  organisations  have  been  selected  to 
represent  the  interests  of  SMEs,  consumers, 
environmental  and  societal  stakeholders  in 
European  standardisation 
(the  so  called 
Annex III organisations).  

Application of 
Art. 5 – 
Stakeholder 
participation in 
European 
standardisation 

III 

organisations 

The  Annex 
are 
represented at policy level in CEN, Cenelec 
and  in  ETSI  (until  2014,  only  SBS  and 
ANEC),  taking  part  in  non-technical  bodies 
such  as  the  General  Assemblies,  working 
groups, and task forces.  

Between 2013 and 2014, these organisations 
also  took  part  in  CEN,  Cenelec  and  ETSI 
technical  bodies 
technical 
committees  (TCs),  therefore  participating 
in  standardisation  activities  at  technical 
level  (according  to  the  rules  of  the  different 
ESOs and the related rights granted).52  

(TBs)  and 

Representation of 
SMEs, consumer 
organisations and 
environmental 
and social 
stakeholders in 
national 
standardisation 
bodies (from Art. 
24 §1 (b)) 

SMEs,  consumers,  environmental  interests 
and  societal  stakeholders  are  generally 
represented  in  NSBs  and  NSOs,  at  both 
policy and technical level.  

This figure has been increasing between 2013 
and  2014.  In  2014,  SMEs  were  represented, 
respectively,  in  86,8%  and  77,4%  of  the 
relevant  CEN  and  Cenelec  national  TBs. 
During  the  same year,  87.1%  of ETSI NBSs 
recorded  participation  of  SMEs  at  technical 
level.  

the 

the 

The  data  provided  by  the  ESO  reports  should  be 
coupled with a qualitative analysis, in order to better 
effective 
evolution  and 
appreciate 
involvement  of  the  Annex  III  organisations  at 
technical  level  (e.g.,  in  how  many  relevant  technical 
bodies they participate).  
The  consistency  of  information  provided  by  the  ESOs 
and  the  Annex  III  organisations  should  also  be 
improved, 
reporting 
requirements are missing). 
Some  of  the  Annex  III  organisations  had  a  specific 
partnership  relation  with  the  ESOs  already  before  the 
Regulation and they report that after entering into force 
of  the  Regulation  the  new  partnership  status  does  not 
always  improve  the  possibilities  to  access  effectively 
follow  the  standardisation  work,  e.g.  on  the  basis  of 
copyrights  CEN  and  Cenelec  provides  only  limited  or 
no access to draft standards developed by ISO and IEC.  

indicators/aligned 

(common 

the 

(TBs); 

Despite  the  increasing  trend,  data  suggests  that  SMEs 
are  largely,  but  not  fully,  represented  in  the  relevant 
other 
national  Technical  Boards 
stakeholders,  and  especially  environmental  and 
societal stakeholders, take part only in a small share 
of  national  TBs.  This  difference  can  be  due  to  the 
specific  interest  that  consumers,  environmental  and 
societal stakeholders have in standardisation.  
However,  low  levels  of  actual  participation  depend  on 
different factors (e.g., lack of interest, lack of resources, 
or inadequate information), 
In general terms, more information should be collected 
on  how  the  participation  of  these  stakeholders  groups 
happens  in  national  bodies,  at  technical  and  policy 
level, and the factors preventing participation.  

Representation of 
SMEs on the 
basis of the 
annual reports 

Many  NSBs  are  taking  actions  in  order  to 
allow  a  facilitated  access  of  SMEs  to  the 
standardisation  process,  to  standards  and 

The  analysis  of  the  integration  of  SMEs  in  the 
standardisation  process  at  national  level  should  also 
consider  the  different  models  of  the  NSBs,  which  can 
highly vary across countries, also affecting the ways of 

52 In particular, in CEN and Cenelec, Annex III organisations are entitled to participate as partner organisations 
in  TBs  and,  therefore,  they  can  take  part  in  some  stages  of  the  standard  development  process  (proposal  and 
acceptance of new work Items, technical discussion on proposals, submission of comments drafts, revision of 
existing  ENs  or  European  standardisation  deliverables,  dissemination  of  information  on  adopted  standards). 
SMEs,  consumers,  environmental  and  societal  stakeholders  can  then  participate  as  members  of  the  national 
delegations in TCs, and intervene in all the stages of the standardisation process (including the drafting process). 

In ETSI, SBS and ANEC are members and can participate in technical work and vote as the other members. 

56 

 
 
                                                            
Articles of the 
Regulation (EU) 
No. 1025/2012 

referred to in Art. 
6 (3) (from Art. 
24 §1 (c)) 

Summary on the implementation 

Remarks and possible gaps in information 

standardisation deliverables.  

Most of NSBs provide for the participation of 
SMEs  without  asking  them  to  be  members 
(on  average,  97%  of  NSBs,  in  2014),  and  in 
many  cases  special  rates  for  standards  or 
bundles of standards are offered (on average, 
61,8% of NSBs, in 2014).  

participation. Different practices at the national level as 
to  the  integration  of  SMEs  are  reported  in  the  annual 
reports of NSBs. 

Use of ICT in the standardisation system and cooperation between NSBs and ESOs 

During  past  years  the  three  ESOs  have 
invested  in  ICT  tools  and  adopted  several 
instruments supporting all the stages of the 
standards development process: 
  Collaboration between members 
  Facilitation  of  meetings 

(through 

virtual meetings) 

  Access to working documents through 

web-platform 
  Drafting work 
  Remote  consensus  building,  enabling 
the  submission  of  comments  and/or 
vote on European Standards 
to 
standardisation deliverables 

  Access 

standards 

and 

ESOs  and  NSBs  have  established  several 
mechanisms  for 
the  exchange  of  best 
practices  (guidelines,  meetings,  country 
visits).  Collaboration  also 
to 
activities  such  as  education  and  training 
and 
about 
research.  

standardisation, 

innovation 

relates 

The use of ICT in 
the standardisation 
system (from Art. 
24 §1 (d)) 

Cooperation 
between the 
national 
standardisation 
bodies and 
European 
standardisation 
organisations (from 
Art. 24 §1 (e)) 

NSBs  are  gradually  implementing  ICT  tools.  Among 
the  national  members,  while  data  and  document 
management systems, platforms for the management of 
experts  and  the  drafting  phase  are  generally  available, 
the  implementation  of  systems  for  online  commenting 
is more limited.  

No  information  is  available  concerning  reduction  of 
costs of the industry by using these tools. 

No  specific 
implementation of this provision. 

issue  were 

identified 

in 

terms  of 

Annex III organisations’ activities 

The  Annex  III  organisations  raised  several  concerns 
about their effective ability to access standardisation 
work.  

III 

have 

organisations 

The  Annex 
implemented several activities aimed at: 
  Training of experts 
  Experts doing technical work 
  Communication  activities  aimed  at 
raising  awareness  on  standardisation 
and the use of standards 

secretaries, 

to  be  registered 

The  issues  include:  insufficient  information  hindering 
the  identification  of  the  technical  bodies  (TBs)  where 
the  representation  of  stakeholders  interests  is  relevant 
(insufficient 
the  TB’s 
information  provided  by 
limited  number  of 
convenors  and 
representatives  permitted 
the 
electronic  platform  of  each  TB;  this  finding  indicates 
that  work  programmes  of  the  ESOs  do  not  always 
clearly  indicate  the  work  under  consideration  or  the 
work  programmes  are  not  updated  frequent  enough); 
difficult  access  to  the  relevant  technical  documents, 
such as draft standards, and relevant information, both 
at  ESOs  and  national  level  (e.g.,  cancellation  of 
meetings);  absence  of  a  dedicated  category  for  the 
Annex III organisations in any of the ESOs.  

in 

In  term  of  clarity  of  the  information,  the  reports  of 
Annex III organisations are quite heterogeneous.  

Activities related to 
Art. 16 (from Art. 
24 §2) – Financing 
of other European 
organisations by the 
Union 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex  11:  Table  5:  Number  and  percentage  of  NSBs/NSOs  providing  or  planning  to 
provide  online  public  commenting  and  online  access  to  draft  national  standards,  2013 
and 2014 

Number of NSBs/NSOs 

2013 

2014 

Percentage on total NSBs/NSOs in 
EU and EFTA countries 
2014 
2013 

Variation in the no. of 
online platforms between 
2013 and 2014 (%) 

- 

9 

9 

3 

18 

24 

14 

11 

9% 

35% 

29% 

45% 

77% 

+71% 

CEN NSBs 
Online platform currently in 
operation 
Planned online platform or 
under development 
Cenelec NSBs 
Online platform currently in 
operation 
Planned online platform or 
under development 
ETSI NSBs 
Online platform currently in 
operation 
Planned online platform or 
under development 
Source: CEN, Cenelec and ETSI report to the Commission, 2013 and 2014. 
Note: the percentage on total NSBs in EU and EFTA countries is calculated taking into account the following 
data:  
- Number of CEN related NSBs in EU and EFTA = 31.  
- Number of Cenelec related NSBs in EU and EFTA = 31.  
- Number. of ETSI related NSBs in EU and EFTA = 32. 

+64% 

+50% 

58% 

29% 

16% 

56% 

84% 

25% 

9% 

18 

27 

5 

8 

3 

- 

- 

Table 7: Representation of SMEs, consumers, environmental and social stakeholders in 
relevant CEN and Cenelec National Technical Bodies, 2013 and 2014 

Indicator 

CEN 

Cenelec 

2013 

2014 

2013 

2014 

Share of relevant National TBs 
with SMEs represented  

Share of relevant National TBs 
with consumers represented  

Share of relevant National TBs 
with environmental stakeholders 
represented 

Share of relevant National TBs 
with societal stakeholders 
represented 

84,8% 

86,8% 

80,4% 

81% 

48,21% 

46,6% 

62,59% 

53,9% 

23,11% 

20,6% 

20,42% 

15,6% 

47,85% 

55,7% 

63,53% 

65,69% 

Source: CEN, Cenelec report to the European Commission, 2013 and 2014. 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Table 8: Percentage of NSOs with TBs where SMEs, consumers, environmental and 
societal stakeholders are represented, 2013 and 2014 

Indicator 

National TBs includes SMEs representation 

National  TBs 
representation 

includes  Consumer  organisations 

ETSI 

2014 

87,1% 

51,6% 

2013 

68% 

22,5% 

National  TBs  includes  environmental  stakeholders 
representation 

38,7% 

61,3% 

National  TBs 
representation 

includes 

social 

stakeholders 

16,1% 

54,8% 

Source: ETSI report to the European Commission, 2013 and 2014. Total NSOs considered: 31.  

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 12:   List of ICT technical specifications eligible for referencing in public  

procurement 

No  ICT Technical Specification 

Developed by 

1 

Internet Protocol version 6 (‘IPv6’) 

Internet  Engineering  Task  Force 
(IETF53) 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Lightweight Directory Access Protocol version 
3 (‘LDAPv3’) 

Internet  Engineering  Task  Force 
(IETF) 

Domain  Name  System  Security  Extensions 
(‘DNSSEC’) 

Internet  Engineering  Task  Force 
(IETF) 

DomainKeys 
(‘DKIM’) 

Identified  Mail  Signatures 

Internet  Engineering  Task  Force 
(IETF) 

ECMAScript-402 
Specification (‘ECMA-402’) 

Internationalisation 

Ecma International54 

Extensible  Markup  Language  version  1.0 
(‘W3C XML’) 

World  Wide  Web  Consortium 
(W3C55) 

*** 

53 IETF c/o internet Society, 1775 Wiehle Avenue, Suite 201, Reston, VA USA (http://www.ietf.org/). 
54  Ecma  International,  Rue  du  Rhône  14,  CH-1204  Geneva,  Tel.  +41 228496000,  Fax  +41 228496001 
(http://www.ecma-international.org/). 
55  W3C,  2004  route  de  Lucioles,  Sophia-Antipolis,  Biot  06410,  Tel.  +33 492385076,  Fax  +33 492387822 
(http://www.w3.org/). 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Annex 13: Table 10: Adopted standardisation requests in 2014 and 2015 

Year 

Policy area 

Number adopted of 
standardisation requests 
according to Art 10(3) 

2014 

3 

2015 [by the end of October] 

Adopted requests 

ICT/DSM 

C(2014) 7912 final of 10.12.2014 on e-
Invoicing  (M/528) 

Internal Market 

C(2014) 5058 final of 22.7.2014 on 
certain seats for children (M/527) 

Energy Union 

C(2014) 3451 final of 28.5.2014  on the 
EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate 
Change (M/526) 

Source:  Database of mandates and Notification system57. 

8 

C(2015) 5376 final of 4.8.2015 on radio 
equipment (M/536) 
C(2015) 102 final of 20.1.2015 on 
privacy and personal data protection in 
support of Union’s security industrial 
policy (M/530) 

C(2015) 1385 of 5.3.2015 M/532 on 
methods for quantitative analysis of  
textile products (M/532) 
C(2015) 557 of 5.2.2015 on consumer 
laser products (M/531) 

C(2015) 2625 final of 27.4.2015 on 
ecodesign and energy labelling of water 
heaters, hot water storage tanks and 
packages of water heater and solar 
device ( M/534) 
C(2015) 2626 final of 27.4.2015 on 
ecodesign and energy labelling space 
heaters, combination heaters, packages 
of space heaters, temperature control 
and solar device and packages of 
combination heater, temperature control 
and solar device  (M/535) 
C(2014) 10238 final of 7.1.2015 on 
ecodesign requirements on material 
efficiency aspects (M/529)56 
C(2015) 1330 of 12.3.2015 on 
alternative fuels infrastructure (M/533) 

56 The mandate was rejected by CEN and Cenelec. No answer was received from ETSI.  
57 Database of mandates: 
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/mandates/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.welcome 
Notification system: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/european-standards/notification-
system/index_en.htm 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Annex 14: Table 11: Notified draft requests in 2014 and 2015 

Year 

Policy area 

Number of notified draft 
standardisation requests 
according to Art 12 (b) 

ICT/DSM 

Internal Market 

Energy Union 

2014 

12 

2015 [by the end of October] 

Notified drafts 

14 

Draft request on radio equipment 
Draft request  on privacy and personal 
data protection in support of Union’s 
security industrial policy 
Draft request on e-Invoicing 

Draft request on certain seats for 
children 
Draft request on consumer laser 
products 
Draft request on methods for 
quantitative analysis of  textile products 
Draft request on machinery used in the 
drilling and well intervention operations 
in the offshore oil and gas industry 

Draft request on alternative fuels 
infrastructure 
Draft request on ecodesign of ventilation 
units 
Draft request on ecodesign of material 
efficiency aspects 
Draft request on ecodesign and energy 
labelling of water heaters, hot water 
storage tanks and packages of water 
heater and solar device 
Draft request on ecodesign and energy 
labelling space heaters, combination 
heaters, packages of space heaters, 
temperature control and solar device and 
packages of combination heater, 
temperature control and solar device 

Draft request  on Intelligent Transport 
Systems (ITS) in urban areas 

Draft request  on  electromagnetic 
compatibility 
Draft request  on  measuring instruments 
Draft request  on  recreational craft and 
personal watercraft 
Draft request  on smart textiles 
Draft request  on alcohol-powered 
flueless fireplaces 

Draft request on algae and algae-based 
products or intermediates 
Draft request on ecodesign of computers 
and computer servers 
Draft request concerning off electric 
power consumption of electrical and 
electronic household and office 
equipment 
Draft request ecodesign on non-
household washing machines, dryers 
and dishwashers 
Draft request ecodesign and energy 
labelling of vacuum cleaners 
Draft request on ecodesign of material 
efficiency aspects (revised reguest) 
Draft request on ecodesign and energy 
labelling of local space heaters 
Draft request on ecodesign and energy 
labelling of solid fuel boilers 

Source:  Database of mandates and Notification system58. 

58 Database of mandates: 
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/mandates/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.welcome 
Notification system: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/european-standards/notification-
system/index_en.htm 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
The following annexes are available from the relevant DG GROWTH website at this link. 

Annex 15: 
System, Ernst&Young 2015 

Final  Report  of  Independent  Review  of  the  European  Standardisation 

Annex 16: 
Standardisation System, Ernst&Young 2015 

Final  Report  -  Annexes  of  Independent  Review  of  the  European 

Annex 17:  COM(2015)198  final  REPORT  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO  THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Article 25 Report to the European 
Parliament and the Council on the impact of the procedures established by Article 10 of 
Regulation  (EU)  No  1025/2012  on  European  standardisation  on  the  timeframe  for 
issuing standardisation requests 

Annex 18: 
(Article 24)  

Study  on  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  No  1025/2012 

Annex 19:  Report on the Friends of Standardisation Roundtable of 1st July 2015 

Annex 20:  Analysis of the results of the Online Survey of the Independent Review of 
the  

European standardisation system 

Annex  21:    SWD(2015)205  final  of  27  October  2015,  Vademecum  on  European 
Standardisation in support of Union Legislation and policies.   

PART  I  Role  of  the  Commission's  Standardisation  requests  to  the  European 
standardisation organisations;  

PART  II  Preparation  and  adoption  of  the  Commission’s  standardisation  requests  to 
the European standardisation;  

PART III Guidelines for the execution of standardisation requests 

63