European standardisation panel survey : final report.
Date: 2024-03-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Subjects: EU initiative, EU research policy, European industrial area, Framework Programme for Research and Development, environmental standard, higher education, innovation, knowledge management, quality standard, report, research budget, research programme, sample survey, value chain

European Standardisation 
Panel Survey 

Final report 

Independent 
Expert 
Report 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Standardisation Panel Survey  
European Commission 
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 
Directorate E 
Prosperity Unit E.2 – Valorisation Policies and IPR 
Contact  Gergely Tardos 
Email 

Gergely.Tardos@ec.europa.eu 
RTD-PUBLICATIONS@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

Manuscript completed in January, 2024 

This  document  has  been  prepared  for  the  European  Commission,  however  it  reflects  the  views  only  of  the 
authors, and the European Commission shall not be liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse. 

PDF  

ISBN 978-92-68-12065-1  

doi:10.2777/643814 

KI-02-24-131-EN-N 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2024 

© European Union, 2024 

The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented by Commission Decision 2011/833/EU 
of  12  December  2011  on  the  reuse  of  Commission  documents  (OJ  L  330,  14.12.2011,  p.  39).  Unless 
otherwise  noted,  the  reuse  of  this  document  is  authorised  under  a  Creative  Commons  Attribution  4.0 
International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is 
allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. 
For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to 
be  sought  directly  from  the  respective  rightholders.  The  European  Union  does  not  own  the  copyright  in 
relation to the following elements: 
Image credits for the cover page and throughout: © skypicsstudio # 286372753 © MicroOne # 288703015 
© creativeteam # 323412491 © Viktoriia # 345410470 © Yurii # 372950117, 2022. Source: 
Stock.Adobe.com.  

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

European Standardisation 
Panel Survey 

Knut Blind, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research and 
Technische Universität Berlin 

Luzie Kromer, Technische Universität Berlin 

Peter Neuhäusler, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research 

Daniele Rosenberg, Technische Universität Berlin 

Torben Schubert, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research 

Edited by: Federica Baldan and Gergely Tardos, Directorate-General for Research 
and Innovation, European Commission 

2024 

               Prosperity Directorate 

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of contents 
ABREVIATIONS .................................................................................. 3 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................... 4 

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 9 

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................... 10 

2.1. Benefits of standards and standardisation for research and 

innovation ............................................................................................... 11 

2.2. Importance of standardisation for knowledge and technology 

transfer .................................................................................................... 13 

2.3. Overview of drivers and barriers to standardisation ......................... 15 

3. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SURVEY ........................................... 18 

4. SURVEY RESULTS ......................................................................... 19 

4.1. Characteristics of the sample ............................................................. 19 

4.2. Importance of standards ..................................................................... 23 

4.3. Research and innovation activities .................................................... 25 

4.4. Role of research for standardisation .................................................. 27 

4.5. Organisations’ engagement in standardisation ................................. 37 

4.6. Summary of the survey results ........................................................... 43 

5. RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 44 

5.1. Recommendations addressing industry ............................................ 45 

5.2. Recommendations addressing higher education institutes and 

public research organisations ............................................................... 45 

5.3. Recommendations addressing standard development 

organisations .......................................................................................... 46 

5.4. Recommendations addressing research funding organisations ..... 47 

5.5. Recommendations for other areas of innovation policy ................... 48 

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................. 50 

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................. 51 

ANNEX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE EUROPEAN 
STANDARDISATION PANEL SURVEY ............................................. 56 

2 

 
ABREVIATIONS 

CEN 

EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDISATION 

CENELEC 

European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation 

DIN 

ESPS 

ETSI 

EU 

FP 

Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. 

European Standardisation Panel Survey 

European Telecommunications Standards Institute 

European Union 

Framework Programme 

GSPS 

German Standardisation Panel Survey 

HEI 

ICT 

IEC 

IPR 

ISO 

IT 

ITU 

OECD 

NGO 

PRO 

R & D 

R & I 

SDG 

SDO 

higher education institute 

information and communications technology 

International Electrotechnical Commission 

intellectual property right 

International Organisation for Standardization 

information technology 

International Telecommunication Union 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 

non-governmental organisation 

public research organisation 

research and development 

research and Innovation 

Sustainable Development Goal 

standard development organisation 

SMES 

small and medium-sized enterprises 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This  pilot  project  aimed  to  develop  and  implement  a  European  Standardisation  Panel 
Survey  (ESPS),  that  is,  to  collect  data  on  the  standardisation  activities  and  needs  of  EU 
organisations  in  general  and  related  to  R & I-based  standardisation  and  standards  in 
particular. The analysis of this data contributed to: 

• 

identify  the  demand  from  industry  and  other  stakeholders  for  standards  as  potential 
results of R & I projects; 

•  assess  how  the  EU  R & I  framework  programmes  could  tackle  the  standardisation 

needs of industry; 

• 

raise  awareness  of  the  importance  of  standardisation  as  a  knowledge  valorisation 
channel for industry. 

The insights from this analysis form the basis for developing strategies for the involvement 
of  R & I-performing  actors  in  European  and  international  standardisation,  reflecting  in 
particular  the  industry  demand  to  eventually  generate  standards  to  match  the  supply  of 
R & I-based standards.  

The final report is structured as follows: 

•  Chapter 2 provides a review of the relevant literature; 

•  Chapter 3 describes how the survey was implemented; 

•  Chapter 4 displays the results of the survey; 

•  Chapter 5  presents 

the  survey.  These 
recommendations  derived 
recommendations  take  into  account  the  literature  review  and  the  discussion  that  took 
place in the final workshop.  

from 

the 

The survey 

The  survey  questionnaire  was  developed  on  the  basis  of  the  insights  gained  from  the 
literature,  the  experience  of  the  German  Standardisation  Panel  Survey,  and  the  feedback 
from  the  European  Commission,  industry  experts  and  the  presidential  committee  of  the 
European  Committee  for  Standardization  (CEN)  and  the  European  Committee  for 
Electrotechnical Standardization (Cenelec) – jointly known as CEN-Cenelec. Based on the 
answers  of  more  than  3 700  respondents,  we  provide  some  insights  from  the  answers  to 
the main questions of the ESPS and derive recommendations. 

Sample characteristics 

The  large  majority  of  the  respondents  work  for  industry,  mainly  mechanical  and  electrical 
engineering  companies.  However,  other  stakeholders,  such  as  experts  from  non-
governmental  organisations,  higher  education 
research 
organisations (PROs) and the public sector, also answered the questionnaire. Overall, we 
achieved  a  balance  between  large  organisations  with  over  250  employees  and  small 

(HEIs),  public 

institutes 

4 

 
organisations, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). More than 80 % of 
the experts are male, and more than 60 % are aged over 50. 

General relevance of standards 

Formal  European  standards  followed  by  international  standards  were  found  to  be  most 
important.  However,  European 
technical  specifications,  such  as  CEN  workshop 
agreements,  and  national  standards  have  almost  the  same  relevance.  For  respondents, 
formal standards are most relevant for legal security, but they also facilitate market access 
or  achieve  technical  interoperability,  for  which  technical  specifications  are  almost  equally 
relevant. Internal company standards are essential for firms to improve quality. Other types 
of standards are of limited relevance. 

Research and development collaboration partners 

More than half of the responding organisations perform research and development (R & D) 
and  have  introduced  product  or  process  innovations.  Collaborations  with  PROs  and 
informal  contacts,  common 
universities  are  relevant.  After 
standardisation activities are rated as the most effective form of cooperation with scientific 
institutions for knowledge transfer. 

further  education  and 

Research as input into standardisation 

Policy  initiatives,  including  regulations  and  customers’  requirements,  particularly  for 
industry,  as  well  as  organisations’  own  and  collaborative  research,  are  the  most  relevant 
sources for standard development. Research input is most important for measurement and 
testing  standards,  followed  by  quality  and  environmental  standards.  The  most  significant 
advantage  of  research  as input  for  standardisation  is  free  access  to  scientific  content  and 
the  ability  to  keep  track  of  scientific  progress.  Challenges  include  the  lack  of  validation  of 
research results, but the need for R & D staff to have expertise in standardisation is also a 
into 
problem.  However,  overall, 
standardisation are much greater than the disadvantages. 

the  advantages  of 

integrating 

research 

results 

Approaches to the integration of research in standardisation 

There are various approaches to improving the integration of research results as input for 
standard  development.  Increasing  knowledge  by  HEIs  and  PROs  was  found  to  be  most 
effective,  followed  by  more  companies’  involvement  in  publicly  funded  research  projects, 
particularly  SMEs.  However,  funding  standardisation  as  a  means  of  exploiting  research 
results seems also to work. Lastly, including research into standards, which are the basis of 
innovation,  fosters  the  primary  function  of  standards,  such  as  facilitating  market  access, 
strengthening  consumer  confidence  in  innovative  products,  wider  use  of  recognised 
methods and better documentation of R & D results. 

Organisations’ engagement in standardisation 

The  most  critical  needs  to  increase  organisations’  engagement  in  standardisation  are 
related  to  a  lack  of  awareness  of  the  benefits  of  standardisation,  particularly  the  financial 
returns. Involvement in standardisation processes requires adequate resources and a time 
commitment.  More  specifically,  financial  facilitation,  such  as  tax  reductions  for  companies 
active  in  standardisation  or  public  funding  for  companies’  projects,  were  mentioned  very 
often.  In  addition,  there  is  a  need –  also  supported  by  SDOs –  to  make  companies  more 
aware  of  the  benefits  that  standardisation  brings  so  that  they  change  their  internal 

5 

 
structures  to  foster  employee  engagement  in  standardisation,  which  is  also  required  for 
HEIs and PROs. 

Furthermore,  there  is  a  need  for  clearer,  more  realistic,  more  understandable  and  more 
accessible information on standardisation. In addition, there is room for improvement in the 
work  of  SDOs,  particularly  the  diversity  of  committee  composition  and  the  speed  of 
processes. Lastly, a reduction of membership fees for those participating in standardisation 
committees is mentioned. 

Companies’  competitiveness  can  be  strengthened  if  their  participation  in  standardisation 
brings benefits, for example by lowering costs, but also facilitates market entry or increases 
consumer  confidence.  Furthermore,  training  for  personnel  developing  standards  and  the 
provision  of  consultancy  by  SDOs  are  mentioned  as  helpful.  Since  standards  are  often 
closely  linked  to  the  regulatory  framework  in  the  EU,  they  should  be  well  aligned  with 
governmental regulations to foster companies’ competitiveness. 

Related  to  the  need  for  companies  to  foster  closer  cooperation  with  research  in 
standardisation,  better  coordination  between  SDOs,  research  institutions  and  industry  is 
required, which could be enhanced by networks that need to be created.  HEIs and  PROs 
need  to  increase  their  standardisation-related  knowledge,  capacity  and  incentives. 
However,  the  capability  to  get  effectively  involved  in  standardisation  must  also  be 
strengthened within companies. Furthermore, communication capacity is needed to support 
and  exploit  opportunities  for  interdisciplinary  collaboration  to  develop  comprehensive  and 
easily  implementable  standards.  Here,  project-based  funding  for  collaborative  research 
related  to  standardisation  and  the  inclusion  of  standardisation  as  a  work  package  in 
research  projects  are  suggested.  These  approaches  would  also  improve  the  practical 
applicability  and  the  market  orientation  of  research  results.  Lastly,  education  and 
continuous internal training are needed to cooperate with research organisations effectively. 

The  following  policy  recommendations  are  derived  from  the  survey  responses  and  the 
discussions at the online workshop. 

Recommendations addressing industry 
Raising awareness 
It  is  recommended  that  awareness  within  companies  of  the  benefits  of  participating  in 
standardisation in general and of its coordination with research is increased. 

Resources for standardisation contributing to shaping regulatory frameworks 
It  is  recommended  that  adequate  resources  for  standardisation  activities  are  provided  to 
exploit  the  opportunities  offered  by  research  but  also  to  direct  future  regulatory 
developments. 

Specific focus on small and medium-sized enterprises 
It  is  recommended  that  research-active  SMEs  join  standardisation  efforts,  because  they 
benefit from research-driven standardisation, for example by keeping track of scientific and 
technical  progress  and  using  their  research  results  to  develop  innovative  products, 
including improving their quality. Furthermore, standards can prevent proprietary dominant 
designs from hampering SMEs’ market entry. 

Recommendations  addressing  higher  education  institutes  and  public  research 
organisations 
Raising awareness 
It is recommended that awareness about the relevance of standardisation is increased, for 
example for organisations performing their own research. 

6 

 
 
 
 
Resources for standardisation 
It  is  recommended  that  adequate  funding  is  provided  for  involvement  in  standardisation 
activities. 

Performance indicators 
It  is  recommended  that  performance  indicators  for  standard  development,  similar  to those 
for scientific publications and patents, are developed and established. 

is  recommended 

Education about standardisation 
It 
training  activities  on 
standardisation, particularly engaging female students to address the gender imbalance in 
the domain of standardisation. 

their  education  and 

that  HEIs  expand 

Recommendations addressing standard development organisations 
Standardisation processes 
It  is  recommended  that  the  agility  of  standardisation  processes  is  increased  to  allow  the 
timely release of standards. 

Service portfolio 
It  is  recommended  that  the  service  portfolios  for  R & I  actors  are  expanded  and  that  new 
ways  are  examined  to  align  their  activities  with  R & I,  which  would  be  particularly 
appreciated by smaller research organisations. 

Awareness of products 
It  is  recommended  that  the  limited  awareness  of  workshop  agreements  is  increased,  as 
their impact was found to be similar to that of standards. 

Open source software and hardware 
It  is  recommended  that  open-source  software  and  hardware  is  considered  explicitly  within 
policies  on  intellectual  property  rights,  but  also  closer  collaboration  with  open  source 
communities  to  speed  up  the  processes,  including  increasing  the  agility  of  standard 
development, and include research-performing SMEs. 

Monitoring implementation of standards 
It is recommended that the implementation of standards-based certification is monitored to 
collect feedback to be considered in revising or withdrawing existing standards to maintain 
an up-to-date stock of standards that enhance firms’ competitiveness. 

Recommendations addressing research funding organisations 
Funding at the EU level 
It is recommended that new funding schemes are established, for example dedicated calls 
focusing on standardisation, or that the financial support for standardisation as a means of 
knowledge  valorisation  is  continued  and  expanded  through  the  uptake  of  research  results 
generated within framework programmes. 

Funding at the Member State level 
It  is  recommended  that  existing  funding  programmes  to  align  with  national  research 
programmes  are  continued  or  expanded  and  that  Member  States  without  similar  funding 
programmes establish such schemes. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Higher education institutes and public research organisations 
It  is  recommended  that  HEIs  and  PROs  are  explicitly  considered  in  the  public  funding 
schemes 
their 
representation in standardisation activities. 

their  knowledge  about  standardisation  and 

increase 

improve 

to 

Smaller organisations 
It is recommended that smaller organisations, particularly SMEs, are considered in support 
programmes  on  standardisation  because  of  their  greater  need  for  support  from  SDOs  in 
integrating research results into standardisation. 

Recommendations for other areas of innovation policy 
Including standardisation in the definition of research and development and innovation 
It is recommended that the comprehensive integration of standardisation is discussed in the 
upcoming  revisions  of  the  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-operation  and  Development 
Frascati  and  the  Oslo  manuals  to  allow  the  development  of  indicators  and  evaluation 
systems. 

Research tax credit 
It  is  recommended  that  Member  States  with  a  research  tax  credit  system  expand  the  tax 
base to expenditure arising from participation in standardisation, in particular for the benefit 
SMEs.  Furthermore,  SMEs  do  not  benefit  in  the  same  way  as  large  organisations  from 
public research funding programmes. 

Research and innovation funding programmes 
It  is  suggested  that  standardisation  is  considered  in  further  R & I-related  support 
programmes targeting SMEs. 

Regulation 
It  is  recommended  that  ex  ante  regulatory  impact  assessments  screen  the  existing 
standards  landscape  and  use  the  existing  scientific  evidence  base  to  avoid  potential 
duplication contradiction. 

Public procurement 
It  is  recommended  that  research-based  standards  are  considered  in  updating  the  public 
procurement directive and the relevant EU funding programmes. 

Considering that the R&I ecosystem involves a variety of stakeholders, governance levels, 
strategies  and  policy  areas,  the  effective  implementation  of  the  above-mentioned 
recommendations  lies  in  the  close  collaboration  among  various  actors  and  alignment  of 
instruments across multiple levels. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

This  report  is  the  final  report  of  the  project  ‘European  Standardisation  Panel  Survey’, 
undertaken 
for  Research  and 
Innovation. 

the  European  Commission  Directorate-General 

for 

The  objectives  of  this  pilot  project  were  to  develop  and  implement  the  European 
Standardisation  Panel  Survey  (ESPS),  that  is,  to  collect  data  on  the  standardisation 
activities  and  needs  of  EU  companies  in  general,  and  those  related  to  research  and 
innovation  (R & I)  standardisation  and  standards  in  particular,  to  generate  empirical 
evidence for analyses to: 

•  help  identify  industry’s  and  other  stakeholders’  demand  for  standards  as  potential 

results of R & I projects; 

•  contribute  to  an  assessment  of  how  EU  R & I  framework  programmes  tackle  the 

standardisation needs of the industry; 

• 

raise  awareness  of  the  importance  of  standardisation  in  general  and  its  interface  with 
R & I for industry. 

These  insights  form  the  basis  for  developing  strategies  for  the  involvement  of  R & I-
performing actors in European and international standardisation, reflecting, in particular, the 
industry  demand  to  eventually  generate  standards  to  match  the  supply  of  R&I-based 
standards.  Therefore,  it  is  essential  to  increase  understanding  of  the  challenges  of  and 
obstacles  to  integrating  R & I  results  in  standardisation  processes,  considering  the  future 
implementation of standards. Lastly, more insights are needed into the complex effects of 
standardisation and standards on entrepreneurial and commercial success. 

Comprehensive proposals have to be developed to increase the involvement of R & I actors 
in European and international standardisation in general, particularly with a special focus on 
the  potential  role  of  R & I  results.  They  must  address  the  various  stakeholders,  namely 
industry,  research  organisations,  standardisation  bodies  and  policymakers.  Furthermore, 
the various policy areas beyond research policy must be considered, for example regulation 
of  formulating  mandates  from  the  European  Commission  addressing  the  European 
standardisation  organisations.  Undertaking  the  European  Standardisation  Panel  Survey 
(ESPS)  represents  a  significant  challenge  because  such  an  attempt  has  not  been  made 
before. Furthermore, the study has the character of a pilot. Therefore, it has to reveal both 
the options that exist and which limitations must be considered. Lastly, the available budget 
and  the  limited  time  frame mean  exploiting  previous  experiences  and  available  synergies. 
Against 
following 
methodological approach for designing and implementing the ESPS. 

the  study’s  objectives,  we  proposed 

this  background  and 

the 

Since  the  ESPS  should  generate  a  sound  database  that  would  allow  analyses  to  identify 
the  industry  demand  for  standards  as  outputs  of  R & I  projects,  we  focused  on  a  pilot 
survey of those organisations already active in standard development because they either 
have  already  gained  experience  of  the  role  of  R & I  findings  as  input  for  standardisation 
processes  or  can  assess 
in 
standardisation. Confronting organisations without experience of this specific topic would be 
neither  effective  nor  efficient  because  they  are  probably  neither  willing  to  nor  capable  of 
responding correctly and extensively to such a survey. 

relevance  based  on 

involvement 

their  past 

their 

9 

 
Therefore,  we  relied  on  the  experience  gained  since  2012  from  the  undertaking  of  the 
German  Standardisation  Panel  Survey  (GSPS).  In  that  survey,  more  than  30 000  experts 
involved  in  the  technical  committees  and  working  groups  of  the  German  Institute  for 
Standardization,  DIN,  are  approached  once  a  year  and  asked  about  their  activities  in 
standardisation and their use of standards and a specific topic such as trade issues with the 
United  States  and  China,  as  in  recent  issues,  or  the  role  of  the  Sustainable  Development 
Goals (SDGs) in general or specifically on climate change (SDG 13) or affordable and clean 
energy  (SDG 7)  in  their  activities.  A  response  rate  of  up  to  10 %  generated  a  database 
representative  of  German  organisations  active  in  standardisation  at  DIN,  based  on 
validation checks with the universe of all active organisations to identify sector or size bias. 

For  undertaking  the  ESPS,  the  member  countries  of  the  European  Committee  for 
Standardization  (CEN)  and  the  European  Committee  for  Electrotechnical  Standardization 
(Cenelec) –  jointly  known  as  CEN-Cenelec –  and  the  European  Telecommunications 
Standards Institute (ETSI) supported the distribution of the survey among companies in the 
EU and the other European countries covered by CEN-Cenelec. ETSI has also committed 
to sending the ESPS questionnaire to its members. In addition to the English version of the 
questionnaire, versions in French, German, Italian and Spanish have been provided. 

The experts and organisations were asked for their current and future needs for standards 
resulting  from  R & I  projects  in  general  and  those  funded  within  the  EU  R & I  framework 
programmes  in  particular.  In  addition  to  a set  of closed questions,  we  allowed  answers  to 
open  questions,  collecting  ideas  for  challenging  questions  about  the  standardisation 
landscape without providing specific solutions. The survey questions were drafted to allow 
the  development  of  strategies  for  the  involvement  of  R & I  actors  in  European  and 
international  standardisation  activities  related  to  the  R & I-based  standards  demanded  by 
industry.  In  particular,  the  questions  were  drafted  to  help  us  understand  drivers  of  and 
obstacles  to  integrating  R & I  results  in  standardisation  processes  and  implementing  the 
resulting  standards  and  the  impacts  of  standardisation  and  standards  on  organisations’ 
performance. 

The report is structured as follows: 

•  Chapter 2 provides a review of the relevant literature; 

•  Chapter 3 described how the survey was implemented; 

•  Chapter 4 displays the results of the survey; 

•  Chapter 5  presents  the  recommendations  derived  from  the  survey,  considering  the 

insights gained from the literature and the discussions at the workshop. 

2.  LITERATURE REVIEW 

Within the analysis of the literature, scientific publications in the field of standardisation with 
a  link  to  R & I  were  systematically  screened  and  evaluated.  Suggestions  made  at  the 
inception  meeting  were  integrated  into  an  update  of  the  literature  review  and  new 
publications screened until December 2023. 

10 

 
 
In the first step, the extensive literature collections in Hermann et al. (2020), Blind (2022), 
and  Blind  et  al.  (2023)  were  checked  for  publications  relevant  to  the  study  as  was  the 
scoping  study  for  the  code  of  practice  on  standardisation  (European  Commission  et  al., 
2022).  The  analysis  of  these  papers  revealed  that  previous  work  has  been  focused  on 
Europe and the United States. This focus is explicitly laid out by Baron and Spulber (2018), 
looking at different SDOs, which have – in addition to the international bodies –their origin 
in  either  the  United  States  or  Europe.  However,  their  review  summarises  SDOs  with  a 
strong  focus  on  information and  communication  technologies.  Recently,  studies  have  also 
investigated the situation in China. Other countries are rarely addressed. 

Based  on  these  findings,  first,  the  state  of  the  literature  on  the  importance  of 
standardisation  for  knowledge  and  technology  transfer  was  summarised.  Second,  an 
overview  of  the  drivers  of  and  obstacles  to  standardisation  in  companies  and  research 
organisations  was  compiled.  Then,  a  few  studies  on  the  role  of  standards  for  R & I  were 
identified and summarised. The results of the literature analysis are presented below. 

First, we start with a brief section about the general functions and benefits of standards and 
standardisation  for  R & I.  Standards  are  commonly  agreed  reference  documents  that  help 
to bring order to the world, officially defined as documents ‘established by consensus and 
approved  by  a  recognised  body  that  provides  common  and  repeated  use,  the  rules, 
guidelines  or  characteristics  for  activities  or  their  results,  aimed  at  achieving  the  optimum 
degree of order in a given context’ (1). Formal technical documents usually define criteria, 
methods,  processes  and  practices.  Most  standards  have  been  around  for  some  time,  but 
many  new  standards  have  been  developed  in  the  last  few  years.  In  addition,  existing 
standards have to be revised and updated to ensure that they remain fit for purpose as new 
materials,  technologies,  products  and  processes  become  available.  External  factors  can 
also  prompt  new  standards,  such  as  an  increased  need  to  protect  the  environment  or  to 
address concerns on the part of consumers or public bodies about products or services. 

2.1. Benefits of standards and standardisation for research and 
innovation 

Standards can support R & I (2). Moreover, they promote the adoption of new technologies 
in several ways. Importantly, they can codify and spread state-of-the-art research in various 
areas  and  bridge  the  gap  between  research  and  end  products  or  services.  When 
knowledge  of  innovations  is  codified  in  standards,  it  is  accessible  to  everybody,  so  firms, 
universities and research organisations can use it to perform research, generate new ideas 
and adopt innovations. 

Moreover, standards are commonly used as inputs to research but can also be an output of 
research  activities.  Multiple studies  have  explored  the  role  of  standards  in  supporting  and 
driving R & I (see, for example, Blind and Gauch, 2009; Technopolis, 2013; Optimat, 2015; 
Hermann  et  al.,  2020;  European  Commission  et  al.,  2022),  and  these  have  identified 
various benefits flowing from the integration of standardisation within research. 

Significantly, standards improve the research process by providing common terminologies, 
harmonised  methodologies  and  comparability  between  research  activities.  They  can  also 
enhance  the  marketability  of  R & I  results.  Standards  also  contribute  to  bridging  the  gap 
between research and the market by: 

ISO/IEC Guide 2: 2004. 

(1) 
(2)  See, for example, the recent reviews by Blind (2022) and Blind et al. (2023). 

11 

 
 
• 

fostering dissemination and long-term exploitation of research results; 

•  accelerating access to the European market for new products, methods and services; 

• 

facilitating networking between stakeholders in the R & I system 

In a study for CEN-Cenelec on the role of standardisation in research projects funded within 
various  framework  programmes  (FPs),  project  coordinators  indicated  that  using  standards 
as  inputs –  the  most  common  way  by  which  framework  programme  projects  use 
standards –  was  of  significant  importance  to  the  overall  success  of  their  research 
(Technopolis,  2013),  which  has  been  confirmed  by  a 
follow-up  study  (European 
Commission  et  al.,  2022).  Standards  were  found  to  improve  the  research  activities 
(improved  understanding  of  the  state  of  the  art,  efficiency  of  project  activities,  quality  of 
outputs),  as  well  as  helping  to  ensure  that  project  activities  and  outputs  would  be 
applicable,  interoperable  and  widely  accepted.  In  projects  that  proposed  new  or  revised 
standards  and/or  contributed  to  their  development,  the  studies  found  that  the  benefits 
included  improved  dissemination  of  results  and  increased  opportunities  to  network  and 
access complementary expertise. 

Despite these findings, standardisation is addressed in only a subset of research projects. 
For  example,  according  to  Technopolis  (2013),  less  than  10 %  of  all  FP6/7  projects 
indicated their intention to work with standards or otherwise address standardisation in their 
research  at  the  proposal  stage.  Similarly,  the  study  estimated  that  only  10 %  of  FP6/7 
projects eventually proposed or contributed to developing new or revised standards. 

For  activities  linked  to  standardisation,  CEN-Cenelec  members  are  generally  eligible  to 
participate  directly  in  framework  programme  projects.  Their  role  might  be  to  help  project 
partners contribute to developing standards in a particular field. This might involve giving an 
overview  of  existing  standardisation  documents,  providing  access  to  them  or  advising  on 
how  existing  standards could  be  further  developed.  In  addition,  they  may identify  relevant 
technical  committees  (or  similar)  in  the  CEN-Cenelec  or  International  Organization  for 
Standardization  (ISO) /  International  Electrotechnical  Commission  (IEC)  systems  and 
support  researchers’  participation  in  them.  CEN-Cenelec  members  can  also  participate 
indirectly  in  framework  programme  projects  as  members  of  project  advisory  boards  or  as 
subcontractors 
tasks.  The  projects  with  CEN-Cenelec 
involvement  often  also  produce  standardisation  documents  (e.g.  European  standards  or 
technical  specifications).  However,  most  R & I  projects  are  carried  out  without  the 
participation of CEN or Cenelec members. While at least 2 000 R & I projects funded under 
Horizon  2020  mention  standardisation,  CEN-Cenelec  members  have  been  directly  or 
indirectly  involved  in  less  than  5 %  of  them  (approximately  100  projects  across  FP7  and 
Horizon 2020. 

for  specific  standardisation 

Despite  the  evidence  for  the  role  of  standardisation  in  creating  marketable  products  and 
solutions,  researchers  and  innovators  often  consider  that  standardisation  is  still  not  a 
priority  (Blind  et  al.,  2018,  2022a,  2022b).  Factors  include  a  lack  of  awareness  of 
standardisation’s  benefits,  insufficient  resources  allocated  to  standardisation  activities  and 
insufficient reward for the time spent on standardisation activities (Blind and Gauch, 2009). 
The lack of visibility and recognition given to researchers engaged in standardisation does 
not  encourage  them  to  be  more  active  in  these  activities.  They  do  not  always  include 
standardisation  activities  in  their  initial  work  plan,  and  they  identify  the  need  for 
standardisation only at the end of the project when the research project delivers exploitable 
results  (Technopolis,  2013).  The  lack  of  strategic  thinking  on  standardisation  too  often 

12 

 
results  in  limited  resources  and  time  being  given  to  addressing  these  needs  during  the 
lifetime of R & I projects. 

2.2. Importance of standardisation for knowledge and technology 
transfer 

Knowledge  and  technology  transfer  is  generally  described  as  the  transfer  of  know-how, 
technical  knowledge  or  technology  from  one  organisational  environment  to  another,  with 
many  variations  depending  on  the  research  discipline  and  purpose  (Bozeman,  2000). 
Knowledge  and  technology  transfer  typically  occurs  between  universities,  research 
institutions and companies – but also within companies. However, standardisation has only 
recently  been  considered  an  option  for  university–industry  relations  (Perkmann  et  al., 
2021). In contrast, a decade ago, it was still ignored (Perkmann et al., 2013.), although the 
first  studies  funded  within  EU  framework  programmes  were  published  15  years  ago  (e.g. 
Blind and Gauch, 2009). 

Generally,  companies  consider  the  patenting  of  new  technological  developments  before 
engaging  in  standardisation  (e.g.  Abdelkafi  et  al.,  2016).  Großmann  et  al.  (2016) 
investigated the link between the product development process and standardisation in three 
companies  (two  automotive  manufacturers  and  one  automotive  supplier).  Although  they 
consider  this  integration  relevant,  the  two  automotive  companies  have  not  explicitly 
integrated  their  standardisation  strategies  into  their  product  development.  The  product 
development  process  requires  a  review  of  existing  standards.  In  addition,  internal 
technologies developed by the company are brought into standardisation late in the product 
development  process,  that  is,  after  the  company  has  a  good  command  of  these 
technologies. A  survey  of  engineers  in  two  automotive companies  revealed  quite  different 
and  contradicting  motivations  to  get  involved  in  patenting,  standardisation  or  even  the 
publication  of  scientific  papers.  Such  conflicts  might  reduce  engineers’  involvement  in 
standardisation. 

Companies  also  work  on  internal  standards,  which  may  transfer  into  SDOs’  processes 
(Blind  and  Müller,  2020).  Furthermore,  the  employees  involved  in  the  standardisation 
process  are  responsible  for  transferring  knowledge  from  the  committees  back  to  the 
companies. 

Within  internal  R & I  processes,  companies  perceive  standardisation  as  a  synchronised 
development  tool,  for  example  in  biotechnology  (Lorenz  et  al.,  2019),  that  involves  and 
brings  together  all  functional  units  involved  in  the  innovation  process.  Standardisation, 
therefore,  forms  a  platform  for  knowledge  and  technology  transfer  during  the  process  of 
developing new products and makes it easier to scale up complex product prototypes and 
transfer them to industrial-scale production. Standards promote the exchange of knowledge 
and  the  coordination  of  research  and  development  (R & D)  efforts  and  enable  the 
(organisational)  discrepancies  between  laboratories  and  production  processes  to  be 
overcome.  By  harmonising  terminology  in  the  standardisation  process  and  standards 
themselves, as is generally the case in knowledge transfer activities, good communication 
between  the  front  end  (the  practical  application)  and  the  back  end  (the  scientific  work 
behind it) is crucial. An open corporate culture and the participation of different disciplines 
are necessary for this exchange to happen (Lorenz et al., 2019). 

Complementary to this internal perspective, standard-setting is an opportunity to exchange 
information  and  access  complementary  external  R & D  assets  (Bar  and  Leiponen,  2014). 
Furthermore, the positioning of a company within standardisation alliances can influence its 

13 

 
performance  in  developing  new  products  (Wen  et  al.,  2020).  Overall,  companies  being  in 
central  positions  and  bridging  structural  holes  can 
in 
standardisation processes and eventually speed up the introduction of their products to the 
market. 

influence 

increase 

their 

Scientists from research institutions tend to be under-represented in SDOs; for example, in 
the German standardisation body DIN less than 10 % of experts are from public or private 
research institutes (Blind and Heß, 2023). Zi and Blind (2015) show that researchers who 
publish in highly renowned journals are less involved in standardisation processes than in 
industry-related  and  technical  journals.  The  reason  for  this  is  the  prioritisation  of  the 
respective  research  groups  and  the  corresponding  weighing  of  opportunity  costs: 
researchers who focus on highly rated journals invest a great deal of time in the quality of 
an article because of the demanding peer review processes (Blind et al., 2018). However, 
researchers who publish in practice-oriented journals often come from an applied research 
background and usually cooperate with practice partners in their research projects or work 
towards  a  defined  practical  goal.  Consequently,  their  research  topics  are  of  greater 
importance  for  standardisation.  The  participation  of  scientists  from  applied  research  in 
standardisation committees is correspondingly higher, which is also confirmed by Blind and 
Fenton  (2022),  who  reveal  a  relatively  greater  involvement  of  applied  research-focused 
organisations based on the standard-relevant publications cited in ISO standards. 

Having revealed the general importance of research as a driver for standardisation, there is 
limited work on its specific relevance, starting with Blind and Gauch (2009). They attribute 
different  types  of  standards,  that  is,  terminology,  measuring  and  testing,  quality  and 
interoperability, to various phases in the R & I process (3). 

However, the above-mentioned conceptual approach has not been further developed into a 
quantitative assessment. Overall, robust empirical evidence shows that companies rely on 
standards  as  an  information  source  for  their  innovation  activities  (e.g.  Swann,  2005). 
Around  half  of  the  companies  surveyed  in  the  UK  edition  of  the  Community  Innovation 
Survey  provided  a  source  of  information  for  innovation.  However,  the  degree  to  which 
standards inform innovation depends on the sector in which a company operates, but this 
increases  as  its  innovation  activities  rise  (Swann,  2005).  In  contrast,  in  a  more  recent 
German edition of the Community Innovation Survey, slightly more than 10 % of innovative 
firms reported that standards support their innovation activities (Rammer, 2020). 

Furthermore,  standards  have  a  more  positive  impact  on  innovation  efficiency,  that  is, 
success  based  on investment,  for  German  companies  than  government  regulations  (Blind 
et  al.,  2017).  Furthermore,  Foucart  and  Li  (2021)  show  that  implementing  standards 
increases  companies’  likelihood  of  developing  relatively  more  incremental  than  radical 
innovation.  Based  on  survey  data,  Blind  and  Müller  (2020)  reveal  a  positive  correlation 
between companies’ assessment of the relevance of company internal standards for R & D 
and their likelihood of product and process innovation. 

Overall, the empirical evidence on the impact of the implementation of standards on R & I is 
quite limited at the company level. Only the impact of implementing management standards 
related to innovation (see Manders et al., 2016) has been intensively investigated. 

(3)  This is further explained in various publications, for example Egyedi and Ortt (2017). 

14 

 
 
2.3. Overview of drivers and barriers to standardisation 

The  literature  analysis  by  Hermann  et  al.  (2020)  identified  driving  and  inhibiting  factors  of 
standardisation for research institutions and companies (see also the summary in European 
Commission  et  al.,  2022).  We  took  into  account  that  some  drivers  are  not  relevant  in  all 
phases  and  not  for  all  participants  in  the  R & D  process.  Based  on  these  sources,  other 
literature  was  identified  by  searches  in  Scopus  and  Web  of  Science  to  identify  the  main 
drivers and barriers for organisations’ involvement in standardisation based on their general 
characteristics and insights from specific surveys. 

Drivers for involvement in standardisation 

Without  providing  empirical  evidence,  Featherston  et  al.  (2016)  claim  that  policy  and 
regulation,  business  and  services,  markets  and  customers,  systems  such  as  supply 
networks,  and  generic  technology,  infratechnologies  and  research  are  the  themes 
influencing  standardisation  processes.  Similarly,  Moon  and  Lee  (2022)  claim  that 
technology,  the  market,  intellectual  property  rights  (IPRs)  and  certification  influence 
standardisation dynamics. 

However, at the organisational level, leverage and network effects are the main drivers for 
companies and research institutions to participate in standardisation processes (Wakke et 
al.,  2016).  They  can  orient  themselves  to  the  emerging  standards  already  in  the 
development  process  and  thus  leverage  their  technologies  and  products  to  gain  a 
considerable  time  advantage  and  eventually  exploit  various  network  effects  via  the 
standardisation process of innovative technology. 

Empirical  studies  on  firms’  active  participation  in  standardisation  have  been  performed. 
However, they were mainly based on somewhat limited samples of companies, for example 
the  studies  by  Blind  (2006),  Blind  and  Thumm  (2004)  and  Blind  and  Mangelsdorf  (2013) 
and, more recently, by Zhang et al. (2020a) and Wiegmann et al. (2022). Only Wakke et al. 
(2015)  connected  the  large-scale  Dutch  edition  of  the  Community  Innovation  Survey  with 
information about the involvement of the national standardisation body. In addition, Blind et 
al. (2021) investigated the characteristics of companies in the German standardisation body 
DIN  based  on  data  from  the  German  edition  of  the  Community  Innovation  Survey.  A 
positive  relationship  between  active  involvement  in  standardisation  and  innovation  is 
revealed  by  Delcamp  and  Leiponen  (2014),  whereas  Blind  (2006),  Blind  and  Mangelsdorf 
(2013) and Wakke et al. (2015) point to the inverted U-shaped relationship between R & D, 
innovation  or  patent  intensity  and  firms’  involvement  in  standardisation.  This  U-shaped 
relationship explains the tension between absorptive capacity as a driver and the barrier of 
uncontrolled  knowledge  spillovers  within  standardisation  processes.  Regarding  sector-
specific  differences,  Germany’s  high-tech  and  medium-  to  high-tech  manufacturing  firms 
are  more  likely  to  be  involved  than  low-tech  firms.  Similarly,  high-tech  and  knowledge-
intensive service firms are more often involved, according to Blind et al. (2022b). They also 
confirm the findings from previous studies (e.g. Blind, 2006; Wakke et al., 2015; Rammer et 
al., 2016) that larger firms participate significantly more than smaller companies because of 
their greater availability of resources and the more significant benefits they expect. 

Lastly, the few studies explaining the involvement in standardisation at the sector or macro-
level  reveal  the  significant  influence  of  R & D  and  patent  intensity  (Blind,  2002). 
Furthermore, standardisation increases with the concentration of enterprises up to a certain 
threshold, from where standardisation activities decline again. In addition, export-intensive 
sectors  tend  to  standardise  more  than  other  sectors.  Blind  and  von  Laer  (2021)  found  a 
significant correlation between R & D measured by patents and standardisation work at ISO 

15 

 
for  China  and  the  United  States.  However,  export  activities  showed  no  significant 
association with standardisation work. 

Beyond  the  characteristics  explaining  companies’  involvement  in  standardisation,  several 
studies  have  investigated  organisations’  motives.  First,  Blind  and  Gauch  (2009)  revealed 
the  following  as  most  relevant  for  a  small  sample  of companies  active  in  nanotechnology: 
the  creation  of  legal  security  in  emerging  science  and  technology,  avoiding  adopting 
proprietary solutions to enable the commercialisation of research results, and the interest in 
using  common  rules  to  exploit  the  advantages  of  interoperability.  Blind  and  Mangelsdorf 
(2016)  reveal  that,  in  addition  to  pursuing  specific  company  interests,  solving  technical 
problems, knowledge seeking, influencing regulation and facilitating market access are the 
major drivers for companies’ involvement in standardisation. In the German electrotechnical 
and machinery sector, influencing the regulatory framework is most relevant for companies’ 
involvement  in  standardisation.  Blind  et  al.  (2022c)  are  even  more  generic  and  conclude 
that  standardisation  can  promote  companies’  cooperation  and  competitiveness. 
Furthermore, Blind and Gauch (2009) identify the commercialisation of results, the interest 
in  using  common  rules  to  exploit  the  advantages  of  interoperability,  legal  security  and 
preventing the use of proprietary standards as drivers for companies’ engagement in formal 
standardisation. 

At  the  individual  level,  Blind  et  al.  (2022a)  found  that  engineers  confirm  that  pursuing  the 
company’s  interest  is  most  relevant,  followed  by  integrating  the  state  of  the  art  into 
standards  (see  also  Blind  and  Gauch,  2009),  managing  networks  and  interfaces,  and, 
lastly, personal reputation and performance. 

Since  standardisation  committees  include  representatives  from  all  interest  groups, 
scientists from applied research can come into contact with companies. Their joint work in 
standardisation creates mutual trust and thus increases the likelihood that companies and 
research  institutions  will  network  sustainably  and  work on  common  issues,  for  example  in 
collaborative and contract research (Blind and Gauch, 2009). 

Furthermore,  organisations  can  gain  new  impetus  for  technology  developments  through 
standardisation 
(Abdelkafi  and  Makhotin,  2014;  Blind  and  Mangelsdorf,  2016). 
Technologies  do  not  necessarily  have  to  be  developed  from  scratch,  but  protected 
knowledge and technologies can be acquired, for example, through licences for standard-
essential  patents.  Furthermore,  standards  represent  the  state  of  the  art  in  a  technology 
area and help companies establish dominant designs (Großmann et al., 2016). 

Once  technologies  have  been  integrated  into  standards,  they  can  no  longer  be  patented 
(Großmann  et  al.,  2016;  Blind  et  al.,  2018;  Blind  et  al.,  2022c).  Accordingly,  the  strategic 
prevention  of  patents  as  a  particular  case  can  motivate  companies  to  engage  in 
standardisation  activities.  Another  driver  is  the  broader  diffusion  of  research  results  (Blind 
and Gauch, 2009). The availability, accessibility and applicability of standards enables the 
widespread dissemination of the knowledge generated. 

Turning to the drivers for research organisations to get involved in standardisation (see the 
review  by  Hermann  et  al.,  2020),  it  has  to  be  stated  that  the  flow  of  knowledge  from 
standardisation work into companies is by no means one-sided. Similarly, scientists active 
in  both  applied  and  basic  research  can  find  partners  for  research  cooperation  through 
trustful collaboration in standardisation (Blind and Gauch, 2009; Blind et al., 2018) and thus 
enter into a mutual exchange of knowledge. Furthermore, researchers use standardisation 
processes  and  the  standards  produced  as  channels  to disseminate  their  research  results. 
Lastly,  the  involvement  in  standardisation  increases  the  reputation  of  the  research 

16 

 
organisation  involved  (Hermann  et  al.,  2020)  and  that  of  the  individual  researcher,  who  is 
also intrinsically motivated (Blind et al., 2018). 

In  summary,  several  driving  forces  for  companies’,  research  institutes’  and  countries’ 
involvement  in  standardisation  have  been  identified.  However,  only  companies’  and 
countries’  R & D 
in 
standardisation  or  the  production  of  standards.  In  addition  to  knowledge-,  research-  and 
innovation-related  motives,  organisations  take  part  in  standardisation  activities  to  pursue 
their specific interests and influence or comply with regulatory framework conditions. 

intensities  are  significantly  associated  with 

their  participation 

Barriers to involvement in standardisation 

To complete the picture, we summarise the insights gained about the barriers that prevent 
organisations  and  their  experts  from  getting  involved  in  standardisation.  In  general,  the 
barriers  mirror  the  positive  drivers  of  organisations’  involvement  in  standardisation 
presented  above,  that  is,  size  and  research  and  innovation  intensity.  In  general,  smaller 
organisations with no or little research effort and innovation activities are less likely to get 
engaged in standardisation (4). Furthermore, we know more about the characteristics of the 
organisations involved than about the organisations not involved, because, for the latter, we 
have representative but only general insights from the few Community Innovation Surveys 
mentioned above. 

For  more  detailed  information  about  the  barriers  to  organisations  getting  involved  in 
standardisation,  we  have  to  rely  only  on  a  few  qualitative  and  small-scale  quantitative 
studies, the insights from which we summarise below. 

First,  standardisation  implies  a  financial  burden,  including  membership  fees  to  join  SDOs 
and the resources required for the standardisation work, that is, workload, personnel costs 
and  travel  expenses  (Blind  and  Gauch,  2009).  Another  important  obstacle  is  the  time  it 
takes for standardisation processes to reach a consensus, usually several years (Blind and 
Gauch,  2009).  Blind  et  al.  (2022c)  translate  companies’  barriers  into  internal  and  external 
alternatives.  Complex  and  time-consuming  processes  trigger  internal  barriers.  In  contrast, 
externally  determined  obstacles  are  caused  by  a  lack  of  potential  for  companies  to 
implement their own technological content in standards and an already sufficient number of 
existing  standards.  Lastly,  alternative  strategies,  such  as  defensive  publishing  or  secrecy 
and  patenting,  might  be  more  attractive  than  participation  in  standardisation  (Blind  et  al., 
2022b).  These  barriers  are  well  reflected  by  the  obstacles  raised  by  scientists  active  in  a 
public  research  organisation  (Blind  et  al.,  2018),  added  to  complaints  about  the  lack  of 
appreciation for their work. 

Focusing on research organisations, Hermann et al. (2020) identify the following additional 
barriers  from  the  literature  review.  Since  standards  are  a  joint  product  with  no  author 
attribution,  they  are  a  public  good,  knowledge  that  is  freely  available  for  a  small  fee,  and 
therefore prevents capitalising on researchers’ knowledge. In addition, they are challenged 
by  the  free  rider  problem  of  public  goods,  that  is,  their  knowledge  can  be  used  without 
making  a  significant  contribution  to  their  development.  Furthermore,  technologies  can  no 
longer  be  patented  if  they  have  already  been  integrated  into  standards  (Großmann  et  al., 
2016).  In  addition  to  lengthy  standardisation  processes,  research  organisations  perceive 

(4)  See De Vries et al. (2009) for a review of the literature on problems specific to small and medium-
sized  enterprises  related  to  the  implementation  of  standards,  for  example  lack  of  awareness, 
tracing  standards,  their  cost, difficulty  in  interpreting  and  implementing  them,  and  the  resources 
involved in standardisation (e.g. lack of financial and human resources). 

17 

 
 
difficulties  in  reaching  consensus  and  having  limited  influence  on  the  final  specification  of 
standards (Blind and Gauch, 2009). Lastly, there is a lack of standardisation knowledge in 
research  organisations  and  limited  consideration  given  to  the  topic  in  the  performance 
evaluation of researchers. These barriers were confirmed in the interviews by Hermann et 
al. (2020). 

3.  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SURVEY 

the 

Based on the literature review, we adapted and expanded the heuristic model, which was 
developed for the GSPS (see Figure 1). This model is comprehensive enough to integrate a 
broad range of questions, including those that must be answered to meet the objectives of 
the  ESPS.  The  model  depicts  the  multidimensional  relationships  between  standardisation 
participation, 
implementation  of  standards  and  organisations’  performance.  To 
characterise  standardisation  activities,  the  model  primarily  records  the  type  and  scope  of 
standardisation  work,  such  as  time  and  personnel  expenditure  or  involvement  in 
standardisation  committees.  The  implementation  of  standards  is  covered  by  collecting 
information  about  the  number  of  standards  implemented.  As  performance  indicators,  we 
consider 
turnover  and  export.  The  heuristic  model  suggests  causal 
relationships.  However,  the  ESPS  allows  only  the  collection  of  organisation-specific  or 
individual expert assessments or the calculation of correlations. 

innovation, 

Figure 1. Heuristic model. 

The  survey  questionnaire,  which  is  reproduced  in  Annex 1,  reflects  both  the  insights  from 
the literature, the experience gained from the German Standardisation Panel, the objectives 
of the project and the feedback received from the European Commission and collected from 
industry  experts  and  the  presidential  committee  of  CEN-Cenelec.  In  May  2023,  the  draft 
survey  was  presented  to  the  joint  CEN-Cenelec  Working  Group  on  Standards,  Innovation 
and Research so that feedback could be collected from the organisations’ members. After 
the  inception  meeting  in  May  2023,  an  exchange  with  the  presidential  committee  of  CEN-
Cenelec  was  organised  and  feedback  received  and –  where  possible –  incorporated  into 
the revised questionnaire. In parallel, ETSI also commented on the questionnaire. 

The  distribution  of  the  ESPS  started  on  World  Standards  Day,  14 October  2023  and  was 
closed on 31 December 2023. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
4.  SURVEY RESULTS 

In  the  following  sections,  we  present  the  results  of  the  stakeholder  survey.  Overall,  more 
than 3 700 respondents started to complete the ESPS. Almost 3 000 out of the more than 
30 000 German experts directly approached via email answered the survey. However, the 
majority of respondents did not provide an answer to all the questions. For this reason, the 
total number of respondents per question varies in the figures. 

4.1. Characteristics of the sample 

In the first section, we describe the main characteristics of the sample. More than half of the 
respondents answered from their individual perspective, whereas one third answered from 
their  business  group,  and  another  one  quarter  answered  from  their  organisation’s 
perspective. More than half of the experts are employed in industry. However, around one 
third  work  for  non-governmental  organisations,  public  organisations,  HEIs,  research 
organisations and governments (5). 

In relation to the size of the organisations, slightly more than half of the respondents work in 
organisations with somewhat more than 250 employees and a little less than half in smaller 
organisations, according to the European Commission’s definition of SMEs (6). 

Looking  at  the  respondents’  position  or  department  within  their  organisation,  we  observe 
that more than one quarter are active in R & D, whereas marginally more than 15 % are in 
executive  management  (Figure 2).  Furthermore,  slightly  more  than  10 %  are  working  in 
standardisation management (7), whereas slightly less than 10 % are responsible for quality 
management (8). 

(5)  Therefore,  the  diversity  of  the  respondents’  backgrounds  is  considerable  compared  with  the 
strong industry focus of the GSPS. See, for example, Blind and Heß (2023) and Heß and Blind 
(2023). 

(6)  This size distribution is very similar to that of the GSPS; see Blind and Heß (2023) and Heß and 

Blind (2023). 

(7)  However,  one  third  of  the  respondents  claim  that  their  organisation  has  a  standardisation 

department. 

(8)  Considering  that  the  shares  are  almost  identical  to  the  values  in  the  GSPS  (Blind  and  Kromer, 
2023),  the  ESPS  is  attracting  more  respondents  active  in  R & D  but  less  from  the  executive 
management  level.  The  reasons  are  twofold.  First,  in  the  GSPS,  the  chief  executive  officers  of 
small  and  very  small  companies  are  active  in  standardisation  and  will  be  reached  directly  via 
email. In contrast, the communication channel of the ESPS reaches more experts active in R & D. 
Second,  the  specific  focus  on  the  interface  between  research  and  standardisation  might  have 
attracted the attention of R & D-inclined experts. 

19 

 
 
Figure 2. Distribution of respondents by position in their organisation. 

For the geographical distribution of the organisations, we used the information respondents 
provided about their headquarters. Due to the different approaches used to contact experts, 
that  is,  via  personalised  email  in  the  GSPS  versus  links  distributed  via  mailing  lists  and 
newsletters  in  the  ESPS,  the  results  are  very  biased  towards  Germany,  with  almost  two 
thirds  of  respondents’  headquarters  located  there  (Figure 3).  In  comparison,  slightly  less 
than 5 % of the organisations’ headquarters are in the United States or France, followed by 
lower proportions in Switzerland and Austria. 

Figure 3. Distribution of respondents by country of headquarters. 

Looking  at  the  sectors,  the  distribution  of  the  respondents  is  quite  similar  to  that  of  the 
GSPS, with the highest number of experts from the mechanical and electrical engineering 
sectors,  followed  by  the  chemical  and  pharmaceutical  industry  and  construction  sectors 

20 

 
 
 
 
(Figure 4).  A  significant  difference  is  the  higher  share  (3.7 %)  of  experts  from  the 
information and communications sector in the ESPS compared with 2.5 % in the GSPS. 

Figure 4. Distribution of respondents by sector. 

Since the area of standardisation is dominated by older men, the experts were asked their 
age because such information is not systematically available in the SDOs. Figure 5 displays 
the age distribution of the participating experts. More than one quarter of the respondents 
will  retire  by  2030,  assuming  a  retirement  age  of  67.  Consequently,  one  quarter  of  the 
whole  group  of  standardisation  experts  will  have  to  be  replaced  by  then,  that  is,  at  least 

21 

 
 
 
25 000,  assuming  that  at  least  100 000  European  experts  are  currently  active  in 
standardisation (9). 

To put these relative and absolute figures into the wider context of the general demographic 
challenges for the workforce, we look at their distribution in Germany in the year 2020 (10). 
There,  53 %  of  the  total  workforce  is  older  than  45.  In  contrast,  that  share  of  the 
standardisation  workforce  in  our  survey  is  more  than  72 %,  that  is,  40 %  higher  than  the 
share  of  the  total  work  force  older  than  45.  As  already  explained,  standardisation  has  to 
tackle  a  massive  demographic  challenge,  which  goes  well  beyond  the  level  of  challenge 
faced in the total workforce. 

This  brings  us  to  the  last  characteristic  of  our  sample,  the  gender  distribution.  Although 
almost  85 %  of  our  respondents  are  male,  more  than  15 %  are  female  or  identify  as 
diverse. For comparison, Heß (2020) found that only around 10 % of females, based on a 
total of 28 000 experts, were active in the German SDO DIN 3 years ago. Motivating more 
females  to  get  involved  in  standardisation  is  one  necessary  step,  but  it  is  certainly  not 
sufficient to tackle the massive and increasing demographic challenge. 

Figure 5. Age distribution of respondents. 

(9)  According to the European Commission (2022b), there are over 150 000 experts in Europe, which 

means that almost 40 000 experts are to be replaced by 2030.  

(10)  https://www.demografie-portal.de/DE/Fakten/erwerbsbevoelkerung.html. 

22 

 
 
 
 
Figure 6. Gender distribution of respondents. 

4.2. Importance of standards 

Before  we  present  the  results  related  to  R & I  activities  and  their  interfaces  with 
standardisation, we display some general assessments of standards differentiated by type 
and impact. 

Formal  standards  received  the  highest  rankings  from  respondents,  often  active  in  formal 
SDOs.  In  detail,  they  attributed  the  highest  level  of  importance  to  formal  European 
standards, followed by international and national standards (Figure 7). Technical rules and 
specifications were ranked regarding relevance, with the European version of the rules and 
specifications  receiving  the  highest  grades,  followed  by  the  national  and  international 
versions. Internal company- or organisation-specific standards followed in third place before 
external company or organisational standards. A relatively low relevance is attributed to de 
facto and consortium standards, with the European versions receiving the highest grades. 
These rankings are aligned with earlier findings of the GSPS (see Heß and Blind, 2023). 

Figure 7. Importance of different types of standards. 
NB. Scale from very unimportant (– 3) to very important (+ 3) 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
The  number  of  standards  implemented  reflects  the  assessment  of  the  relevance  of  the 
different  types  of  standards.  While  nearly  all  respondents  or  their  organisations  have 
adopted formal standards or technical specifications, including over one third implementing 
more  than  100  such  standards,  a  similar  proportion  refrains  from  using  consortium  or  de 
facto standards (Figure 8). 

Figure 8. Number of standards implemented by type of standard. 

Standards  can  have  various  impacts,  which  may  differ  between  the  different  types. 
Consequently, formal standards and technical specifications released by formal SDOs have 
the  most  positive  impact  on  legal  security  and  market  entry.  Technical  specifications  are 
particularly  relevant  for  technical  interoperability,  quality  improvement  and  strengthening 
organisations’  negotiating  power  with  suppliers  and  customers.  Important  to  note  for  the 
focus of the ESPS pilot study is the highest relevance of technical specifications for R & D. 
Consortium  standards  are  most  relevant  for  interoperability,  reflecting  the  critical  role  of 
information  and  communications  technology  (ICT)  standards  released  by  the  Institute  of 
Electrical  and  Electronics  Engineers,  the  World  Wide  Web  Consortium  and  other 
organisations.  In  contrast,  internal  company  standards  are  most  important  for  improving 
organisations’ productivity and quality. It has to be noted that this type of standard is also 
relevant  for  contributing  to  sustainability,  assuring  the  resilience  of  the  organisation  and 
increasing  its  competitiveness.  In  summary,  formal  standards  and  technical  specifications 

24 

 
 
are  most  relevant  for  all  impact  dimensions  (Figure 9).  Increasing  productivity  and  quality 
and  achieving  new  objectives,  such  as  contributing  to  sustainability  and  achieving 
resilience, as well as supporting R & D, are essential aims of the portfolio of standards. 

Figure 9. Impact of different types of standards by impact dimension. 

NB. Scale from very negative (– 3) to very positive (+ 3). 

4.3. Research and innovation activities 

The participating sample is quite research active and, therefore, also innovative. More than 
60 %  of  the  organisations  conduct  internal  research,  and  more  than  half  perform  external 
research. Similarly, more than 60 % claim to have introduced an innovative product io the 
market, and more than 50 % have implemented a process innovation (11). These values are 
slightly  higher  than  those  for  innovators  surveyed  in  the  context  of  the  Community 
Innovation Survey, addressing the period between 2018 and 2020 (12). 

Looking  at  the  half  of  the  respondents  performing  external  R & D,  knowing  which 
collaboration  partner  they  choose  is  an  interesting  first  step.  Most  often,  the  respondents 
collaborate  with  universities,  followed  by  customers  and  research  institutes  outside 
universities  (Figure 10.  R & D  collaborations  with  suppliers  are  in  fourth  position,  followed 
by alliances with business consultants and suppliers. This order of collaboration partners is 
similar to that of innovative companies surveyed win the German edition of the Community 
Innovation Survey covering the period between 2018 and 2020 (13). 

(11)  These shares are lower than in a sample of companies surveyed between 2013 and 2016 in the 

context of the GSPS (Blind and Müller, 2020). 

(12)  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php?title=Community_Innovation_Survey_2020_-_key_indicators.  

(13)  http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-

docs/Innovationserhebung/Dateien2022/ZEW_Innovationserhebung_Kooperationen_Ausgabe20
22.xlsx.  

25 

 
 
 
 
Figure 10. Relevance of collaboration in R&D by type of organisation. 
NB. Scale from very low (– 3) to very high (+ 3) 

The  ranking  of  the  relevance  of  R & D collaboration  partners  does  not  perfectly  mirror  the 
effectiveness  of  the  collaboration.  In  particular,  participants  ranked  collaboration  with 
customers as most effective (Figure 11). 

Figure 11. Effectiveness of cooperation in R&D by type of organisation. 
NB. Scale from very low (– 3) to very high (+ 3). 
There  are  different  ways  of  realising  knowledge  transfer  from  scientific  institutions.  The 
most  effective  is  further  education  and  scientific  training  followed  by  informal  contact. 
However,  common  standardisation  activities  are  rated  in third  position.  More  interesting  is 
the  high  degree  of  effectiveness  of  collaborative  research  funded  at  the  national  level 
compared  with  the  lower  effectiveness  of  collaborative  research  funded  at  the  European 
level.  Both  licensing  or  buying  technology  from  scientific  institutions  and  temporary 
exchange of personnel are assessed as not very effective ways of knowledge transfer. 

26 

 
 
 
Figure 12 

Effectiveness of forms of cooperation with scientific institutions for knowledge transfer. 

NB. Scale from very low (– 3) to very high (+ 3). 

4.4. Role of research for standardisation 

To assess the general role of research for standard development, the experts were asked 
about  the  relevance  of  numerous  input  sources  identified  from  the  literature,  for  example 
Featherston  et  al.  (2016)  or  Moon  and  Lee  (2022),  but  also  validated  via  interviews  with 
selected experts from industry. 

The  answers  reveal  that  policy  and  regulation  initiatives  are  the  most  relevant  inputs  for 
developing standards followed by customers’ requirements and insights from organisations’ 
own  research  and  collaborative  public  research.  One  of  the  respondents  added  here  that 
‘Technical Committee in SDOs could specify their future requirements from R & I activities 
as  inputs  into  their  standards  development  work  to  meet  their  needs,  e.g.  European 
Metrology  Programme  for  Innovation  and  Research  annual  survey  to  CEN  CENELEC 
Technical Committees and Technical Boards via CEN CENELEC WG STAIR’. Less critical 
are  research  results  generated  by  other  organisations.  The  requirements  of  suppliers  and 
service providers, even the organisations’ own business model, are of limited relevance as 
inputs  for  standardisation  (Figure 13).  Open-source  software  and  hardware  are  positioned 
on  the  lowest  level,  which  underlines  their  still  difficult  relationship  with  standardisation, 
because different communities drive them in accordance with different processes including 
a  different  IPR  regime  (Blind  and  Böhm,  2019).  Overall,  organisations’  own,  collaborative 
and  even  others’  research  results  are  essential  input  sources  for  developing  standards. 
One  of  the  respondents  asked  in  this  context  ‘what  the  actual  source  is’  when  ‘the 
interdisciplinary  input  sources  partly  influence  each  other …’.  Another  evoked  the 
importance  of  ‘related  standards  [that]  work,  be  they  management …  but  also  on  a 
technical level’. 

To put these assessments in the context of other studies, we refer to the insights from the 
German  edition  of  the  Community  Innovation  Survey  about  the  relevance  of  knowledge 

27 

 
 
sources  for  the  development  of  innovation (14).  The  most  important  source  for  German 
innovators  is  their  own  company,  which  includes  their  research,  followed  by  customers’, 
competitors’  and  suppliers’  research.  Overall,  the  ranking  of  the  sources  is  quite  similar, 
which shows the reliability of the approach. 

Figure 13. Relevance of input sources for standard development. 
NB. Scale from very low (– 3) to very high (+ 3). 

Focusing  on  the  answers  of  respondents  from  industry  compared  with  those  from  the 
remaining  participants,  we  observe  that  customers’  requirements  and  policy  or  regulatory 
requirements  are  the  most  relevant  inputs  for  developing  standards  (Figure 14) (15).  For 
SMEs, in particular, the needs of their customers are most relevant. In contrast, results from 
collaborative  public  research  are  more  significant  for  the  remaining  sample,  dominated  by 
research-performing organisations. However, for research-performing companies, their own 
research inputs are most relevant. All other input factors receive quite similar assessments 
from both subsamples. For example, policy initiatives in general and regulation in particular 
are  framework  conditions  ranked  of  similar  importance  for  all  stakeholders  involved  in 
standardisation.  One  of  the  respondents  refers  here  to  the  ‘…  requirements/interests  of 
organisations from the areas of consumer or environmental protection’. 

(14)  https://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-

docs/Innovationserhebung/Dateien2018/ZEW_Innovationserhebung_Informationsquellen_Ausga
be2018.xlsx.  

(15)  The non-industry subsample comprises almost 1 000 respondents from education, public health, 
human  health,  other  services,  extraterritorial  and  others.  The  remaining  2 300  respondents  are 
attributed  to  industry.  Industry  is  differentiated  further  between  large  enterprises  and  SMEs  in 
accordance  with  the  EU  definition  of  having  less  than  250  employees  if  that  information  is 
provided.  

28 

 
 
 
 
Figure 14. Relevance of input sources for standard development differentiated between respondents from industry and from 
the remaining sectors. 
NB. Scale from very low (– 3) to very high (+ 3). 

In the next step, we asked about the role of research as an input for developing the various 
types  of  standards.  Most  relevant  is  research  for  the  generation  of  measurement  and 
testing standards, as evidenced by the high rating of research for measurement and testing 
(Figure 15).  However,  research  is  also  somewhat  relevant  for  quality  standards,  which  is 
unexpected because quality improvement is not so close to R & D, but it is quite important 
for  SMEs.  In  third  position  is  environmental  and  sustainability  standards,  which  can  be 
explained by the increasing relevance of sustainability in both research and standardisation. 
Standards  for  safety  and  health  issues  and  interoperability,  compatibility  and  interfaces 
require  significant  input  from  research.  Replying  to  the  additional  open  question,  most 
respondents  referred  to  information  technology  (IT)  and  cybersecurity  as  a  topic.  One 
respondent  specified  this  need  in  the  following  statement:  ‘Data-sharing  agreement  is  a 
significant  aspect  of  cooperation  between  EU  and  [the  Association  of  Southeast  Asian 
Nations].  Thus,  data  security  is  an  integral  part  relevant  to  research  as  input  for  different 
types of standards.’ Product and process standards do not require much research as input 
because they are generally more influenced by the requirements of markets and customers 
and companies’ production processes. Terminology and semantics are the least dependent 
on research input. 

Overall,  the  assessment  of  the  role  of  research  in  the  development  of  different  types  of 
standards is generally rated slightly higher by respondents from other organisations, which 
are  mainly  conducting  research,  than  by  respondents  from  industry  (Figure 16).  This  high 
level of agreement can be explained by the high research intensity of the responding firms, 
which have similar perceptions to those of the research-dominated remaining respondents. 
Interestingly, as for SMEs, research input not only for measurement and testing but also for 
quality standards is also important for large companies. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 15. Relevance of research results as input for developing different types of standards. 
NB. Scale from very low (– 3) to very high (+ 3). 

Figure 16. Relevance of research results as input for developing different types of standards differentiated between 
respondents from industry and from the remaining sectors. 
NB. Scale from very low (– 3) to very high (+ 3). 

To  improve  the  interface  between  research  and  standardisation,  we  need  to  know  more 
about the advantages and disadvantages of using research results to develop standards. 

The most relevant advantage is free access to scientific publications and other materials on 
the internet and keeping track of scientific progress (Figure 17). One respondent proposed 
viewing  standards  as  ‘a  broad  knowledge  transfer/dissemination  channel  for  research 
results’ beyond ‘scientific publications or patents’, because they are ‘used by [a] far broader 
user  base,  and  for  both  public  and  private  good’.  Furthermore,  research  provides  a better 
evidence base for the development of standards (16) and incentives for new standardisation 
initiatives.  In  second  place  is  using  scientific  evidence  for  quality  and  environmental  and 

(16)  See Blind and Fenton (2022) on the increasing number of scientific references in ISO standards 

in general and Gottinger et al. (2023) on their role in standards for the bioeconomy. 

30 

 
 
 
 
sustainability-related standards. For standards supporting regulation (17), using research as 
input for their standardisation is also an advantage. Leveraging one’s own research results 
via  standards  for  developing  one’s  own  product  and  process  innovation  is  rated  as  of 
similar importance to the role of scientific evidence in developing standards being relevant 
for follow-up research (18). In this context, one respondent highlighted that ‘being aware of 
the importance of data-sharing, intellectual property as rights (or joint ownership) of parties 
involved  in  the  cooperation  agreement  should  be  given  utmost  importance  during  the 
course  of  development  of  standards  beneficial  to  both  parties.’  This  assessment  confirms 
the positive relationship between research, standardisation and, eventually, innovation (19). 
The least relevant advantage is the opportunity to prevent, via standardisation, competing 
research  content  from  becoming  market-dominant  solutions.  Overall,  integrating  research 
results into standard development is perceived as very positive. 

Figure 17. Relevance of advantages of research results as input for standard development. 
NB. Scale from very low (– 3) to very high (+ 3). 

Respondents  from  industry  assessed  all  advantages  quite  similarly  but  slightly  less 
positively  than  the  remaining  respondents,  which  can  again  be  explained  by  the  high 
research  intensity  of  the  responding  firms,  which  have  similar  perceptions  to  those  of  the 
research-dominated  remaining  respondents  (Figure 18).  However,  the  responses  reveal 
that leveraging one’s own research results via standards for developing one’s own product 
and  process  innovation  and  preventing  competing  research  content  becoming  market-
dominant designs are more relevant for industry, particularly research-performing industry. 
The former motivation confirms the relevance of standardisation for innovation, which is an 
important  driver  for  industry,  but,  due  to  the  lack  of  pressure  to  commercialise 
organisations’  own  innovative  products,  is  less  relevant  for  research  organisations  and 
other stakeholders. The latter motivation relevant to industry reveals the importance of the 
defensive  character  of  standards  in  keeping  markets  open  and  preventing  proprietary 

(17)  See  Gottinger  et  al.  (2023)  for  the  first  empirical  analysis  of  the  complex  linkages  between 
scientific  publications,  standards  and  regulation  in  the  bioeconomy,  whereas  Blind  (2023) 
describes  their  role  in  transformative  innovation  and  Blind  (2024)  describes  their  role  in  socio-
technical transformations.  

(18)  The virtuous long-term cycle between research and standardisation and standards postulated by 

Blind and Gauch (2009) is perceived by only a smaller share of respondents. 

(19)  See  also  the  positive  correlation  revealed  by  Blind  et  al.  (2022)  for  a  representative  sample  of 

innovative companies in Germany. 

31 

 
 
 
standards from becoming dominant. Notably, using scientific evidence to develop standards 
relevant for follow-up research is more important for SMEs than for larger companies. 

Figure 18. Relevance of advantages of research results as input for standard development differentiated between 
respondents from industry and from the remaining sectors. 

NB. Scale from very low (– 3) to very high (+ 3). 

is  a 

there 

lack  of  R & D  staff  available  as  experts 

While  most  respondents  support  all  advantages  of  integrating  research  results  into 
standards, the disadvantages are perceived as less relevant (Figure 19). The most serious 
problem is that the research results have not yet been validated in practice, are not ready 
as  input  for  standardisation,  and  are  too  abstract,  immature  and  ambitious (20).  One 
respondent  stated  a  ‘big  lack  of  awareness  of  how  to  integrate  research  results  into 
standards’.  Furthermore, 
in 
standardisation.  Or,  as  one  respondent  explained:  ‘Due  to  the  constant  expansion  of 
knowledge  and  thus  the  expansion  of  specialised  knowledge  in  standards,  the  resource 
requirements of the standard addressees are increasing. This leads to ethical problems and 
in some cases means a ban on production for some market participants (see the EU’s New 
Legislative  Framework  (NLF)).’  In  addition,  IPRs  restrict  standardisation  activities  if 
included. Furthermore, some respondents complained about the limited support from other 
companies,  in  particular,  or  stakeholders  in  general,  which  can  be  explained  by  their – 
probably  contradictory –  specific  interests  in  influencing  the  content  of  standards (21).  If 
patented  content  is  included  in  standards,  licences  for  standard-essential  patents  are 
needed.  Others  complained  of  low  rewards  under  royalty-free  licensing  regimes  for 
standard-essential  patents,  which  some  standardisation  organisations  have  implemented. 
However, the whole set of problems related to IPRs in standardisation is not perceived as a 
challenge  by  most  respondents.  Complementary  to  this,  the  proprietary  use  of  one’s 
research  results  is  not  perceived  as  complicated.  However,  some  respondents  perceive 
integrating  research  results  as  tricky,  since  standardisation  is  often  not  considered  in 
research processes. 

(20)  These  disadvantages  are  a  particular  problem  for  smaller  organisations.  In  particular,  the 
challenge that research results might be too far away from the needs of their customers is in line 
with  the  high  rating  of  the  relevance  of  customers'  interests  as  input  into  standardisation,  as 
explained above. 

(21)  See Blind and Mangelsdorf (2016). 

32 

 
 
 
 
Looking  at  the  differences  between  the  answers  from  the  industry  respondents  and  the 
others, we cannot detect significant variance, nor can we detect differences between large 
companies  and  SMEs  (Figure 20).  Only  respondents  from  companies  not  performing 
research  rate  the  disadvantages  slightly  higher.  In  general,  the  various  disadvantages  of 
integrating research results into standardisation received only low ratings from respondents. 

Figure 19. Relevance of disadvantages of research results as input for standard development. 
NB. Scale from very low (– 3) to very high (+ 3). 

Figure 20. Relevance of disadvantages of research results as input for standard development differentiated between 
respondents from industry and from the remaining sectors. 
NB. Scale from very low (– 3) to very high (+ 3). 

We  gave  respondents  the  chance  to  assess  the  effectiveness  of  various  approaches  to 
promoting  the  stated  advantages  and  reducing  the  disadvantages  of  integrating  research 
results as input for standard development (Figure 21). The most appropriate is the primary 
objective  of  the  code  of  practice  on  standardisation  in  the  European  Research  Area 
(European  Commission,  2023)  for  promoting  standardisation  as  an  instrument  for 
knowledge  valorisation  within  HEIs  and  PROs (22).  Companies’  involvement  in  public 

(22)  According to the European Commission, ‘Knowledge valorisation is the process of creating social 
and economic value from knowledge by linking different areas and sectors and transforming data, 

33 

 
 
 
 
research  is  rated  second,  followed  by  the  funding  of  standardisation  as  a  means  of 
exploiting knowledge valorisation by national ministries and research funding organisations 
and  by  funding  of  standardisation  of  Horizon  Europe  project  results  by  the  European 
Commission. Some respondents proposed encouraging the consideration of R & D results 
in  standardisation  requests  from  the  European  Commission.  One  of  the  responses  to  the 
open  question  was  ‘Awareness  raising  on  benefits  of  integrating  research  results  into 
standards  for  University  &  RTO  research  funding  offices  and  Tech  Transfer  Offices  and 
Start-up/Scale-up  Incubators  across  Europe’.  Interestingly,  the  more  conceptual  and long-
term  proposal  of  including  standardisation  in  the  definition  of  R & D  was  perceived  to  be 
effective  by  most  respondents  but  was  also  considered  completely  ineffective  by  a  few 
experts. The increased participation of HEIs and PROs in standardisation and its promotion 
within  HEIs  and  PROs  was  supported  by  most  respondents.  Having  dedicated  work 
packages on standardisation in research projects was also rated as beneficial, as was the 
more  generic  claim  of  including  standardisation  in  tax  incentive  regimes  for  R & D.  Lastly, 
the  involvement  of  SDOs  in  publicly  funded  research  projects  was  supported  only  by  a 
minority. Likewise, adjusting SDOs’ service portfolios to align them with R & I activities was 
not perceived to be very effective by most respondents. 

Looking at the responses from the industry and other stakeholders, we can observe some 
significant  differences 
(Figure 22).  First,  companies,  particularly  SMEs,  endorse 
approaches  that  promote  their  involvement  in  publicly  funded  research  projects.  Second, 
companies  strongly  prefer  standardisation  to  be  included  in  general  tax  incentive  regimes 
for  R & D  because  such  an  approach  would  reduce  the  costs  of  participating  in 
standardisation.  For  other  non-profit  organisations,  including  HEIs  and  PROs,  such  tax 
schemes  do,  in  general,  not  apply.  Third,  companies  not  performing  research  appreciate 
the  involvement  of  SDOs  in  publicly  funded  research  projects.  However,  industry  support 
for measures focusing on other organisations, such as HEIs, PROs or SDOs, is lower than 
that  for  the  other  respondents.  One  of  the  respondents  stated  in  this  context  that 
‘standardisation must be practicable’. 

Overall, the focus of the code of practice on standardisation on encouraging its uptake by 
HEIs and PROs is perceived to be quite effective. Similarly, more funding of standardisation 
at  the  national  and  European  levels  to  exploit  research  is  seen  to  be  most  effective  in 
encouraging  the  integration  of  research  results  into  standard  development.  Lastly,  the 
inclusion  of  standardisation in  the  definition  of  R & D is a  discussion  that  deserves  further 
consideration.  Furthermore,  SDO  strategies  and  services  would  have  to  be  changed 
significantly. 

know-how  and  research  results  into  sustainable  products,  services,  solutions  and  knowledge-
that  benefit  society.’  (https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/research-
based  policies 
area/industrial-research-and-innovation/eu-valorisation-policy_en).  

34 

 
 
Figure 21. Assessment of the importance of various approaches to integrating research results as input for standard 
development.  
NB. Scale from very low (– 3) to very high (+ 3) 

Figure 22. Assessment of the importance of various approaches to integrating research results as input for standard 
development differentiated between respondents from industry and from the remaining sectors. 
NB. Scale from very low (– 3) to very high (+ 3) 

In the last section, the respondents were invited to assess the broader impacts of standards 
based  on  research  results  on  innovation.  Faster  or  easier  market  access  (including 
European or international) can be achieved (Figure 23). In addition, the confidence level of 
consumers  is  improved,  which  is  closely  related  to  the  wider  use  of  recognised  methods 
and  processes  and  improved  documentation  of  R & I  results.  The  highest  ratings  of  these 
impact  dimensions  are  linked  to  the  considerable  influence  of  standards  on  market  entry 
and legal security. This correlation shows the internal consistency and validity of the survey 
findings. However, it also reveals that further integration of research results into standards 
strengthens  their  impact  in  facilitating  market  access  and  legal  certainty.  One  respondent 
stated  in  this  context:  ‘The  assessment  specifications  are  too  one-dimensional.  The 
assessments  depend,  among  other  things,  on  the  sector,  the  company’s  size  and  the 
employees’  level  of  knowledges.  Correlations  can  turn  out  diametrically  different  in  the 
overall  evaluation.’  At  the  technical  level,  interoperability  is  improved.  At  the  governance 
level, integrating research results into standardisation improves the capacity to respond to 
EU regulations/policies. In addition, it is perceived to improve the development and design 

35 

 
 
 
of  products,  services  or  processes.  Furthermore,  research  results  are  disseminated faster 
via standards. 

However,  research  integrated  into  standards  does  not  necessarily  signal  the  quality  of  a 
product  or  process,  nor  does  it  indicate  that  public  procurement  of  innovation  is 
expected (23).  More  intensive  collaboration  with  HEIs  and  PROs  is  also  not  anticipated. 
Lastly,  larger  economies  of  scale  for  products  and  services  cannot  be  exploited  by 
integrating research results into standards, which is a well-known tension. 

Taking  a  last  look  at  the  differences  between  the  answers  from  the  industry  and  other 
stakeholders,  we  observe  that  the  latter  assessed  most  impact  dimensions  slightly  more 
positively  than  the  former  (Figure 24).  Larger  companies  in  particular  expect  research-
based standards and faster or easier access to European or international markets, which is 
crucial  for  their  economic  success.  Other  stakeholders,  particularly  those  not  performing 
research,  expect  an  easier  response  to  EU  policies  but  not  an  improvement  in  public 
procurement and collaboration with PROs and HEIs. 

Overall,  integrating  research  into  standards  encourages  faster  and  wider  diffusion  of 
knowledge  and  methodologies  and  strengthens  standards’  primary  functions,  such  as 
market  access,  consumer  confidence  and  interoperability.  Complementary  standards  can 
better align with EU policy and regulation. 

Figure 23. Assessment of the importance of impacts of standards based on research results on innovation. 
NB. Scale from very low (– 3) to very high (+ 3). 

(23)  See  Blind  (2008)  for  the  role  of  standards  in  the  public  procurement  of  innovation,  and  see  the 

first empirical evidence for their interrelationship in Blind et al. (2020). 

36 

 
 
 
Figure 24. Assessment of the importance of impacts of standards based on research results on innovation differentiated 
between respondents from industry and from the remaining sectors. 
NB. Scale from very low (– 3) to very high (+ 3). 

4.5. Organisations’ engagement in standardisation 

Complementary  to  the  closed  questions  related  to  using  research  results  as  input  for 
standardisation,  some  generic  open  questions  about  organisations’  engagement  in 
standardisation were asked (24). The answers were analysed by manual coding. Then, the 
frequency of mentioning the specific topics was calculated. The objective was to provide a 
comprehensive overview of the arguments made. 

The  first  question  aims  to  identify  the  needs  most  critical  to  increasing  organisations’ 
engagement in standardisation activities. There are various ways to structure the needs of 
stakeholders (25). However, we rely on the frequency of the five most frequently mentioned 
topics.  As  there  were  five  slots  for  participants  to  indicate  their  answers,  the  number  of 
answers varies between 77 and 680 for each slot. 

(n = 226) 

(Figure 25).  The 

First,  the  benefits  of  standardisation  and,  more  precisely,  the  financial  returns  were 
frequently  mentioned  by  participants 
in 
standardisation  processes  is  time  and  resource  consuming,  but  adequate  resources  and 
time  commitment  are  necessary (26).  For  the  participants,  the  advantages  of  engaging  in 
standardisation  must  be  clear  in  advance,  for  instance  a  high  probability  of  entering  the 
market with a new product or knowing that the administrative burden of entering a market 
will  be  reduced.  More  specifically,  financial  facilitations,  such  as  tax  reductions  for 
companies  active  in  standardisation  or  public  funding  for  companies,  are  mentioned  very 
often. This is particularly important for small companies, start-ups, HEIs and PROs because 
of their limited resources and lower incentives compared with large companies. One of the 
respondents  even  proposed  ‘compensation  for  resources  used’.  Nonetheless,  these 

involvement 

(24)  We now expand the initially narrower focus on companies to organisations in general because all 

face challenges that are similar if not identical. 

(25)  See, for example, the study by De Vries et al. (2009) focusing on SMEs. 
(26)  The  burden  of  travel  costs  is  still  raised,  despite  common  remote  standardisation  processes 

commonly being carried out remotely. See also Heß and Blind (2023). 

37 

 
 
 
 
organisations  provide  valuable  input  for  generating  standards  that  are  often  public 
goods (27). 

Second,  the  participants  recognised  the  need  to  make  companies  more  aware  of  the 
benefits  that  standardisation  entails  so  that  they  will  change  their  internal  structures 
(n = 142).  Therefore,  it  is  essential  to  make  managers  aware  of  the  benefits  of 
standardisation.  On  the  one  hand,  standardisation  institutions  must  explain  this  to 
companies, but, on the other hand, companies themselves need to enable standardisation 
internally. Involvement in standardisation requires all organisations to take a strategic and 
long-term  approach.  Companies  need  to  accept,  foster  and  reward  their  employees’ 
engagement  in  standardisation  by  providing  them  with  time  and  money  but  also  more 
substantial incentives, and the same applies to HEIs and PROs (28). One respondent stated 
in  this  context:  ‘Increasing  awareness  about  the  importance  of  standardisation  and  its 
potential  benefits  is  crucial.  Companies  must  understand  how  adhering  to  standards  can 
improve  product  quality,  safety,  interoperability,  and  marketability.  Educational  initiatives, 
seminars, and workshops can help disseminate this knowledge.’ Some participants felt that 
they  needed  a  stronger  acknowledgement  of  their  work  in  standardisation  by  the 
organisation’s  management  board.  Recognition  of  contributors  to  standardisation  seems 
more  important  now  than  in  the  past (29).  Therefore,  contributions  should  be  publicly 
acknowledging. In some countries, the authors are listed on the title page of standards. 

The  third  most  frequently  stated  need  concerns  the  public  visibility  of  standardisation 
(n = 130).  The  participants  stated  that  there  is  a  need  for  a  clearer,  more  realistic, 
to 
understandable  and  accessible 
standardisation  in  general,  as  well  as  to  the  advantages  of  standardisation,  and  to  the 
visibility  of  current  standardisation  activities.  In  addition,  the  impact  of  a  standard  is  fully 
exploited  only  if  it  is  rapidly  and  widely  disseminated.  One  respondent  proposed:  ‘More 
visibility  for  companies  involved  in  standardisation,  e.g.  joint  events,  press  releases. …’. 
Another  wrote:  ‘raising  awareness  and  reducing  the  stigma  attached  to  standardisation 
activities’. 

information  on  standardisation (30).  This  refers 

Next, the participants indicated that there is also room for improvement in the work of the 
standardisation organisations (n = 121). In particular, the composition of the committee was 
often  mentioned.  Participants  would  like  to  see  more  diversity  in  the  SDO  committees, 
namely  representatives  from  industry,  research  and  politics  and  consumers,  who  would 
work  with  them  on  their  drafts.  Furthermore,  the  SDOs  need  to  communicate  with  their 
members and increase the pace of delivering their services. Some participants wished for 
better  support  when  working  with  committees,  as  well  as  the  provision  of  funding  for 
participants,  that  is,  ‘a  simple  and  guided  introduction  to  the  world  of  standardisation  is 
needed’.  Moreover,  the  SDOs  need  to  improve  their  public  performance  by  clarifying  why 
companies  and  experts  should  engage  in  standardisation (31).  Complementary  education 
and  training  in  standardisation  in  HEIs  and  even  schools  could  be  part  of  a  long-term 
strategy. 

(27)  See Kindleberger (1983). 
(28)  See  the  proposals  in  the  code  of  practice  on  standardisation  in  the  European  Research  Area 

(European Commission, 2023). 

(29)  See Blind and Gauch (2009). 
(30)  See  also  the  proposals  in  Blind  (2023)  related  to  pushing  the  diffusion  of  standards  to  support 

transformative innovations. 

(31)  Some  respondents  underlined  that  scientific  evidence  is  needed  to  calculate  the  return  on 

investment. 

38 

 
 
that  participate 

The  fifth  most  frequently  mentioned  topic  is  the  reduction  in  membership  fees  for 
organisations 
to 
standardisation  activities  and  committees  has  to  be  facilitated,  complemented  by  higher 
visibility and awareness of the benefits of standardisation and standards. Further incentives 
could be created to subsidise participation in standardisation, for example by reducing the 
costs  of  attending  technical  committees  or  waiving  the  costs  of  purchasing  standards  for 
contributors. 

in  standardisation  committees  (n = 116).  Access 

Figure 25. Most critical needs identified to increase organisations’ engagement in standardisation activities. 

However,  even  before  standardisation  processes  start,  respondents  would  appreciate  a 
comprehensive  overview  of  and  easy  access  to  existing  standards,  because  this  would 
increase  the  efficiency  of  standardisation  processes  and  the  incentive  to  participate. 
Generally, the generic functions of standards, such as having industry- or even economy-
wide solutions instead of a fragmented landscape of specific and uncoordinated standards, 
and 
lacking,  must  be 
impact,  particularly  when  standardisation 
communicated much more strongly and widely. 

financial 

their 

is 

During  the  standardisation  process,  participants  suggested  increasing  the  efficiency  of 
committees’ work by focusing on the most relevant standardisation topics. Furthermore, the 
standardisation  process  should  become  faster  and  less  bureaucratic.  However,  the 
acceptance  and  credibility  of  standards  should  not  suffer (32).  They  should  reflect  the 
generally recognised state of knowledge and its relevance in practice. Participants’ answers 
indicate  that  the  various  stakeholders’  somewhat  different  interests  and  backgrounds 
require  a  carefully  balanced  consensus-finding  process.  Lastly,  some  respondents 
complained  about  the  role  of  the  harmonised  standards  consultants  in  delaying  and 
complicating standardisation processes. 

Following the open question on the needs of participants to get involved in standards, 475 
participants  responded  to  a  request  for  proposals  to  help  organisations  in  general  and 

(32)  See Botzem and Dobusch (2012). 

39 

 
 
 
 
companies  in  particular  to  increase  their  competitiveness  by  strengthening  their  standard-
setting capabilities (Figure 26).  

For  a  number  of  participants,  the  most  important  requirements  for  getting  involved  in 
standardisation are (financial) benefits (n = 56), such as security of market entrance or the 
potential  to  become  a  market  leader.  The  increase  in  consumer  confidence  or  increased 
awareness  of  standardisation  was  also  mentioned.  One  idea  respondents  proposed  to 
achieve  those  goals  was  to  grant  ‘free  access  to  standards  and  tax  advantages  in  their 
application’. 

The  next  requirement  is  how  participation  in  standardisation  can  be  improved.  Here,  a 
reduction in the costs of participating in standardisation and the ability to use the outcomes 
of  standardisation  work  was  proposed.  The  proposition  of  one  of  the  respondents  was  as 
follows: ‘Promotion of standardisation work, at least partial refunding of the incurred  costs 
for  SMEs’.  It  was  also  stated  that  access  to  standardisation  should  be  facilitated  with  the 
support  of  SDOs,  for  example  by  providing  more  low-threshold  formats  such  as  CEN 
workshop agreements. Another topic that was often mentioned in response to this question 
is the offer of training for standardisation personnel as well as the provision of consultancy 
by  SDOs  (n = 38).  Participants  should 
their 
organisations’  participation  in  standard-setting,  including  defining  objectives  such  as 
shaping standards proactively, supported with appropriate resources. 

take  a  strategic  approach 

towards 

Furthermore,  respondents  thought  that  the  standardisation  process  should  be  fast  and 
transparent to foster companies’ competitiveness (n = 51). However, it was also highlighted 
that  existing  standards  should  be  updated  in  a  timely  way.  Some  participants  also 
mentioned a reduction in bureaucracy and a simplification of the whole process. 

Since standards are often closely linked to the regulatory framework in the EU, participants 
thought  that  they  should  be  well  aligned  with  governmental  regulations  (n = 43) (33). 
Therefore,  participation  in  setting  standards  should  be  perceived  as  an  opportunity  to 
influence  regulations (34).  However,  it  is  not  only  alignment  with  certification  and  market 
surveillance that are required but also the international harmonisation of standards to avoid 
distorting competition and incurring additional certification costs. In this context, the role of 
certification, which can be a significant cost component, and market surveillance relying on 
standards, was mentioned in the context of reducing the share of defective products in the 
single market. Some respondents favour stricter regulations to comply with standards; one 
stated:  ‘Increasingly  set  framework  conditions  for  legal  requirements  for  market  access 
through more accredited certifications (building trust in products and services through proof 
of compliance with standards)’. 

(33)  See Blind (2024). 
(34)  See  also  the  survey  results  in  Blind  and  Mangelsdorf  (2016)  from  the  machinery  and 
electrotechnical  industry,  revealing  that  influencing  standards  is  companies'  most  significant 
motive for standardising. 

40 

 
 
Figure 26. Measures to increase companies’ competitiveness through strengthening their standard-setting capabilities. 

Lastly, 434 participants answered the question about the needs of companies in relation to 
closer cooperation with research in standardisation. 

In  the  most  frequently  answered  topic,  more  participants  answered  in  favour  of  closer 
cooperation  with  research  in  standardisation  (n = 48)  than  stated  that  there  is  no  need 
(n = 39) (Figure 27). To foster standardisation research and to deepen this tie, coordination 
between  SDOs,  research  institutions  and  industry  needs  to  be  enhanced,  and  networks 
need to be created; 82 respondents supported that view.. The implementation of strategic 
coordination  and  communication  tools  could  achieve  this.  HEIs  and  PROs  with  the 
knowledge, capacity and incentives should be more involved in standardisation processes, 
despite  tensions  with  the  interests  of  industry  being  likely.  HEIs  and  PROs  could  play  an 
essential  role  in  consensus-finding  because  of  their  more  technologically  neutral  position. 
Stronger relationships with SDOs could support their involvement. One respondent wrote in 
this  context:  ‘Better  information  about  the  added  value  for  themselves …  and  the  added 
value  that  science  can  bring  to  standardisation.  Unfortunately,  many  scientific  disciplines 
are not open to standardisation per se or see standardisation as something contradictory to 
science, sometimes even “at too low a level”.’ 

For 49 of the respondents, the topic of financial incentives was the second most important 
need.  As  one  respondent  put  it,  ‘The  purpose  of  a  company  is  to  generate  (sustainable) 
turnover.  Anything  outside  that  scope  is  perceived  as  “useless”.  For  now,  the  processes 
take too long; they require the support of expensive external consultants, the outcomes are 
uncertain, etc. … in other words, there is no clear or sufficiently rapid return on investment. 
So, either increase the Return on Investment (difficult), speed up the process (difficult), or 
decrease the costs involved ... I suppose the latter is the only one that can be acted upon.’  

The  third  most  frequently  mentioned  topic  in  this  context  was  project-based  funding  for 
collaborative  research  (n = 44).  Along  with  access  to  national  research  facilities,  this  is 
identified as a critical need because networking and active collaboration between industry 
and academia are crucial. Including standardisation as a work package in research projects 
was  the  fifth  most  frequently  mentioned  topic  (n = 40)  and  could  be  essential  to  project-

41 

 
 
 
based  funding.  Here,  respondents  declared  that  a  clear  definition  of  the  goal  and 
instructions,  testing  phases  and  consideration  of  the  topic  in  public  procurement  are 
important. 

Figure 27. Companies’ requirements for better implementation of standardisation through cooperation between industry and 
science. 

The  practical  applicability  of  scientific  results  and  more  market-oriented  science  was 
mentioned by 44 participants and is the third most important need. Here, the consideration 
of  cost-effectiveness  and  the  need  for  SMEs  to  improve  collaboration  in  standardisation, 
which eventually contributes to technical progress and innovation, plays an important role. 
In  particular,  pre-normative  research  needs  to  be  undertaken  before  standardisation,  for 
example extensive testing of the product and the methods, as well as a clear picture of the 
current  market  situation  being  drawn.  For  efficient  collaboration  on  standardisation,  the 
sharing  of  data  and  research  findings  between  industry  and  scientific  communities  is 
needed, and this can be supported by open science and open access. Mechanisms should 
also  be  established  for  continuous  monitoring  and  feedback  from  scientific  partners  to 
ensure that standards are at the cutting edge of technology. According to respondents, this 
is important because ‘the implementation of standardisation projects must first and foremost 
be  practice-oriented.  It  is  of  no  use  to  anyone  to  develop  standards  that  are  scientifically 
detached  and  far  removed  from  everyday  practice.  A  further  distinction  must  be  made 
between  product  and  process  standards.  The  standardisation  committees  should  at  least 
have an equal number of stakeholders from all areas.’ 

The  importance  of  knowledge,  education,  continuous  internal  training  for  effective 
cooperation  with  research  organisations,  and  training  about  standardisation  was  also 
stressed  in  the  context  of  this  question.  In  addition,  opportunities  for  interdisciplinary 
collaboration  are  considered  essential  for  developing  comprehensive  and  implementable 
standards. 

42 

 
 
 
4.6. Summary of the survey results 

Based on the answers of more than 3 700 respondents (with slight over-representation from 
Germany), we can reveal several insights arising from answers to the main questions in the 
ESPS and derive recommendations. 

Sample characteristics 

The  majority  of  the  respondents  work  for  industry,  mainly  mechanical  and  electrical 
engineering  companies.  However,  other  stakeholders,  such  as  experts  from  non-
governmental  organisations,  HEIs,  PROs  and  the  public  sector,  also  answered  the 
questionnaire.  Overall,  we  achieved  a  balance  between  large  organisations  with  over  250 
employees and small organisations, particularly SMEs. More than 80 % of the experts are 
male, and more than 60 % are aged over 50. 

General relevance of standards 

Formal  European  standards  followed  by  international  standards  were  rated  the  most 
important. However, European technical specifications, such as CEN workshop agreements  
and  national  standards,  have  almost  the  same  relevance.  Over  one  third  of  the 
organisations surveyed have implemented more than 100 formal standards. More than half 
are certified to at least ISO 9001 for quality and ISO 14001 for environmental management. 
Respondents considered formal standards most relevant for legal security but that they also 
facilitate  market  access  or  achieve 
technical 
technical 
specifications  are  almost  equally  relevant.  Company  internal  standards  are  essential  for 
firms to improve quality, but other types of standards are of limited relevance. 

interoperability, 

for  which 

Research and development collaboration partners 

More than half of the responding organisations perform R & D and have introduced product 
or process innovations. Collaborations with PROs and universities are relevant. After further 
education  and  informal  contacts,  common  standardisation  activities  were  rated  the  most 
effective forms of cooperation with scientific institutions for knowledge transfer. 

Research as input into standardisation 

Policy  initiatives,  including  regulations  and  customers’  requirements,  particularly  for 
industry,  as  well  as  organisations’  own  and  collaborative  research,  are  the  most  relevant 
sources for standard development. Research input is most important for measurement and 
testing  standards,  followed  by  quality  and  environmental  standards.  The  most  significant 
advantage  of  research  as input  for  standardisation  is  free  access  to  scientific  content  and 
the  ability  to keep  track  of  scientific  progress.  The  challenges  are  the  lack  of  validation  of 
research results, but the lack of R & D staff as standards experts as input for standards is 
also  a  problem.  However,  overall  the  advantages  of  integrating  research  results  into 
standardisation are rated much higher than the disadvantages. 

Approaches for the integration of research in standardisation 

There are various approaches to improving the integration of research results as input for 
standard development. Increasing the knowledge of HEIs and PROs was found to be most 
effective,  followed  by  more  companies’  involvement  in  publicly  funded  research  projects, 
particularly SMEs. However, funding standardisation as a means of exploitation of research 

43 

 
results seems also to work. Lastly, including research into standards, which are the basis of 
innovation,  fosters  the  primary  function  of  standards,  such  as  facilitating  market  access, 
strengthening  consumer  confidence  in  innovative  products,  wider  use  of  recognised 
methods and better documentation of R & D results. 

Organisations’ engagement in standardisation 

Three open questions were posed and the answers analysed qualitatively. The most critical 
needs  to  increase  organisations’  engagement  in  standardisation  are  related  to  a  lack  of 
awareness of the benefits of standardisation, particularly the financial returns. Involvement 
in  standardisation  processes  requires  adequate  resources  and  a  time  commitment.  More 
specifically, 
in 
standardisation  or  public  funding  for  companies’  projects,  were  mentioned  very  often.  In 
addition,  there  is  a  need –  also  supported  by  SDOs)–  to  make  companies  more  aware  of 
the benefits that standardisation brings so that they change their internal structures to foster 
employee engagement in standardisation, which is also required for HEIs and PROs. 

for  companies  active 

facilitation,  such  as 

tax  reductions 

financial 

Furthermore, there is a need for clearer, actual, more understandable and more accessible 
information  on  standardisation.  In  addition,  there  is  room  for  improvement  in  the  work  of 
SDOs,  particularly  the  diversity  of  committee  composition  and  the  speed  of  processes. 
Lastly, the reduction of participation fees in standardisation committees is mentioned. 

Companies’  competitiveness  can  be  strengthened  if  their  participation  in  standardisation 
brings benefits, for example by lowering costs, but also facilitates market entry or increases 
consumer  confidence.  Furthermore,  training  for  personnel  developing  standards  and  the 
provision  of  consultancy  by  SDOs  are  helpful.  Since  standards  are  often  closely  linked  to 
the  regulatory  framework  in  the  EU,  they  should  be  well  aligned  with  governmental 
regulations to foster companies’ competitiveness. 

Related  to  the  need  for  companies  to  foster  closer  cooperation  with  research  in 
standardisation,  better  coordination  between  SDOs,  research  institutions  and  industry  is 
required,  which  can  be  enhanced  by  networks  that  need  to  be  created.  HEIs  and  PROs 
need  to  increase  their  standardisation-related  knowledge,  capacity  and  incentives. 
However,  the  capability  to  get  effectively  involved  in  standardisation  must  also  be 
strengthened within companies. Furthermore, communication capacity is needed to support 
census-finding  processes  and  exploit  opportunities  for  interdisciplinary  collaboration  to 
develop  comprehensive  and  easily  implementable  standards.  Here,  project-based  funding 
for collaborative research related to standardisation and the inclusion of standardisation as 
a work package in research projects are suggested. These approaches would also improve 
the  practical  applicability  and  the  market  orientation  of  research  results.  Lastly,  education 
and  continuous  internal  training  are  needed  to  cooperate  with  research  organisations 
effectively. 

5.  RECOMMENDATIONS 

A  survey  was  developed  based  on  the  literature  review  and  then  assessed  by  selected 
experts from industry. The answers to the survey, supported by insights from research, but 
also  considering  the  general  aim  of  promoting  cutting-edge  innovation  that  fosters  timely 
development  of  standards  in  accordance  with  the  European  standardisation  strategy 
(European  Commission,  2022),  are  used  to  derive  recommendations  addressing  different 
target groups, as in the code of practice on standardisation (European Commission, 2023). 
Preliminary  recommendations  were  presented  and  discussed  at  the  online  workshop  on 

44 

 
8 December  2023.  The  following  list  of  final  recommendations  addressing  different 
stakeholders is the outcome of the discussions at that workshop. 

5.1. Recommendations addressing industry 

As a significant player in developing standards and a beneficiary from their implementation, 
industry  has  to  increase  awareness  within  companies  of  the  benefits  of  participating  in 
standardisation  in  general  and  of  collaborating  with  research  (see  Sections 4.4  and  4.5). 
The  latter  is  an  essential  driver  for  initiating  standardisation  processes,  which  can  benefit 
from  the  freely  accessible  and  timely  insights  from  research  (see  Figure 19).  Since 
standardisation  is  often  a  new  topic  for  researchers  in  industry,  the  effectiveness  of 
company  internal  communications  and  awareness  campaigns  related  to  standardisation 
has  to  be  improved.  Furthermore,  companies’  involvement  in  standardisation  will  require 
the promotion of positive business cases. These recommendations have been derived from 
the discussions at the online workshop. 

Setting  research-based  standards  is  an  option  for  shaping  the  regulatory  framework  (see 
Figure 19)  and  is  relevant  for  companies’  markets  despite  the  even  greater  challenge  of 
constructing  a  positive  business  case.  Therefore,  we  recommend  providing  adequate 
resources  for  standardisation  activities  to  exploit  the  opportunities  of  research  but  also  to 
direct  future  regulatory  developments.  However,  the  challenge  of  integrating  as  yet 
unvalidated,  premature,  too  abstract  and  ambitious  research  results  into  standardisation 
(see  Figure 20)  needs  to  be  tackled  by  providing  funding  for  the  further  validation  of 
research results for standardisation. 

Industry in general and SMEs in particular benefit from research-driven standardisation, for 
example  by  keeping  track  of  scientific  and  technical  progress (35)  but  also  from  the 
opportunity  to  use  their  own  research  results  for  the  development  of  their  own  innovative 
products (see Figure 19). Furthermore, standards can prevent proprietary dominant designs 
from  making  market  entry  and  achieving  competitiveness,  particularly  for  SMEs,  more 
difficult.  Lastly,  SMEs  in  particular  benefit  from  the  quality-enhancing  impact  of  research-
based  standards  (Figure 25).  Therefore,  it  is  recommended  that –  despite  significant 
challenges – research-active SMEs are supported to adopt standardisation. 

5.2. Recommendations addressing higher education institutes and 
public research organisations 

Similar to industry, HEIs and PROs can also benefit from research-driven standardisation, 
for  example  by  using  scientific  evidence  to  develop  standards  that  are  relevant  for  their 
follow-up research (Figure 19). Therefore, their representatives, and also stakeholders from 
industry,  suggest  increasing  awareness  of  the  relevance  of  standardisation  and  funding 
opportunities (Figure 23). 

(35)  See the critical role of participation in standardisation for knowledge acquisition by SMEs in Blind 

and Mangelsdorf (2016).  

45 

 
 
Since  the  involvement  of  researchers  in  standardisation  is  not  adequately  rewarded, 
appropriate  incentives  should  be  provided  (see  Blind  and  Gauch,  2009),  which  will  need 
effective performance indicators (36). 

Since  the  survey  revealed  for  the  first  time  the  age  distribution  of  experts  involved  in 
standardisation  and  the  need  to  replace  several  thousand  of  them  in  the  next  few  years 
(Figure 5),  educating  and  training  future  experts  is  a  crucial  challenge.  Therefore,  the 
recommendation  addressing  HEIs  to  provide  education  and  training  on  standardisation 
already  underlined  in  the  code  of  practice  on  standardisation  and  in  the  study  about  the 
functions and effects of European standards (European Commission, 2022b) was affirmed 
by  the  discussions  at  the  workshop (37).  Because  of  the  still  small  share  of  female 
standardisation experts, the forthcoming shortage of experts should also be addressed by 
recruiting  women,  which  might  be  supported  by  considering  gender  aspects  in  future 
education and training activities. 

At  the  workshop,  it  was  pointed  out  that  standardisation  is  not  very  prevalent  in  HEIs. 
However,  the  differences  between  technical  universities,  business  schools  and  other 
faculties, as well as between scientific disciplines, should be considered. It is recommended 
that  HEIs  follow  the  new  Horizon  Europe  project  EDU4Standards (38),  started  in  January 
2024,  to  tackle  the  challenges  mentioned  by  expanding,  improving  and  diversifying  their 
teaching and education portfolios related to standardisation. 

5.3. Recommendations addressing standard development 
organisations 

SDOs  provide  the  platform  for  successfully  integrating  research  results  into  standards,  as 
confirmed  by  the  workshop  discussions.  Therefore,  it  is  recommended  that  they  improve 
the  agility  of  their  processes  to  allow  the  timely  release of  standards  (see  Section 4.5).  In 
particular,  it  is  suggested  that  they  further  develop  their  service  portfolios  for  R & I  actors 
and examine new ways to align their activities with R & I, which is particularly appreciated 
by research-active SMEs (Figure 23) ( 39). Some of their products, such as CEN workshop 
agreements, whose impact is judged to be similar to that of standards, are not well known 
by  most  experts.  However,  several  workshop  participants  considered  them  effective 
instruments  for  rapid  innovation  and  an  important  step  in  the  run-up  to  regular 
standardisation  and  lowering  the  entrance  barriers  for  research-based  newcomers  to 
standardisation. 

Furthermore,  open-source  software  and  hardware  are  still 
for 
standardisation processes (Figure 14). Therefore, SDOs should consider addressing them 
explicitly  within  their  IPR  policies  but  also  consider  closer  collaboration  with  open-source 
communities, because they might support SDOs in their efforts to speed up the processes 

irrelevant 

inputs 

(36)  See  examples  in  the  annex  to  the  code  of  practice  on  standardisation  (European  Commission, 
2023).  In  Germany,  the  new  transfer  initiative  within  the  framework  of  Germany's  federal 
government's  high-tech  strategy  and  in  GWK's  new  taxonomy  of  transfer  indicators  includes 
standardisation  activities  as  a  seventh  pillar  (GWK,  2020),  which  requires  the  research 
organisation  to  report  its  involvement  in  technical  committees.  In  addition,  Germany  is  currently 
discussing whether to disclose voluntarily the names of the experts contributing to a standard, as 
is already the case in France. 

(38)  https://edu4standards.eu. 
(39)  In  some  countries,  such  as  France,  SMEs  can  participate  without  paying  any  fees  for 

standardisation. 

46 

 
 
 
and to improve the agility of standard development, and also might support the inclusion of 
research-performing SMEs active in open source (40). 

Lastly,  SDOs  should  also  monitor  the  implementation  of  standards-based  certification  to 
collect  feedback,  which  will  eventually  be  integrated  into  the  revision  or  withdrawal  of 
existing standards to maintain a timely stock of standards promoting firms’ competitiveness 
(see Section 4.5). 

5.4. Recommendations addressing research funding organisations 

The  participants  highlighted  the  need  for  and  the  effectiveness  of  funding  standardisation 
as a means of exploiting research results at the European and national levels and an option 
for  knowledge  valorisation  (Figure 22).  Therefore,  it  is  recommended  that  new  funding 
schemes  are  established  or  the  financial  support  already  available  under  the  European 
standardisation  strategy  (European  Commission,  2022)  is  continued  and  expanded. 
Meanwhile  existing  opportunities,  such  as  the  support  services  offered  within  the  Horizon 
Europe project HSBooster (41) or the funding opportunities for European experts offered by 
StandICT (42) 
ICT-related  standardisation  activities,  by  Seeblocks (43)  and  by 
Blockstand (44)  for  blockchain-related  standardisation  activities  at  the  international  level, 
should  be  utilised.  At  the  national  level,  Germany  has  established  a  programme  of 
knowledge transfer via patenting and standardisation (Wipano (45)). It is recommended that 
this  initiative  should  be  continued  in  Germany  and  that  other  Member  States  establish 
similar funding programmes. 

for 

Complementary  to  these  funding  schemes,  workshop  participants  recommended  that 
standardisation  should  be  considered  at  the  beginning  and  not  only  at  the  end  of  R & D 
projects because researchers are confronted with standardisation at an early stage, and the 
results can  be  better  integrated  into  standardisation  processes. Since  some  players  focus 
more on research and others more on standardisation, it is suggested that in coordination 
and support actions involving these different actors, research and standardisation can also 
be more effectively and efficiently integrated. 

In addition, SME-specific needs for less bureaucratic procedures in standardisation-related 
research funding should be considered, as should the option to promote their international 
visibility via standardisation. In this context, the workshop participants demanded more and 
accurate supplementary information on standardisation in research calls, additional support 
during the implementation of research projects and more examples of best practices. 

Since  HEIs  and  PROs  are –  according  to  the  responses  to  the  survey –  lacking  in 
knowledge  about  standardisation  and  are 
in 
standardisation  activities,  they  should  also  be  considered  for  public  funding  schemes 
(Figure 22),  as  also  suggested  in  the  code  of  practice  on  standardisation  (European 
Commission, 2023). 

insufficiently 

represented 

therefore 

(40)  See the recommendations by Blind and Böhm (2019). 
(41)  https://www.hsbooster.eu/. 
(42)  https://standict.eu/.  
(43)  https://seeblocks.eu/. 
(44)  https://blockstand.eu/.  
(45)  https://www.innovation-beratung-foerderung.de/INNO/Navigation/DE/WIPANO/wipano.html.  

47 

 
 
Since SMEs express a greater need for support from SDOs in integrating research results 
into  standardisation,  they  should  also  be  considered  for  the  support  programmes  on 
standardisation  that  support  knowledge  valorisation  in  order  to  offer  appropriate  services 
(Figure 22). 

5.5. Recommendations for other areas of innovation policy 

We  must  reconsider  basic  definitions  if  we  are  to  change  the  general  understanding  of 
standardisation as being wholly separate from or contradicting R & D. Standardisation is not 
considered  in  the  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-operation  and  Development  (OECD) 
definition of  research and experimental development in the Frascati manual (OECD, 2015) 
and  only  as  a  knowledge  source  for  innovation  in  the  Oslo  manual  (OECD  and  Eurostat, 
2018).  Therefore,  it  is  recommended  (Figure 22)  that  the  comprehensive  integration  of 
standardisation  is  discussed  in  the  upcoming  revisions  of  both  manuals  because  most 
respondents to our EU-focused survey would endorse that. 

Following  a  revision  of  the  terminology,  indicators  and  evaluation  systems  have  to  be 
developed,  as  already  suggested  in  the  code  of  practice  on  standardisation,  to  help 
standardisation  experts  demonstrate  their  contributions  to  the  performance  of  their 
organisation, since several respondents expressed this as a significant need. 

Specifying  the  general  recommendation  in  the  code  of  practice  on  standardisation 
(European Commission, 2023) that Member States should use national support structures 
concerning the role of standardisation for knowledge valorisation, we address the following 
areas based on the responses to the survey. 

Complementary to providing explicit funding to promote  the integration of research results 
into standardisation, there is an opportunity for Member  States to treat R & D expenditure 
differently from other types of expenditure (Figure 22). In 2022, more than three quarters of 
OECD  countries  gave  preferential  tax  treatment  to  business  R & D  expenditure (46).  The 
French research tax credit approach has allowed the declaration of the cost of participating 
in standardisation since 2009 (47). Therefore, it is recommended that Member States with a 
research tax credit system expand the tax base to expenditure incurred by participation in 
standardisation,  because  smaller  organisations  confirmed  the  effectiveness  of  this 
approach  in  the  survey.  Furthermore,  SMEs  do  not  benefit  in  the  same  way  as  large 
organisations from public research funding programmes (48). 

In  addition  to  this  specific  recommendation,  it  is  suggested  that  standardisation  is 
considered in further R & I-related support programmes targeting SMEs. 

While  in  the  mobile  communication  area,  patents  and  other  IPRs,  particularly  standard-
essential patents, play a major role, which impacts research and standardisation, the ESPS 
did not reveal significant problems in the organisations surveyed (Figure 19) ( 49). Therefore, 
no specific recommendations on this can be derived. 

(46)  https://www.oecd.org/innovation/tax-incentives-rd-innovation/.  
(47)  See the recommendation in De Vries et al. (2009) to support SMEs. 
(48)  Dinges et al. (2013) reveal that all SMEs, accounting for more than 90 % of enterprises in the EU, 

received only a similar amount of funding under Horizon 2020 as some large companies. 

(49)  See Blind and Gauch (2009).  

48 

 
 
A closer alignment is needed between standards and regulations to promote innovation (50), 
particularly  in  the  EU,  as  more  than  3 000  European  standards  are  referenced  in  EU 
directives and regulations. The increasing relevance of a robust science base for standards 
(Figure 17) (51) can also be leveraged in the regulatory framework of the EU, particularly in 
emerging  fields  of  science  and  technology  often  addressed  in  standardisation  requests 
adopted  by  the  European  Commission (52).  Therefore,  it  is  recommended  that  ex  ante 
regulatory impact assessments should screen the existing standards landscape to use the 
already existing scientific evidence base and avoid contradictions. 

Lastly,  public  procurement  can  benefit  from  research-based  standards,  particularly  to 
promote  innovation (53).  In  pre-commercial  procurement,  not  only  research  but  also  new 
standards can be developed, which the whole EU single market will eventually have access 
to. Therefore, it is recommended that the role of research-based standards is considered in 
updating  the  public  procurement  directive  (Directive  2014/24/EU)  and  also  in  the  EU 
funding  programmes  supporting  innovation  procurement,  such  as  Horizon  Europe, 
Innovation Fund, new defence programme and Digital Europe. 

In  summary,  the  challenges  of  effectively  implementing  the  recommendations  in  practice 
are  that  numerous  stakeholders,  different  governance  levels  and  various  strategy  and 
policy areas are addressed. Therefore, close coordination of stakeholders and instruments 
across multiple levels is needed. 

(50)  See Blind (2023) on the coordination of standardisation and regulation to promote transformative 

innovation. 

(51)  See the increasing amount of scientific references in ISO standards revealed by Blind and Fenton 

(2022).  

(52)  Here, standards are perceived as lower barriers to innovation than regulations (Blind et al., 2017). 
(53)  See Blind (2008). 

49 

 
 
 
 
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1 
Figure 2 
Figure 3 
Figure 4 
Figure 5 
Figure 6 
Figure 7 
Figure 8 
Figure 9 
Figure 10 
Figure 11 
Figure 12 

Figure 13 
Figure 14 

Figure 15 

Figure 16 

Figure 17 

Figure 18 

Figure 19 

Figure 20 

Figure 21 

Figure 22 

Figure 23 

Figure 24 

Figure 25 

Figure 26 

Figure 27 

Heuristic model 
Distribution of respondents by position in their organisation   
Distribution of respondents by country of headquarters 
Distribution of respondents by sector 
Age distribution of respondents 
Gender distribution of respondents 
Importance of different types of standards 
Number of standards implemented by type of standard 
Impact of different types of standards by impact dimension   
Relevance of collaboration in R & D by type of organisation   
Effectiveness of collaboration in R & D by type of organisation 
Effectiveness of forms of cooperation with scientific institutions for 
knowledge  transfer 
Relevance of input sources for standard development 
Relevance of input sources for standard development differentiated 
between respondents from industry and from the remaining sectors 
Relevance of research results as input for developing different types of standards

24 
27 
27 
28 
29 
30 
30 
31 
32 
33 
33 

34 
35 

36 

37 

40 

39 

37 

38 

Relevance of research results as input for developing different types of standards
differentiated between respondents from industry from and the remaining 
sectors 
Relevance of advantages of research results as input for standard
development 
Relevance of advantages of research results as input for standard
development differentiated between respondents from industry and 
from the remaining sectors 
Relevance of disadvantages of research results as input for standard
development 
Relevance of disadvantages of research results as input for standard
development differentiated between respondents from industry and from the 
remaining sectors 
Assessment of the importance of various approaches to integrating 
research results as input for standard development 
Assessment of the importance of various approaches to integrating research
results as input for standard development differentiated between
respondents from industry and from the remaining sectors 
Assessment of the importance of impacts of standards based on research 
results on innovation 
Assessment of the importance of impacts of standards based on research 
results on innovation differentiated between respondents from 
industry and from the remaining sectors 
Most critical needs identified to increase organisations’ engagement in 
standardisation activities 
46 
Measures to increase companies’ competitiveness through strengthening their 
standard-setting capabilities 
48 
Companies’ requirements for better implementation of standardisation 
through cooperation between industry and science 

44 

43 

49 

40 

42 

42 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Abdelkafi,  N.  and  Makhotin, S.  (2014),  ‘Seizing  opportunities  for  the  support  of  innovation 
through  committee  standards  and  standardisation’,  International  Journal  of  IT  Standards 
and Standardisation Research, Vol. 12(2), pp. 38–56. 

Abdelkafi, N., Makhotin, S., Thuns, M., Pohle, A. and Blind, K. (2016), ‘To standardize or to 
patent?  Development  of  a  decision  making  tool  and  recommendations  for  young 
companies’, International Journal of Innovation Management, pp. 16400201–164002030. 

Bar,  T.  and  Leiponen,  A.  (2014),  Committee  composition  and  networking  in  standard 
setting:  The  case  of  wireless  telecommunications’,  Journal  of  Economics  &  Management 
Strategy, Vol. 23, pp. 1–23.  

Baron,  J.  and  Spulber,  D. F.  (2018),  ‘Technology  standards  and  standard  setting 
organisations:  Introduction  to  the  Searle  Center  Database’,  Journal  of  Economics  and 
Management Strategy, Vol. 27, pp. 462–503. 

Biden–Harris  Administration  (2023),  ‘United  States  Government  National  Standards 
Strategy  for  Critical  and  Emerging  Technology’  (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-
room/statements-releases/2023/05/04/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-
national-standards-strategy-for-critical-and-emerging-technology/). 

Blind,  K.  (2002),  ‘Driving  forces  for  standardisation  at  standardisation  development 
organisations’, Applied Economics, Vol. 34(16), pp. 1985–1998.  

Blind, K.  (2006),  ‘Explanatory  factors  for  participation in formal  standardisation  processes: 
Empirical evidence at firm level’, Economics and Innovation of New Technology, Vol. 15 (2), 
pp. 157–170. 

Blind,  K.  (2008),  ‘Driving  innovation –  Standards  and  public  procurement’,  ISO  Focus, 
Vol. 5(9), pp. 44–45. 

(2022),  Standards  and 
Blind,  K. 
(https://www.iso.org/publication/PUB100466.html). 

Innovation:  What  Does 

the  Research  Say? 

Blind, K. (2023), Maximizing the impact of standards and regulation to drive transformative 
innovation:  A  new  approach,  Fraunhofer  Institute  of  Systems  and  Innovation  Research, 
Karlsruhe, Berlin. 

Blind, K. (2024), ‘The role of the quality infrastructure within socio-technical transformations: 
A  European  perspective’,  Technological  Forecasting  &  Social  Change,  Vol. 199,  123019. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123019. 

Blind,  K.  and  Böhm,  M.  (2019),  The  Relationship  between  Open  Source  Software  and 
Standard  Setting 
(https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/science-update/relationship-between-open-
source). 

Blind, K. and Fenton, A. (2022), ‘Standard-relevant publications: Evidence, processes and 
influencing factors’, Scientometrics, Vol. 127(1), pp. 577–602. 

51 

 
Blind,  K.  and  Gauch,  S.  (2009),  ‘Research  and  standardisation  in  nanotechnology: 
Evidence from Germany’, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 34(3), pp. 320–342.  

Blind,  K.  and  Heß,  P.  (2023),  ‘Stakeholder  perceptions  of  the  role  of  standards  for 
addressing the sustainable development goals’, Sustainable Production and Consumption, 
Vol. 37, pp. 180–190. 

Blind, K. and von Laer, M. (2021), ‘Paving the path: Drivers of standardisation participation 
at ISO’, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 47, pp. 1115–1134. 

Blind, K. and Mangelsdorf, A., (2013), ‘Alliance formation of SMEs: Empirical evidence from 
standardisation  committees’,  IEEE  Transactions  of  Engineering  Management,  Vol. 60(1), 
pp. 148–156. 

Blind,  K.  and  Mangelsdorf,  A.  (2016),  ‘Motives  to  standardize:  Empirical  evidence  from 
Germany’, Technovation, Vol. 48-49, pp. 13–24.  

Blind, K. and Müller, J.-A. (2019), ‘The role of standards in the policy debate on the EU-US 
trade agreement’, Journal of Policy Modeling, Vol. 41(1), pp. 21–38. 

Blind, K. and Müller, J.-A. (2020), ‘Why corporate groups care about company standards’, 
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 58(11), pp. 3399–3414.   

Blind,  K.  and  Thumm,  N.  (2004),  ‘Interrelation  between  patenting  and  standardisation 
strategies:  Empirical  evidence  and  policy  implications’,  Research  Policy,  Vol. 33(10), 
pp. 1583–1598. 

Blind, K., Petersen, S. S. and Riillo, C. (2017), ‘The impact of standards and regulation on 
innovation in uncertain markets’, Research Policy, Vol. 46(1), pp. 249–264. 

Blind, K., Pohlisch, J. and Zi, A. (2018), ‘Publishing, patenting, and standardisation: Motives 
and barriers of scientists’, Research Policy, Vol. 47(7), pp. 1185–1197.  

Blind, K., Pohlisch, J. and Rainville, A. (2020), ‘Innovation and standardisation as drivers of 
companies’  success  in  public  procurement:  An  empirical  analysis’,  Journal  of  Technology 
Transfer, Vol. 45, pp. 664–693. 

Blind,  K.,  Lorenz,  A.  and  Rauber,  J.  (2021),  ‘Drivers  for  companies’  entry  into  standard-
setting organisations’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 68(1), pp. 33–
44. 

Blind,  K.,  Filipović,  E.  and  Lazina,  L. K.  (2022a),  ‘Motives  to  publish,  to  patent  and  to 
standardize:  An  explorative  study  based  on 
individual  engineers’  assessments’, 
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 175, 121420. 

Blind,  K.,  Krieger,  B.  and  Pellens,  M.  (2022b),  ‘The  interplay  between  product  innovation, 
publishing, patenting and developing standards’, Research Policy, Vol. 51(7), 104556. 

Blind,  K.,  Pohlisch,  J.  and  Rauber,  J.  (2022c),  ‘Patenting  and  standardisation:  Similarities 
and  differences  based  on  firms'  strategic  motives  and  experienced  barriers’,  Journal  of 
Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 65, 101699. 

52 

 
Blind,  K.,  Kenney,  M.,  Leiponen,  A.  and  Simcoe,  T.  (2023),  ‘Standards  and  innovation:  A 
review and introduction to the special issue’, Research Policy, Vol. 52(8), 104830. 

Bozeman,  B.  (2000),  ‘Technology  transfer  and  public  policy:  A  review  of  research  and 
theory’, Research Policy, Vol. 29, pp. 627–655.  

Botzem, S and Dobusch L.  (2012) ‘Standardization Cycles: A Process Perspective on the 
Formation and Diffusion of Transnational Standards. Organisation Studies, Vol. 33 

De Vries, H. J., Blind, K., Mangelsdorf, A., Verheul, H. and van der Zwan, J. (2009), SME 
access  to  European  standardisation:  Enabling  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  to 
achieve  greater  benefit  from  standards  and  from  involvement  in  standardisation,  CEN-
Cenelec, Brussels. 

Delcamp,  H.  and  Leiponen,  A.,  (2014),  ‘Innovating  standards  through  informal  consortia: 
The case of wireless telecommunications’, International Journal of Industrial Organisation, 
Vol. 36, pp. 36–47. 

Egyedi,  T. M.  and  Ortt,  J. R.  (2017),  ‘Towards  a  functional  classification  of  standards  for 
innovation research’, in Hawkins, R., Blind, K. and Page, R. (eds), Handbook of Innovation 
and Standards, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 105–131. 

European  Commission  (2022a),  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European 
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee 
of the regions ‘An EU strategy on standardisation: Setting global standards in support of a 
resilient, green and digital EU single market’ (COM(2022) 31 final). 

European Commission (2022b), Study on the functions and effects of European standards 
and 
States 
EU 
(https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/50114). 

standardisation 

Member 

EFTA 

and 

the 

in 

European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation,  Radauer,  A., 
Baronowski, S., Yeghyan, M. et al. (2022), Scoping study for supporting the development of 
a code of practice for researchers on standardisation: Final report, Publications Office of the 
European Union (https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/567608). 

European  Commission  (2023),  Commission  Recommendation  (EU)  2023/498  of  1 March 
2023  on  a  code  of  practice  on  standardisation  in  the  European  Research  Area  (OJ  L 69, 
7.3.2023, p.63). 

Featherston,  C.,  Ho,  J. Y.,  Brévignon-Dodin,  L.  and  O’Sullivan,  E.  (2016),  ‘Mediating  and 
catalysing  innovation:  A  framework  for  anticipating  the  standardisation  needs  of  emerging 
technologies’, Technovation, Vols 48–49, pp. 25–40. 

Foucart,  R.  and  Li,  C.  (2021),  ‘The  role  of  technology  standards  in  product  innovation: 
Theory and evidence from UK manufacturing firms’, Research Policy, Vol. 50(2), 104157. 

Großmann,  A.
M.,  Filipović,  E.  and  Lazina,  L.  (2016),  ‘The  strategic  use  of  patents  and 
standards for new product development knowledge transfer’, R&D Management, Vol. 46(2), 
pp. 312–325. 

‐

GWK (2020), ‚Band III: Monitoring-Bericht 2021: Berichte der Wissenschaftsorganisationen‘ 
(https://www.gwk-bonn.de/dokumente/materialien-der-gwk). 

53 

 
Hermann, P., Blind, K., Abdelkafi, N., Gruber, S., Hoffmann, W., Neuhäusler, P., Pohle, A., 
Stein,  L. T.  and  Weiße,  M.  (2020),  Relevanz  der  Normung  und  Standardisierung  für  den 
Wissens-  und  Technologietransfer,  Studie  für  die  Fraunhofer  Gesellschaft,  Fraunhofer- 
Gsellschaft, München. 

Heß,  P.  (2020),  ‘SDG  5  and  the  gender  gap  in  standardisation:  Empirical  evidence  from 
Germany’, Sustainability, Vol. 12(20), 8699. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208699. 

Heß,  P.  and  Blind,  K.  (2023),  ‘The  effect  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  on  standardisation’, 
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 71, pp. 1542–1554. 

Kindleberger,  C. P.  (1983),  ‘Standards  as  public,  collective  and  private  goods’,  Kyklos, 
Vol. 36, pp. 377–396.  

Lorenz, A., Raven, M. and Blind, K. (2019), ‘The role of standardisation at the interface of 
product  and  process  development  in  biotechnology’,  Journal  of  Technology  Transfer, 
Vol. 44(4), pp. 1097–1133.  

Manders,  B.,  De  Vries,  H.  and  Blind,  K.  (2016),  ‘ISO 9001  and  product  innovation:  A 
literature review and research framework’, Technovation, Vol. 48–49, pp. 41–55.  

Moon,  S.  and  Lee,  H.  (2022),  ‘Exploring  standard  dynamics  in  electronics  industry: 
Focusing  on  influencing  factors  and  revision  of  IEC  standards’,  IEEE  Transactions  on 
Engineering Management, Vol. 69(4), pp. 1365–1377. 

OECD  (2015),  ‘Concepts  and  definitions  for  identifying  R&D’,  in  Frascati  Manual 
2015: Guidelines 
for  collecting  and  reporting  data  on  research  and  experimental 
development, OECD Publishing, Paris. 

OECD  and  Eurostat  (2018),  Oslo  Manual  2018:  Guidelines  for  collecting,  reporting  and 
using data on innovation, 4th edition, OECD Publishing, Paris. 

Optimat  (2015),  Research  study  on  the  benefits  of  linking  innovation  and  standardisation, 
CEN-Cenelec, Brussels. 

Perkmann,  M.,  Tartari,  V.,  McKelvey,  M.,  Autio,  E.,  Broström,  A.,  D’Este,  P.,  Fini,  R., 
Geunael, A., Grimaldi, R., Hughesm, H., Krabelh, S., Kitsong, M., Llerenai, P., Lissonij, F., 
Saltera,  S.  and  Sobrero,  M.  (2013),  ‘Academic  engagement  and  commercialisation:  A 
review  of  the  literature  on  university–industry  relations’,  Research  Policy,  Vol. 42(2), 
pp. 423–442. 

Perkmann,  M.,  Salandra,  R.,  Tartari,  V.,  McKelvey,  M.  and  Hughes,  A.  (2021),  ‘Academic 
engagement: A review of the literature 2011-2019’, Research Policy, Vol. 50(1), 104114. 

Rammer,  C.  (2020),  Dokumentation  zur  Innovationserhebung  2019,  ZEW-Dokumentation 
No 20-01, Mannheim, Germany. 

Swann, G. M. P. (2005), ‘Do standards enable or constrain innovation?, in Temple, P., Witt, 
R., Spencer, C., Blind, K., Jungmittag, A., Swann, P. G. M. (eds), The Empirical Economics 
of Standards, UK Government Department of Trade and Industry, London, UK, pp. 76–120. 

Technopolis (2013), Study on the contribution of standardisation to innovation in European-
funded research projects. CEN-Cenelec, Brussels. 

54 

 
Wakke,  P.,  Blind,  K.  and  Ramel,  F.  (2016),  ‘The  impact  of  participation  within  formal 
standardisation on firm performance’, Journal of Productivity Analysis, Vol. 45(3), pp. 317–
330. 

Wakke,  P.,  Blind,  K.  and  De  Vries,  H. J.,  (2015),  ‘Driving  factors  for  service  providers  to 
participate  in  standardisation:  Insights  from  the  Netherlands’,  Industry  &  Innovation, 
Vol. 22(4), pp. 299–320. 

Wen,  J.,  Qualls,  W. J.  and  Zeng,  D.  (2020),  Standardisation  alliance  networks,  standard
setting influence, and new product outcomes’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 
‐
Vol. 37(2), pp. 138–157.  

Wiegmann,  P. M.,  Eggers,  F.,  De  Vries,  H. J.  and  Blind,  K.  (2022),  ‘Competing  standard-
setting organisations: a choice experiment’, Research Policy, Vol. 51(2), 104427. 

Zhang, Y., Liu, J. and Sheng, S. (2020a), ‘Strategic orientations and participation intentions 
for technical standardisation’, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 32(8), 
pp. 881–894. 

Zhang,  M.,  Wang,  Y.  and  Zhao,  Q.  (2020b),  ‘Does  participating  in  the  standards-setting 
process  promote  innovation?  Evidence  from  China’,  China  Economic  Review,  Vol. 63, 
101532. 

Zi, A. and Blind, K. (2015), ‘Researchers’ participation in standardisation: A case study from 
a  public  research  institute  in  Germany’,  Journal  of  Technology  Transfer,  Vol. 40(2), 
pp. 346–360. 

55 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE EUROPEAN 
STANDARDISATION PANEL SURVEY 

Structure of the questionnaire 

The questionnaire is structured along the following major themes: 

• 

importance  of  standards:  questions  on  the  importance,  use  and  implementation  of 
standards, as well as on other aspects of technical rules; 

•  standardisation  activities:  questions  about  the  use  of  resources  for  standards  and 

standardisation activities; 

•  general  information:  questions  about  the  general  characteristics  of  your  organisation, 

including, but not limited to, information that can be found in your annual report; 

• 

• 

influence  of  research  on  standardisation:  questions  about  the  role  of  research  for 
standards development; 

importance of European standardisation. 

General questions 

Section  A:  Information  about  the  participating  organisation  and  the  person  completing  the 
questionnaire 

A1. From which point of view will you be answering the following question? (one answer) 

•  The view of the organisation 

•  The view of the business group 

•  My expertise as an individual 

A2. What type of organisation do you belong to? (one answer) 

•  Private for profit organisation (company) 

•  Public organisation 

•  Non-governmental organisation 

•  Governmental organisation 

•  Higher education institution (HEI) 

• 

(Public) research organisation (PRO) 

56 

 
 
 
•  Foundation 

•  Other 

A3.  Does  your  organisation/company  belong  to  a  group  of  organisations/companies or  an 
association of several organisations/companies? 

•  Yes, a national business group with headquarters in your country 

•  Yes, an international business group with headquarters in country 

•  Yes, an international business group with headquarters abroad 

•  No, an individual company with headquarters in your country 

•  No, an individual company with headquarters abroad 

A4. In which country are you located? 

A5. In which country are your headquarters located? 

A6.  Please  state  the  main  sector  of  your  organisation  in  2022.  If  you  answer  as  private 
person  please  indicate  the  sector  of  your  main  occupation,  that  is,  for  which  sector  your 
answers are representative. 

A7. Please state the full name of your organisation. 

A8. Please state your function within your organisation (one answer): 

•  Education, training 

•  Procurement, materials management 

•  Export 

•  Finance, accounting 

•  Research, development 

•  Executive management, plant manager 

• 

• 

IT, data processing 

Infrastructure construction 

•  Logistics, storage, transportation 

•  Marketing 

•  Standardisation 

57 

 
•  Human resources, social affairs 

•  Production, manufacturing 

•  Quality management 

•  Services, technical support 

•  Miscellaneous 

•  Distribution, sales 

•  Administration 

•  Other 

A9. If you checked ‘Other’, describe your function in this field. 

A10.  Did  you  receive  a  formal  training  in  standardisation  before  you  entered  your 
organisation or within your organisation? (one answer) 

•  Yes 

•  No 

A11. Please indicate to which age group you belong (one answer): 

•  Below 30 

•  Between 30 and 39 

•  Between 40 and 49 

•  Between 50 and 59 

•  Between 60 and 69 

•  Between 70 and 79 

•  Above 80 

A12. To which gender identity do you most identify? (one answer) 

•  Female 

•  Male 

•  Diverse 

58 

 
 
Section B: General significance of standards and specifications 

following  section  contains  questions  about 

The 
implementation of norms and standards, as well as other aspects of technical rules. 

the  relevance, 

the  use  and 

the 

A distinction is made between formal standards, technical rules or specifications, consortia 
standards, de facto standards and company standards. 

Formal  standards  are  developed  in  the  committees  of  your  national,  European  or 
international  standardisation  organisations  (SDOs)  with  full  consensus  of  all  interested 
parties. 

Specifications  are  developed  by  experts  in  formal  SDOs,  but,  like  technical  rules,  are  not 
adopted in full consensus decisions. 

Informal  consortia  standards  are  developed  by  a  select  group  of  companies  in  consortia 
(and thus outside the formal SDOs). 

De facto standards are not developed by consortia, but result from the market. 

Internal  company  standards  are  developed  within  a  company  and  are  used  company-
specifically  by  the  company  itself  or  by  cooperating  companies  (e.g.  suppliers).  External 
company standards are company standards originally developed by other companies (e.g. 
purchasers /buyers) and then introduced internally. 

B1.  How  important  are  the  following  types  of  national level standards  established  for  your 
organisation? (very low to very high) 

•  Formal standards 

•  Technical rules or specifications 

• 

Informal consortia standards 

•  De facto standards 

B2.  How  important  are  the  following  types  of  standards  established  at  European  level  for 
your organisation? (very low to very high) 

•  Formal standards 

•  Technical rules or specification 

• 

Informal consortia standards 

•  De facto standards 

B3. How important are the following types of standards established on international level for 
your organisation? (very low to very high) 

•  Formal standards 

59 

 
 
•  Technical rules and specifications 

• 

Informal consortia standards 

•  De facto standards 

B4.  How  important  are  internal  and  external  company  standards  for  your  organisation? 
(very low to very high) 

• 

Internal company standards 

•  External company standards 

B5. Please indicate the number of standards implemented by your organisation in 2022: 

•  Formal standards (e.g. national, EN, ISO, IEC, ETSI, ITU standards) 

•  Technical rules or specifications (e.g. guidelines issued or specifications) 

• 

Informal  consortia  standards  (e.g.  like  W3C,  OASIS,  IEEE,  ASTM,  OECD,  Codex 
Alimentarius, UNECE, EFSA, OGC, CIPM, IFCC, ICRM, IAEA) 

•  De facto standards 

• 

Internal company standards 

•  External company standards 

B6. Please indicate whether or not your organisation was certified according to the following 
ISO standards in 2022: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

ISO 9001 (Quality management system standard) 

ISO 14001 (Environmental management system standard) 

ISO/IEC 27001 (Information security management system standard) 

ISO 50001 (Energy management system standard) 

•  Other 

Section C: Specific significance of standards and specifications 

C1. Please assess the impact of various types of standards on legal security (very negative 
to very positive) 

•  Formal standards 

•  Technical rules or specifications 

60 

 
 
• 

Informal consortia standards 

•  De facto standards 

• 

Internal company standards 

•  External company standards 

C2. Please assess the impact of various standards on the fulfilment of formal and informal 
market entry conditions (very negative to very positive): 

•  Formal standards 

•  Technical rules or specifications 

• 

Informal consortia standards 

•  De facto standards 

• 

Internal company standards 

•  External company standards 

C3.  Please  assess  the  impact  of  various  standards  on  the  realisation  of  technical 
interoperability (very negative to very positive): 

•  Formal standards 

•  Technical rules or specifications 

• 

Informal consortia standards 

•  De facto standards 

• 

Internal company standards 

•  External company standards 

C4. Please assess the impact of various standards on the increase in productivity (including 
cost reduction) (very negative to very positive): 

•  Formal standards 

•  Technical rules or specifications 

• 

Informal consortia standards 

•  De facto standards 

• 

Internal company standards 

61 

 
•  External company standards 

C5.  Please  assess  the  impact  of  various  standards  on  the  improvement  of  quality  (very 
negative to very positive): 

•  Formal standards 

•  Technical rules or specifications 

• 

Informal consortia standards 

•  De facto standards 

• 

Internal company standards 

•  External company standards 

C6. Please assess the impact of various standards on the competitiveness regarding direct 
business rivals (very negative to very positive): 

•  Formal standards 

•  Technical rules or specifications 

• 

Informal consortia standards 

•  De facto standards 

• 

Internal company standards 

•  External company standards 

C7.  Please  assess  the  impact  of  various  standards  on  the  effectiveness  of  research, 
development, and innovation activities (very negative to very positive): 

•  Formal standards 

•  Technical rules or specifications 

• 

Informal consortia standards 

•  De facto standards 

• 

Internal company standards 

•  External company standards 

C8. Please assess the impact of various standards on the bargaining position regarding 
suppliers and customers (very negative to very positive): 

•  Formal standards 

62 

 
•  Technical rules or specifications 

• 

Informal consortia standards 

•  De facto standards 

• 

Internal company standards 

•  External company standards 

C9.  Please  assess  the  impact  of  various  types  of  standards  on  your  organisation’s 
sustainability (very negative to very positive): 

•  Formal standards 

•  Technical rules or specifications 

• 

Informal consortia standards 

•  De facto standards 

• 

Internal company standards 

•  External company standards 

C10.  Please  assess  the  impact  of  various  types  of  standards  on  the  organisation’s 
resilience (very negative to very positive): 

•  Formal standards 

•  Technical rules or specifications 

• 

Informal consortia standards 

•  De facto standards 

• 

Internal company standards 

•  External company standards 

Section D: Standardisation activities 

D1. In which standardisation organisations was your organisation represented in 2022? 

•  National standardisation body 

•  CEN (European Committee for Standardization) 

•  Cenelec (European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization) 

63 

 
•  ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) 

• 

• 

• 

ISO (International Organization for Standardisation) 

IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) 

ITU (International Telecommunication Union) 

D2. Please specify your national standardisation body. 

D3. Did your organisation participate in standardisation consortia in 2022? 

•  National consortia 

•  European consortia 

• 

International consortia 

D4. In which specific standardisation consortia did your organisation participate in 2022? 

D5. Did your organisation maintain a standardisation department in 2022? 

D6. Please define the tasks and authority of this department. 

D7.  Please  state  the  number  of  employees  in  the  standardisation  department  in  your 

organisation in 2022. 

D8.  Please  estimate  the  approximate  total  expenditures  on  all  standardisation  activities  of 
your organisation in 2022. 

Section E: General and research and innovation (R & I)-related information about the 
organisation 

E1. How many employees worked in your organisation in total in 2022? 

E2. Please estimate your organisation’s total turnover, costs and profit in 2022: 

•  Total turnover 

•  Total costs 

•  Total profit 

E3. What percentage of your organisation’s turnover was generated by exports in 2022? 

E4. Please divide the export share by region of destination: 

•  Share within Europe 

•  Share to Asia 

64 

 
•  Share to the United States 

•  Share to rest of the world 

E5.  Has  your  organisation  introduced  new  or  significantly  improved  products  or  services 
(product  innovations)  to  the market  or  introduced  new  or  significantly improved  processes 
(process innovations) between 2020 and 2022? Did the research and development (R & D) 
activities  in  your  organisation  take  place  internally  and/or  in  cooperation  with  external 
partners? 

•  Product innovation 

•  Process innovation 

• 

Internal R & D 

External R & D 

E6. How often did your organisation cooperate in research and development activities with 

the following organisations in 2022? 

•  Public and private universities 

•  Non-university research institutions 

•  Suppliers 

•  Competitors/businesses in your industry 

•  Business consultants / commercial R & D service providers 

•  Customers 

E6.  Which  of  the  following  measures  for  the  protection  of  intellectual  property  did  your 
organisation  use  in  2020–2022  and  what  was  the  importance  of  these  measures  in 
protecting your intellectual property? (very negative to very positive) 

•  Application for patents 

•  Registration of utility models 

•  Registration of designs 

•  Registration of trade marks 

•  Enforcement of copyrights 

•  Confidentiality (incl. non-disclosure agreements) 

•  Complex design of products/services 

65 

 
•  Time lead over competitors 

•  Long-term retention of qualified personnel 

E7.  How  relevant  is  it  for  your  organisation  to  cooperate  in  research  and  development 
activities with the following institutions in 2022? (very low to very high) 

•  Public and private universities 

•  Non-university research institutions 

•  Suppliers 

•  Customers 

•  Competitors/businesses in your industry 

•  Business consultants / commercial R & D service providers 

•  Customers 

E8.  Which  forms  of  cooperation  with  scientific  institutions  did  your  organisation  use  and 
how effective were they in obtaining know-how from scientific institutions? (low to high) 

•  Collaborative research funded at national level 

•  Collaborative research funded at European level (Horizon 2020, Horizon Europe) 

•  Contract research 

•  Student theses/dissertations in the organisation 

•  Licensing/purchase of technology 

•  Temporary exchange of personnel 

•  Further education / training of own staff 

•  Scientific/technical consulting 

• 

Informal contacts / informal exchange 

•  Common standardisation processes 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
Special section questions: influence of research on standardisation 

The  following  special  section  contains  questions  on  the  importance  of  research  for  the 
standardisation  process  in  general  and  for  certain  types  of  standards  in  particular.  In 
addition,  questions  are  asked  about  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  as  well  as  the 
possible  effects,  of  using  research  results  as  input  for  standardisation.  Finally,  the 
effectiveness  of  the  European  research  policy  approaches  will  be  assessed.  The 
background  is  that  Horizon  Europe,  the  R & I  funding  framework  programme  of  the  EU, 
represents  an  important  funding  opportunity  for  universities,  research  institutions  and 
companies. However, the research results should not only result in scientific publications or 
patents  but  also  flow  into  standardisation  processes.  In  this  year’s  special  section  of  the 
European  Standardisation  Panel  Survey,  we  would  like  to  understand  how  you,  as 
standardisation  experts,  assess  the  contributions  of  research  to  the  development  of 
standards and where you locate problems and potentials. 

F1.  Please  assess  the  relevance  of  the  following  input  sources  for  standard  development 

(very low to very high): 

•  Own research 

•  Private research of other organisations 

•  Results from collaborative public research 

•  Open-source software or hardware 

•  Requirements from customers 

•  Requirements from suppliers 

•  Services 

•  Business model 

•  Policy/regulation 

•  Other 

F2. Please assess the relevance of research as input for different types of standards (very 

low to very high, I do not know): 

•  Terminology/semantics/ontology 

•  Measurement/testing 

• 

Interoperability/compatibility/interfaces 

•  Quality 

•  Products/services (characteristics) 

67 

 
•  Processes (production/management) 

•  Health protection 

•  Environmental protection and sustainability 

•  Safety protection 

•  Other 

F3.  Please  assess  the  relevance  of  advantages  of  research  results  as  input  for  standard 
development (very low to very high): 

•  Free access to scientific publications and other materials on the internet 

• 

• 

Impulse for new standardisation initiatives 

Improving the scientific evidence base for standards 

•  Keeping track with scientific and technical progress 

•  Leveraging own research results via standards for the development of own product and 

process innovation 

•  Preventing competing research content becoming dominant designs including standards 

•  Using scientific evidence to develop standards contributing to increased quality 

•  Using  scientific  evidence  to  develop  standards  contributing  to  the  protection  of  the 

environment and sustainability 

•  Using scientific evidence to develop standards relevant for follow-up research 

•  Using scientific evidence to develop standards in support of regulation 

•  Other 

F4. Please assess the relevance of disadvantages of research results as input for standard 
development (very low to very high): 

•  Proprietary use of own research results becomes difficult 

•  Research results not yet ready for standard relevant inputs 

•  Research results too ambitious for implementation in standards 

•  Research results too abstract for implementation of standards 

•  Research results too immature for market/customer needs 

68 

 
•  Research results not validated in practice 

•  Little support from other companies/stakeholders 

•  Since standardisation not considered in research process, integration difficult 

• 

IPRs,  in  particular  patents,  restrict  implementation  of  standards  when  included  in  a 
standard 

•  Requirement to provide a licence to patents when included in a standard 

•  Lack  of  reward  for  patented  technologies  when  included  in  a  standard  because  of 

royalty-free licensing 

•  Lack of clarity or absence of IPR policy of an SDO 

•  Lack of R & D staff as experts in standardisation 

•  Other 

F5. Please assess the importance of the following approaches to integrate research results 
as input for standard development (very low to very high): 

• 

Including standardisation in the definition of R&D 

•  Funding of standardisation as means of exploitation (knowledge valorisation) of Horizon 

Europe project results by the European Commission 

•  Encouraging  the  consideration  of  R & D  results  in  standardisation  requests  by  the 

European Commission 

•  Funding  of  standardisation  as  a  means  of  exploitation  (knowledge  valorisation)  of 

research results by national ministries and research funding organisations 

•  Promoting  of  standardisation  as  means  of  exploitation  (knowledge  valorisation)  of 

research within HEIs and PROs 

• 

Including standardisation in tax incentive regimes for R & D 

•  SDOs adjust their service portfolios to align with R & I activities (better integration) 

• 

• 

Involvement of SDOs in publicly funded research projects 

Involvement of companies in publicly funded research projects 

•  Having a dedicated work package on standardisation in research projects 

• 

• 

Involvement of HEIs and PROs in standardisation 

Improve the knowledge about the effects of standardisation in HEIs and PROs 

69 

 
•  Other 

F6. Please assess the following impacts of standards based on research results as input for 
innovation (very low to very high): 

•  Better documentation of R & I results 

•  Faster dissemination of R & I results 

•  Wider use of recognised methodologies, processes 

• 

Improved (development and) design of products, services or processes 

•  Larger economies of scale for products and services 

•  Enabling the display of a mark of product or process quality 

•  Higher confidence in innovative products and processes among consumers 

•  Faster or easier market access (incl. European or international) 

• 

• 

Improved capacity to respond to EU regulation/policies 

Improved interoperability of products, services or processes 

•  Positive impact on public procurement (referencing standards) promoting innovation 

•  Disclosure of knowledge negative for own competitiveness 

• 

Intensified collaboration with other companies, PROs and HEIs 

•  Other (please specify) 

F7. Please identify the most important needs in order to increase companies’ engagement 
in standardisation activities. 

F8.  What  do  you  think  could  most  help  companies  to  increase  their  competitiveness 
through strengthening their standard-setting capabilities? 

F9.  What  are  companies’  needs  for  a  better  implementation  of  standardisation  through 
cooperation between industry and science? 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct centres. You can find the address of 
the centre nearest you online (european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

On the phone or in writing 
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. 
You can contact this service: 
-  by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 
-  at the following standard number: +32 22999696,  
-  via the following form: european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/write-us_en. 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa 
website (european-union.europa.eu). 

EU publications 
You can view or order EU publications at op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free 
publications can be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local documentation centre 
(european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

EU law and related documents 
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official language 
versions, go to EUR-Lex (eur-lex.europa.eu). 

EU open data 
The portal data.europa.eu provides access to open datasets from the EU institutions, bodies and 
agencies. These can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial 
purposes. The portal also provides access to a wealth of datasets from European countries. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
− 

The survey aims to identify the demand from industry and 
other stakeholders for standards as potential results of 
research and innovation (R & I) projects, to assess how EU 
R & I framework programmes could tackle them, and 
generally to raise awareness of the importance of 
standardisation as a knowledge valorisation channel. A 
Europe-wide survey revealed that policy initiatives, including 
regulations and customers’ requirements, particularly for 
industry, as well as organisations’ own and collaborative 
research, are the most relevant sources for standard 
development. Research input is most important for 
measurement and testing standards, followed by quality and 
environmental standards. The most significant advantage of 
research as input for standardisation is free access to 
scientific content and the ability to keep track of scientific 
progress. Recommendations are derived for industry, higher 
education institutes and public research organisations, 
standard development organisations, research funding 
organisations and other innovation policy areas. 

Studies and reports